Type = 11 iDate=14/3/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  URGENT ROUTINE 2 -- ROUTINE 3 ARC BREAKS, HANDLING OF   Central Orgs Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 14 MARCH 1963 Central Orgs Franchise URGENT ROUTINE 2 -- ROUTINE 3 ARC BREAKS, HANDLING OF (HCO Secs: Check this out thoroughly on all students and staff. D of T: Use this drill early in Practical, add to all Check Sheets.) Some day you will be awfully glad you read and learned this HCO Bulletin. The only things that can ruin the future of R2 and R3 are: 1. ARC Breaks because of bad R2 and R3; and 2. The Sad Effect. THE ARC BREAK There is nothing more nerve-racking to an auditor than an R2 or R3 ARC Break. They are not like other ARC Breaks from a common missed withhold. They are nerve-shattering and far reaching in consequence. If you can't handle an R2 or R3 ARC Break you have no business using the techniques as you'll wrap more than one pc around a telephone pole. The only real damage R2 and R3 can do to a case is when one fails to handle an R2 or R3 ARC Break. Good R2 or R3 repairs bad R2 or R3, but one sometimes has to be awfully clever to repair a case once the auditor has let an ARC Break go by. Indeed, so important is the ARC Break in R2 and R3 that it is actually used as one means of testing the correctness of the R2 or R3. CAUSE OF ARC BREAKS The untried auditor is always sure the R2 or R3 ARC Break happens because of auditing blunders (Mid Ruds, etc), failure to pull ordinary missed withholds or auditor auditing goofs. This is not true. The truth is that R2 and R3 ARC Breaks are caused by a mistake in Goals, Items or GPMs, and that's the whole cause. The pc, however, unable to grasp this, turns his reasoning upon the auditor and blames the auditing. Therefore, this rule must be thoroughly learned and experienced by the auditor before he or she is "safe" in auditing R2 and R3. ARC BREAK RULE IN R2 AND R3 WHEN THE PC CRITICIZES OR ATTACKS THE AUDITOR OR GOES INTO GRIEF OR APATHY, AN R2 OR R3 ERROR HAS JUST OCCURRED. THE AUDITOR MUST IGNORE THE PC'S STATEMENTS AS TO THE CAUSE OF THE ARC BREAK AND QUICKLY REMEDY THE R2 OR R3 AND DO NOTHING ELSE. There are no exceptions to this rule in R2 and R3. The auditor, having goofed in some other way, is liable to see reason in what the pc is saying, do something like missed withholds or Mid Ruds and drive the ARC Break into heights that can make the pc much more upset. MID RUD RULE IN AN R2 OR R3 ARC BREAK, MISSED WITHHOLDS AND MID RUDS ARE USED, IF AT ALL, ONLY AFTER THE ARC BREAK HAS BEEN HEALED BY CORRECTING THE R2 AND R3. If an auditor tries to get in his Mid Ruds or pull missed withholds in the face of an ARC Break in an R2 or R3 session the pc is likely to be driven down to the Sad Effect which is harder to salvage. THE SAD EFFECT We could call this Tearaculi Apathia Magnus and everyone would be in great awe 251 of it. But I see no reason to follow the Latinated nonsense of yesterday's failured sciences. Call it something simple and the auditor will feel he can do something about it and even the pc will cheer up a bit. So it's "the Sad Effect". This is a state of great sadness, apathy, misery and desire for suicide and death. I have been on the trail of the causes of this condition for about 20 years. Like nearly everything else in Scientology this is a new high point in achievement. We have the highest state, OT, and we have the lowest states of being recognized and know the roads to them. RULE NEGLECT OR OVERWHELM AN R2 OR R3 ARC BREAK (PC ANGER OR ANTAGONISM) AND YOU WILL CAUSE THE PC TO DROP INTO THE SAD EFFECT. RULE THE SAD EFFECT IS CAUSED BY NEGLECTING OR OVERWHELMING AN R2 OR R3 ARC BREAK AND THE STATE WILL CONTINUE UNTIL REMEDIED BY CORRECTING THE R2 OR R3. RULE ALL PCS WHO ARE SAD, HOPELESS, ETC HAVE HAD THEIR R2 OR R3 MISHANDLED BY LIFE OR AUDITING. ARC BREAK CAUSE RULE ALL R2 OR R3 ARC BREAKS STEM FROM WRONG ITEMS OR GOALS, INCOMPLETE LISTS, WRONG WAY TO OPPOSE OR NO AUDITING. ALL THESE ARE IN ESSENCE MISSED WITHHOLDS OF THE GREATEST POSSIBLE MAGNITUDE AND THEREFORE CAUSE ARC BREAKS OF THE GREATEST POSSIBLE MAGNITUDE. Bad auditing only serves to key in an existing R2 or R3 Error. In actual fact, a missed withhold can amount to a whole section of the GPM (goal error or leaving the GPM section before it is clean), a wrong goal, a wrong Item, a wrong way to Item or, of lesser degree, not finding an Item. RULE THE COMMON DENOMINATOR OF ALL R2 R3 ARC BREAKS CONSISTS OF A MISSED OR WRONGLY DESIGNATED GPM, GOAL OR RELIABLE ITEM. THERE ARE NO OTHER SOURCES OF R2 OR R3 ARC BREAK. Bad sessioning, poor auditing, ordinary life missed withholds are only contributive to R2 and R3 ARC Breaks and are incapable of doing more than keying in and intensifying the magnitude of the ARC Break which has already been caused by errors in R2 and R3. THE FIFTEEN PRINCIPAL CAUSES The fifteen principal causes of ARC Break in R2 and R3 are: 1. Failure to complete a list; 2. By-passing an Item; 3. Giving the pc a wrong Item; 3a. Opposing an Item wrong way to; 4. Giving the pc an Item with altered wording; 5. Giving the pc no Item; 6. Failure to complete a goals list; 7. By-passing the pc's goal; 8. Giving the pc a wrong goal; 9. Giving the pc a goal with altered wording; 10. Giving the pc no goal; 11. Failure to complete a GPM before going to the next; 12. By-passing a GPM; 13. Getting the pc into the wrong GPM; 14. Going too far into a GPM without finding a goal; 15. No auditing. 252 The fifteen apply to both R2 and R3, all of them. They can be made up into an assessment list (shortly to be issued), which list, assessed by elimination, will give you the exact cause of the ARC Break (which I think is pretty clever of me) and permit you to heal it rapidly. While you will feel on occasion that the assessment result is no more easily interpreted then fortune telling, you will find that it is always right. It spots the missed R2-R3 missed withhold. If it comes up "By-Passed Item" you'll have a scramble trying to find it, but you at least know why the pc ARC Broke and the pc will permit you to look (even while screaming at you). THE CYCLE OF THE ARC BREAK STAGE ONE: The ARC Break starts always in the same way. The pc finds something wrong with the auditor, the subject, or tools of auditing or the auditing room. He does this in varying intensity, ARC Break to ARC Break. STAGE TWO: This is followed by misemotion, also directed at the auditor, subject, tools or room. STAGE THREE: If the auditor continues on with auditing the pc will drop into grief, sadness or apathy. This is an inevitable cycle and may be followed by the pc with greater or lesser intensity of emotion, or loudness or lack of response. A skilled auditor will recognize and stop it at Stage One above. It is sometimes not possible to stop the cycle because it enters the stages and completes them too swiftly, but it must be cared for, and no further R2 or R3 may be done until the R2 or R3 is corrected. THE AUDITOR'S VIEW The auditor must realize that the ARC Break is caused by an error which has just occurred -- within seconds or minutes, and must not go back a half a dozen sessions unless the pc has been pretty upset all along. Something has just happened, usually, that is wrong R2 or R3. The auditor must stop all forward action and must not do anything except correct what has already happened. Do not continue on, do not get in Mid Ruds, do not pull missed withholds or do anything else but correct the R2 and R3. Do not do new lists or new approaches or new actions until the old action is straightened up. To continue is to produce the Sad Effect. If the pc is already in the Sad Effect at session start, treat it as an ARC Break with the Drill given. The pc does not realize that anything has been missed. He or she thinks it's the auditor, the subject or the tools and will target only these. The fact of the ARC Break must be noted and the substance of the criticism must be ignored by the auditor. If the pc knew what had been missed there would be no ARC Break. The missed withhold of the Item or whatever is not only missed by the auditor but by the pc. The pc won't ever spot it, left on his own. It's up to the auditor. The auditor only must make up his or her mind as to what's wrong. The directions of the pc (even a skilled Scientologist as a pc) are nearly always wrong. The auditor is there to listen and compute. As it's the pc's bank, the pc can't compute on his or her own case. Taking the pc's directions will always involve and prolong the ARC Break. What really caused it will be occluded to the pc. Don't always do something different than what the pc says. By averages the pc might have accidentally hit on it. Just do what is necessary to straighten out the R2 and R3. Just don't depend on the pc to tell you. Know your R2 and R3. You, the auditor, are the only one present who can think clearly. That's what you're for. THE D OF P'S VIEW The D of P has a different view of an ARC Break. It is by sessions according to auditors' reports. To get a case going again that has gone into Stage Three, examine yesterday's reports. Look for a change in pc's goals and gains and correct the session before the one in which they changed. 253 When, an auditing supervisor becomes an auditor he or she carries this habit forward into auditing and presented with an ARC Breaking pc in session, tends to look to yesterday. But in a session, the ARC Breaking action usually occurs only seconds or minutes before the ARC Break. Look there when auditing. THE DRILL This drill is to be used in all Practical Sections before the student is turned loose on R2 or R3. Designation: R2 and R3 Drill One. Purpose: To prevent errors in R2 and R3 and to prevent upsets in the pc's case. Theory: The effort of a pc at the start of an ARC Break is to stop the auditor. The pc's effort is aimed at the auditor's skill, person, the subject, auditing tools or the room. The comments are critical, whether jocular or misemotional. When this effort fails to stop the auditor, and the auditor presses on with auditing, the pc is overwhelmed and goes rapidly down tone scale. In a severe R2 or R3 ARC Break the pc will stay down scale for minutes, hours, days, weeks or months until the ARC Break is repaired by correcting the R2 or R3 error made immediately before the ARC Break. The correct action is to prevent all possibility of the auditor becoming too enturbulated to think, prevent all engagement in refutation of the pc's accusations, give the auditor time and calm to correct the R2 or R3, test the correction by seeing if it stops the ARC Break, and only then re-commence the session. The key is that even the most startled auditor, seeing an ARC Break begin, can associate it with the word "Break". The drill is always used in actual sessions even when the auditor thinks he knows the reason for it. Drill: Auditor: List the Items in this room. Coach: Privately makes up his mind which of the ARC Break points is wrong. Does auditing command briefly and then unexpectedly criticizes (with greater or lesser violence) auditor, room, tools, subject or self or drops into simulated tears or apathy. Auditor: Thank you. We will now take a short break. (Gathers papers and leaves room. Shuffles papers and returns into room.) Auditor: I would like to do a short assessment on you. (Auditor does actual E-Meter assessment from a standard HCO Bulletin question list which will be provided from time to time, based on the Principal Causes of R2-R3 ARC Breaks. Finds the one the coach was hiding by actual meter reaction.) Auditor: I find we have (gives cause found) and we will now locate it. is that all right with you? Coach: Okay. Auditor: The session is resumed. Coach: That's it. In actual practice the auditor would have examined the papers of the pc to come to some conclusion about the case in private and seen what was wrong or seen the D of P or somebody else for help. And then would have confirmed it by assessment. History: Developed at Saint Hill by L. Ron Hubbard in March AD 13, to prevent severe upsets in R2 and R3. LRH:gl.rd L. RON HUBBARD Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 254  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=18/3/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  R2 -- R3 IMPORTANT DATA DON'T FORCE THE PC   Central Orgs Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 18 MARCH 1963 Central Orgs Franchise R2 -- R3 IMPORTANT DATA DON'T FORCE THE PC Never force a pc to list when doing R2-12 or 3-M, especially 3-M. If the pc has difficulty listing, three things may be wrong: 1. The Item being listed is wrong way to; 2. It may be a Wrong Item (even from another GPM); 3. It may be an Item from some other GPM. A pc actually can't help but list easily if it's the right Item that the list is coming from. In the usual case, listing from a right Item requires only the most occasional giving of the auditing question by the auditor. Once at the start of the list, once after each interruption to check something. Between, the pc just gives Items in a steady flow. Occasionally the pc asks for the question. If the auditor has to give a question for each item he gets, Man there's one of the above 3 wrong. WRONG WAY TO Mass moves in on a wrong way to list question. It's being given, "Who or what would loud voices oppose" and it should be "Who or what would oppose loud voices". If it's wrong: (1) the mass moves in; (2) the pc starts to discolor; (3) the pc has to continuously repeat the question to himself; (4) the pc can't wrap his mind around the question; (5) the pc discolors or darkens; (6) the tone arm goes unreasonably high (above 5 in some cases); (7) the pc may ARC Break. If in the presence of such symptoms the auditor forces the pc to go on listing, real trouble can then develop, as the mass caves in on the body. BODY VS THETAN To understand this trouble we have to review what we have known for years about bodies and thetans. The thetan is not the body. The bank belongs to the thetan, not to the body. You are running a thetan and his bank while helped and hindered by the body. The body helps the auditor because it provides a communication relay to a thetan who cannot yet speak, hear or act without a body. The E-Meter cans are held by the body's hands, the body's voice box magnifies the thetan's speech and body lips, larynx, etc, add diction. The ears magnify the auditor's voice. The body relays various senses and somatics to the thetan. The body discolors when mass from the bank is brought in on it. Further, because he is in a body you can tell if the pc is sitting in the pc's chair (joke). The body hinders the auditor by being fragile. Life, long before auditing, has been keying the thetan's masses in on this body. In 255 auditing, masses are released off the body and out of the thetan's bank. The body, accustomed after all to masses keying in on it in life, can still survive a lot of bad auditing. But why? As you go earlier and earlier in the bank the "power" of the thetan's mock-ups increases. Earlier on the track the thetan was more powerful and made more formidable mock-ups. Thus the earlier the GPM you are addressing (certainly beyond the 3rd), the more care you have to use not to pull masses in on the body, which is to say the more accurate you have to be. Now, as the thetan, by clearing GPMs, becomes more and more able to handle and recognize goals and Items, the auditor tends to more and more abandon the safety points of R3-M. These are, testing the goal, making the oppterm-terminal test for each RI, watching the tendency of the needle to tighten, watching for pc's darkening. Abandoning these, the auditor tends to race on, finding more GPMs, goals and RIs, cleaning up nothing behind him. This is wrong. Test the goal after every RI you find; test every RI you find for terminal or oppterm; really stay alert for the tightening needle and high TA that shows an error; watch carefully for pc darkening. The more advanced the GPM, the more careful you have to be of the body. Don't go plunging on after an ARC Break. Find why by the ARC Break assessment and straighten it up. When you complete a GPM, go about 2 Items deep into the next one, find its goal and then go back and put in the BMRs on every Item in the former line plot and give the gone goal an 18 button prepcheck. Only then, proceed on into the next GPM whose goal has been found. Items get easier to find as you advance into new GPMs, lists get shorter, but the RIs are harder and harder on the body when done wrong. So be sure and then proceed. And if the pc won't list for any reason (even his own balkiness) find out what's wrong before the current action and be sure that was it before proceeding. It's easier to lose session time in looking for former errors than in trying to revive a pc or heal a screaming ARC Break. Even the most accurate auditing gives the pc heavy somatics. That's ok. Just don't force the pc beyond where he can easily go. The real howling ARC Breaks only come after you have forced the pc onward after something has gone wrong. If you have howling ARC Breaks with a pc you have forced the pc into a channel where the pc cannot easily go. WRONG ITEM Listing a completely wrong Item (which did not fire or which did) can happen in a number of ways: If you list an RI wrong way to you will get a high TA and fewer RRs on the list. Further, you may just run out of RRs on the next list or one or two lists down. And, a real catastrophe, you can find, on a wrong way oppose, an Item out of an adjacent GPM for which you have no found goal. The Item you find won't fit the goal of the GPM you are supposed to be running. Best thing to do is abandon it (but put on the plot) and go back and find which RI behind you was wrong way oppose (it will tick or fire), put in the BMRs on it and list it the other way to. On later GPMs the pc will easily overlist and list beyond the one you are trying for and get the next in line. The way to tell is test the listing question for clean every five Items the pc gives. The moment it's clean, stop listing. 256 For instance, in the 4th GPM, you are listing "Somebody Who Can't Whisper" (Line plot HCO Bulletin of March 13) and you overlist. You will get "Loud Voices" on the list but you will find "A Whisperer" as the last RRing Item which will read. Then, if you omit the term-oppterm test and assume "A Whisperer" is an oppterm, you will do a wrong way oppose and may get into another GPM entirely. However, especially after BMR on it, "A Whisperer", wrong way opposed, will now fire again with an RR. But the pc still ARC Breaks. Why? You overshot on the "Somebody Who Can't Whisper" oppose list and you have a by-passed RI, "Loud Voices". BMR the RRs earlier on the "Somebody Who Can't Whisper" oppose list and you'll find "Loud Voices" probably fires now. Or do it by pc's recognition (but the Item recognized has to fire with an RR). Or when you do "A Whisperer" right way oppose, you'll also get "Loud Voices". Auditing on 3-M is like threading through a mine field with the pc ready to explode if you stray. Experience will let you relax. TRAVELING RR In Listing the RR travels down the list. It comes from the goal charge. Therefore it can travel. You can sometimes bring it back up a list with enough BMR to an earlier RR seen on listing. The most weird thing in 3-M is the Goal as an RI behavior (on Mar 13 HCO Bulletin, "To Scream" as an RI, bottom of plot, page 2). As you list it, as an RI in its proper sequence on the plot, not as a goal oppose, it behaves as an RI oppose list, not as a source list. On it the pc will put, usually, the goal of the next GPM. On it will usually be found, as the last RR Item on the list, "Happy People". But the goal of the next GPM on that list will not RR when said to pc! Not until you take all the goals off the RI oppose list and nul them as a goals list. Then the goal of the next GPM will fire and prove out. In short, only the last RR seen on nulling on an RI oppose list, will fire with an RR. This does not mean the remaining Items seen to RR while listing are not RIs in their own right. It only means that on any list, the RR travels to the last RRing Item seen on listing when the list is complete. Items which RRed on listing will not fire as part of the list but, taken off the list and known by the pc to be off the list and called as themselves will RR. When you get a pc into the 5th GPM this becomes very invariable and gets vastly in your road, as you can by-pass the next RI you should get and find the one after that, or you can lose the next GPM's goal as it doesn't RR on the RI oppose list from the last goal while still on that list. It's okay if you know it can happen. It will help you cure an ailing line plot or goals list in a hurry. RRs travel on 3-M lists down to the last RR. And if it has travelled, the earlier RRs (Items or Goals on an RI List) seen on listing will not RR until they have been taken off that list and are called in their own right. WRONG WORDING Always be sure you have the right wording for an Item or a goal. A slightly wrong wording for a goal will cause it to RS and fizzle out. 257 Get the pc to change the wording on it and it may RR on and on. If a pc ARC Breaks on a goals list, you had and passed the goal or you had the goal with a slightly wrong wording. The pc still ARC Breaks on a wrong wording as it's a missed withhold. Pcs usually put down varied wordings on goals lists. Encourage it, even though it's representing an RRing Item. If a goal fires, RSes, fizzles, vanishes, get other wordings for it. And it may RR beautifully. Example: To Succeed. On checking, RRed six times, blew TA down, RSed madly. RSed, dwindled and then ticked. Auditor went on. Pc ARC broke. Auditor went back over list, got wording for To Succeed as "To be successful". Goal RRed beautifully. No ARC Break. Onward bound into next GPM. Items with the article "A" or "The" omitted or added, or plural for singular, will not fire well or at all. Example: Item listed "A Sensation". Checked out as "Sensation". No fire. Pc recalls it should be "A Sensation". Item fires and is an RI. Accuracy of listing exactly what the pc said is important. He usually said it right the first time. Say it back and check it out the same way. Sometimes a pc wants to change a word in an item being called. Always let him but check both versions, the one listed and the one changed. The one listed is usually right if recorded right by the auditor. ITEM FROM ANOTHER GPM A STRAY RI is an RI from a GPM of another goal than the one being worked. You can get a goal or Item from another GPM by backwards oppose or overlisting. In finding the goal of another GPM than the one you want to enter, this is easy. It fires very badly, ticks and fools around. An RI from another GPM on the other hand fires well. When you do the "How does the goal relate to _______" step and the pc can't relate it, or mass appears when he tries, watch it. You probably have a backwards oppose behind you or have by-passed an RI by overlisting or underlisting, or, more probably, both. What to do? Put the stray RI on the plot marked as a "Stray" and locate the wrong way oppose or by-pass on your Line Plot and correct. It will do no harm to 4 way package the STRAY RI. But it probably won't do any good either. Two GPMs later you suddenly find it as a new RI. The pc will probably ARC Break at this time. But the reason for the ARC Break lies in an earlier wrong way oppose or a by-passed RI or RIs. Use the STRAY RI as a signal that a wrong way oppose exists behind you or an RI has been by-passed. The proper order of actions, if the above happens, is to 1. Locate the By-Passed Item; 2. Use it to continue your RI oppose (spiral staircase); 3. Ignore the wrong way oppose Item (don't instantly right way oppose it) and any stray RI, letting them come up in their proper sequence, no matter how much later that is. MINIMIZE GOAL OPPOSE LISTS Only do a goal oppose list at the start of the first GPM and that's it. You don't 258 need any more if you go right. You'll go into GPMs in proper sequence on the spiral staircase with no further goal oppose lists for any goal. You will find, however, that the goal as an RI (see "To Scream" as an RI, page 2, HCO Bulletin March 13, 1963) operates as an RI oppose list and will be done in its proper time and place. This is not a source list and behaves as an RI oppose list. Take the goals off it to another list and nul them for the next GPM. Only one Goal Oppose List is needed for a case. After that, always use the last RI that still fires with an RR as your source for RI oppose lists. CLEAR TEST You don't need to do a Clear Test. It might mess up the bank. A natural free needle without prepcheck begins to appear around the fifth GPM. Check out a first goal clear by his or her Line Plot. If it compares in all respects to that of HCO Bulletin March 13, and the goal is clean saying it to the pc, call it a first goal clear. A bracelet clear would be, actually, a theta clear, and would emerge after the 5th to 8th GPM had been cleaned up. By present calculation a free needle, totally stable theta clear emerges after the 8th GPM has been run. No calculation on Operating Thetan exists at this moment, but at a guess, it's well beyond the 8th GPM. Up to the 6th GPM a clear test is liable to foul up the case a little. So save it for later and really send up rockets in celebration. Thetans have done a lot of living. Routine 3-M is complex and, unless the auditor is well trained, has pitfalls. But we have years to learn it. Clearing is the real thing. It's worth it. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dr.rd Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 259  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=23/3/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  CLEAR & OT   Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MARCH AD13 Franchise CLEAR & OT DON'T TRY TO MAKE AN OT BEFORE YOU MAKE A CLEAR. One of the enduring observations which has arisen in clearing and which will always remain true is summed up in this line: DON'T TRY TO MAKE AN OT BEFORE YOU MAKE A CLEAR. Stressing this conclusion is vitally important and will always be important. Why? In their understandable enthusiasm to do "the most for the pc" and obtain the "highest gain" auditors tend to get as many RIs and goals as possible. The "face" acquired in making a "third goal clear" also operates. On the part of the pc there is always some pc pressure to "get on with it", find more RIs, find more goals. There is also "face". "I'm a 3rd goal clear." The auditor, in his own enthusiasm for more GPMs, heeds the pc's protest against case repair and prepchecks and commits the following crime: WITHOUT MAKING A FIRST GOAL, ATTEMPTS TO MAKE AN OT. He does this in gradients. Without making an actual first goal clear, the auditor, with the pc's full insistence, makes a "Third Goal Clear". This law takes over in the face of such "press on" tactics: RULE: YOU CANNOT HAVE AN ANY GOAL CLEAR WITHOUT CLEARING THE GOAL AND ALL ITS GPM. To do this it is necessary to observe this rule: RULE: A GOAL IS NOT CLEAR UNTIL ALL ROCKET READING ITEMS IN THAT GOAL HAVE BEEN FOUND, PROPERLY ALIGNED AND DISCHARGED, AND THE GOAL HAS BEEN FULLY PREPCHECKED. The next Goal is available and easily found, RIs in the next GPM are readily found, there seems to be no reason to waste auditing time by cleaning up the last GPM. This is true of any next GPM. However, just going on and on carries its penalties. IF WE PERSIST IN FAILING TO FULLY CLEAR EACH GPM, WE CAN EXPECT A GENERAL BOG DOWN IN ALL OF SCIENTOLOGY. Why? Because we will all become subject to the very real penalties of failing to clear GPMs before going on. It is alright to find 2 RIs into the next GPM and to find its goal. That is as it should be. But it is not alright not to go back and fully polish up the GPM just left. This is true for all GPMs. You haven't got a first goal clear if you haven't cleared the first GPM and Goal. 260 So don't announce first goal clears if you haven't cleared fully the first goal. Having the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc, goals and some RIs in each still doesn't make a first goal clear. The following liabilities occur when the GPM just left is not fully cleaned up: 1. The pc drags mass from the last GPM into the next GPM; 2. Accuracy of RI finding in the next GPM is diminished; 3. The pc, being more subject to errors in auditing, is far more likely to heavily ARC Break; 4. Body mass (weight) does not diminish; 5. Pc's reality on the next GPM RIs is diminished; 6. A feeling of lassitude (a shadow of the Sad Effect) comes over the pc and he or she does his own work in life with less enthusiasm; 7. The pc's health and actions are better but one does not see what one expects from clearing. Therefore clearing is downgraded by the auditor and pc and others; 8. The actual soaring gains of clearing are not observed, since the GPM and its goal are not actually cleared but only de-intensified. Clear tests, which will be issued from time to time, should be scrupulously passed before going on to the actual running of the next bank. If these simple precautions are observed, clearing is formidable to behold. If they are not observed, then clearing won't be observed -- because it hasn't been done. Don't try to make an Operating Thetan before you make a clear. The results will be far, far below that of just first goal clear. A lot of time and agony went into discovering these things. I hope you will benefit by them. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dr.bh Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 261  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=13/4/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  ROUTINE 2-G ORIGINAL ROUTINE 2, 3GA, 2-10, 2-12, 2-12A AND OTHERS SPECIALLY ADAPTED GOALS FINDING DESIGNATION OF ROUTINES   Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 13 APRIL AD13 Franchise ROUTINE 2-G ORIGINAL ROUTINE 2, 3GA, 2-10, 2-12, 2-12A AND OTHERS SPECIALLY ADAPTED GOALS FINDING DESIGNATION OF ROUTINES Now that Class II Auditors may find goals, a great deal of material about goals finding can be released to them. Goal finding activities are now designated as follows: ROUTINE 2-G1 Special Goals Prepcheck administered before a goal is found. This is a refined version of the Problems Intensive, slanted directly at goals. ROUTINE 2-GPH Special Goals Prepcheck done by Pre-Hav levels with a new assessment for each button. This is a refined use of the original Routine 2. ROUTINE 2-G2 Listing and nulling goals lists, using Left-Hand Buttons on last ones in and Big Mid Ruds on the final goal left in. Done in short lists, a couple pages listed and nulled at a time. This is a refined version of the oldest goals finding process. ROUTINE 2-G3 Using any Items ever found on pc to list goals against, and using the method of R2-G2 to find the goal. This is a refined version of 3-GA and 3-GAXX and also uses all 2-10, 2-12 RIs ever found. ROUTINE 2-G4 Listing special lists for RSing or RRing Items without nulling and using the RSing or RRing Items seen on listing to list goals against. This is a new use of 3D, 3GA, 2-10, 2-12. ROUTINE 2-G5 This is Routine 2-10, 2-12, 2-12A wherein everything known about or gained by those processes is used to find RIs and list goals against all RIs found. It can be seen from the above that everything known about the original Routine 2 and goals finding is now reworked into these Routine 2-Gs for rapid and positive goal finding by Class II Auditors. Subsequent HCO Bulletins will detail each of these routines in turn. They are quite stable as processes and have been in use for some time. 262 Note: Everything released or known about Routines 2-10, 2-12 and 2-12A is valid, and the results of these on preclears and any RI ever found on a preclear is used for the purpose of listing goals and finding the preclear's goal. None of this material or study of it has been wasted. Any RI ever found on a pc is useful in goals listing. Further, every Problems Intensive brought the pc closer to his or her goal and an easier run on Routine 3 processes. Whereas R2-10, 2-12 and 2-12A worked in their own right, they are even more useful in finding goals. The only danger of 2-10, 2-12 and 2-12A was: If too many RIs were found without finding the pc's goal for that GPM, the ability of the pc to RR and RS would shut off. The RR and RS turn back on the moment the goal for that GPM is found. A close study of the R2-Gs is necessary to their workability. And needless to remark, the only reason any Scientology process works lies in adherence to the highly specialized auditing skill of Scientology with its TRs and complete attention to the precise form of the session itself. Without this pure auditing form, Scientology processes will not work. Scientology processes do not work when administered outside the Auditor's Code and without skillfully practiced TRs. The loose "disciplines" of psychoanalysis, psychiatry, medicine and psychology are completely inadequate in the administration of Scientology processes. Completely aside from the fact that Scientology does not address healing, no psychologist, psychiatrist, psychoanalyst or medical doctor is authorized to use Scientology by reason of a medical or philosophical degree. Only a fully qualified auditor, properly certificated by an authorized Academy may lawfully use Scientology processes or data. Only auditors trained to the level of Class II may use Routine 2 processes. Routine 2 and Routine 3 processes are designed for use in clearing the human spirit and are not to be used in healing or physical treatment. HGCs may only clear and may not otherwise apply Scientology processes. The public is warned not to accept Scientology processing except from Academy trained auditors and is additionally warned not to embark on being cleared except by a properly certified auditor in consultation with a Class IV clearing consultant. The rewards of clearing are enormous. The perils of clearing in unskilled hands are too numerous to mention. It is with these understandings that the Routine 2-Gs are released to Class II Auditors. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:gl.rd Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 263  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=25/4/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  METER READING TRS   Central Orgs Academies  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 25 APRIL 1963 Central Orgs Academies METER READING TRS DEFINITIONS An Instant Read An instant read is defined as that reaction of the needle which occurs at the precise end of any major thought voiced by the auditor. HCO B May 25, 1962 An Instant Rudiment Read On Rudiments, repetitive or fast, the instant read can occur anywhere within the last word of the question or when the thought major has been anticipated by the preclear, and must be taken up by the auditor. This is not a prior read. Preclears poorly in session, being handled by auditors with indifferent TR One, anticipate the instant read reactively as they are under their own control. Such a read occurs into the body of the last meaningful word in the question. It never occurs latent. HCO B July 21, 1962 A Needle Reaction Rise, fall, speeded rise, speeded fall, double tick (dirty needle), theta bop or any other action. HCO B May 25, 1962 By "major thought" is meant the complete thought being expressed in words by the auditor. Reads which occur prior to the completion of the major thought are "prior reads". Reads which occur later than its completion are "latent reads". HCO B May 25, 1962 By "minor thought" is meant subsidiary thoughts expressed by words within the major thought. They are caused by the reactivity of individual words within the full words. They are ignored. HCO B May 25, 1962 E-METER TR 20 PURPOSE: To familiarize student with an E-Meter. POSITION: Coach and student sit facing each other with an E-Meter in front of the student, either on a table or a chair. COMMANDS: "Reach for the meter" "Withdraw from the meter". Questions given alternately. TRAINING STRESS: Coach to see that student does command each time. Coach asks from time to 264 time, "How are you doing?" Coach also takes up any comm lag or physical manifestation with a "What happened?" HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard, September 1962, at Saint Hill. Recompiled by Reg Sharpe, Course Secretary Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, April 1963. E-METER TR 21 PURPOSE: To train student to read an E-Meter accurately, speedily and with certainty. POSITION: Coach and student sit facing each other. Student has an E-Meter (switched on) and coach holds the cans. PATTER: Coach: "Define a needle reaction." Coach: "Define an instant read." Coach: "Define a rudiment instant read." Student should give with a high degree of accuracy the definitions in this bulletin. If it is not so, coach reads definition and has student repeat it. Coach: "Take a phrase from the bulletin, say it to me and observe the meter." When the student has done this coach asks the following questions: 1. "Did you get a needle reaction?" "What was it?" "Where was it?" 2. "Did you get a rudiment instant read?" "What was it?" 3. "Did you get an instant read?" "What was it?" TRAINING STRESS: Coach needs to keep control of the coaching session. He should not depart from the above questions. If student is in any doubt at any time coach asks for a definition of whatever is being handled. Example: Student: "I'm not sure if I had a reaction." Coach: "Define a needle reaction." When student has done so, coach repeats question, "Did you get a needle reaction?" and continues thus until student gives a definite answer. Any hesitancy or any failure on the part of the student to observe a read is queried with a "What happened?". Occasionally ask student, "How are you doing?" This drill needs to be coached exactly as outlined above. Student is very likely to start blowing confusion. Don't Q & A with it. No flunks, no evaluation or invalidation. HISTORY: Developed by Reg Sharpe from the materials of L. Ron Hubbard at Saint Hill, April 1963, to improve E-Meter reading rapidly and without student being invalidated by another student who does not know how to read a meter. LRH:dr.rd L. RON HUBBARD Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 265  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=29/4/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  MODERNIZED TRAINING DRILLS USING PERMISSIVE COACHING   Central Orgs Academies  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 29 APRIL 1963 (CANCELLED -- see HCO B 21 Jan 70 Volume VII -- 8) Central Orgs Academies MODERNIZED TRAINING DRILLS USING PERMISSIVE COACHING Much of the difficulty experienced in teaching the TRs and getting students proficient in the TRs is due to bad coaching. This bulletin is issued to overcome this difficulty. It is in fact an amendment of HCO Bulletin of April 17, 1961, which as itself remains valid. The essence of this bulletin is that the drills do not permit the coach to "flunk" a student, instead an exact patter is laid down for the coach and instructors should ensure that the coach keeps to the patter. TR 0 has been subdivided into 4 parts. One new drill is introduced -- "The Coaches' Drill". The TRs are important because: 1. The auditing skill of any student remains only as good as he can do his TRs. 2. Flubs in TRs are the basis of all confusion in subsequent efforts to audit. 3. If the TRs are not well learned early in the HPA/HCA BScn/HCS Courses, THE BALANCE OF THE COURSE WILL FAIL AND INSTRUCTORS AT UPPER LEVELS WILL BE TEACHING NOT THEIR SUBJECTS BUT TRS. 4. Almost all confusions on Meter, Model Sessions and SOP Goals stem directly from inability to do the TRs. 5. A student who has not mastered his TRs will not master anything further. 6. SOP Goals will not function in the presence of bad TRs. The preclear is already being overwhelmed by process velocity and cannot bear up to TR flubs without ARC breaks. Academies were tough on TRs up to 1958 and have since tended to soften. Comm Courses are not a tea party. These TRs given here should be put in use at once in all auditor training, in Academy and HGC and in the future should never be relaxed. Seven weeks on a Comm Course until he does the TRs perfectly lets the student receive at least one week's training in the eight. A poor Comm Course in one week can wipe out the whole eight weeks. NUMBER: TR 0. Revised 1961 and 1963. NAME: Confronting Preclear. COMMANDS: None. POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart -- about three feet. Student has an E-Meter. PURPOSE: To train student to confront a preclear with auditing only or with nothing. The whole idea is to get the student able to hold a position three feet in front of a preclear, to BE there and not do anything else but BE there. 266 TRAINING STRESS: Have student and coach sit facing each other, neither making any conversation or effort to be interesting. Have them sit and look at each other and say and do nothing for some hours. Student must not speak, fidget, giggle or be embarrassed or anaten. It will be found the student tends to confront WITH a body part, rather than just confront, or to use a system of confronting rather than just BE there. The drill is misnamed if Confront means to DO something to the pc. The whole action is to accustom an auditor to BEING THERE three feet in front of a preclear without apologizing or moving or being startled or embarrassed or defending self. After a student has become able to just sit there for two hours "bull baiting" can begin. Anything added to being there is queried by the coach with a "What happened?" Twitches, blinks, sighs, fidgets, anything except just being there is promptly queried with the reason why, if necessary. TR 0 has been divided into four parts. Each part is drilled for about 15 minutes in turn and then begun over again and again. TR 0(A) This is exactly as given above except that "bull baiting" is omitted. Whenever student speaks, fidgets, giggles, is embarrassed or goes anaten coach says, "That's it, what happened?" Coach listens carefully to what student has to say, acknowledges and says, "Start." In fact, coach will do the foregoing whenever he sees any physical action or change, however small, manifested by the student. It is also desirable from time to time that the coach says, "That's it, how are you doing?", listens carefully to what student says, acknowledges and then says start. No flunks, no invalidation or validation other than giving a win from time to time as merited. TR 0(B) Exactly as TR 0 (A) with the addition that student is required by coach to answer the following questions which are given alternately: "What can you see about me that you like?" "What can you see about me that you don't like?" Coach acknowledges each answer without invalidation, validation or evaluation. Coach asks "What happened?" whenever there is any physical manifestation on the part of the student or whenever there is an overlong comm lag. Coach also asks from time to time "How are you doing?" TR 0 (C) In this part bull baiting is introduced, otherwise it is exactly as TR 0 (A). Patter as a confronted subject: The coach may say anything or do anything except leave the chair. The students' "buttons" can be found and tromped on hard. Any words not coaching words may receive no response from the student. If the student responds, the coach is instantly a coach (see patter above). Instructors should have coaches let students have some wins (coach does not mention these) and then, by gradient stress, get the coaches to start in on the student to invite flunks. This is "bull baiting". The student is queried each time he or she reacts, no matter how minutely, to being baited. TR 0(D) This drill has been designed to put the finishing touches to a TR 0. It needs to be done very thoroughly and with plenty of interest on the part of the coach. It is run as follows: 1. Coach says to student, "Define a good auditing attitude." He accepts student's definition. 267 2. Coach says, "Show me a good auditing attitude." 3. After a few minutes coach asks the following questions: (a) "Did you show me a good auditing attitude?" (b) "What did you do?" (c) "What happened?" 4. Actions 2 and 3 are repeated two or three times, then start over again at 1. 5. When the "Good auditing attitude" is being done well substitute "an interested attitude" or "a professional attitude" or "an understanding attitude". All these "attitudes" should be drilled thoroughly. Further, coach should take any attitude the student presents, e.g. if student uses in his definition the words "It's being there" coach makes a mental note to use it later. Example: "Define a 'being there' attitude." "Show me a 'being there' attitude." The whole of TR 0 should be taught rough-rough-rough and not left until the student can do it. Training is considered satisfactory at this level only if the student can BE three feet in front of a person without flinching, concentrating or confronting with, regardless of what the confronted person says or does. HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington in March 1957 to train students to confront preclears in the absence of social tricks or conversation and to overcome obsessive compulsions to be "interesting". Revised by L. Ron Hubbard April 1961 on finding that SOP Goals required for its success a much higher level of technical skill than earlier processes. Revised 1963 by Reg Sharpe. NUMBER: TR 1. Revised 1961 and 1963. NAME: Dear Alice. PURPOSE: To train the student to deliver a command newly and in a new unit of time to a preclear without flinching or trying to overwhelm or using a via. COMMANDS: A phrase (with the "he saids" omitted) is picked out of the book "Alice in Wonderland" and read to the coach. POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart. Student has an E-Meter. TRAINING STRESS: The command goes from the book to the student and, as his own, to the coach. It must not go from book to coach. It must sound natural not artificial. Diction and elocution have no part in it. Loudness may have. (A) When student has delivered a phrase coach asks student the following: 1. "Did you own the phrase?" 2. "Did you deliver it in a new unit of time?" 3. "Where did the communication start from?" 4. "Where did the communication land?" If student is in difficulty or confused by the drill, coach reads the purpose of the drill and the training stress and has student clear the purpose and the training stress. (B) After a short while the following is introduced. Coach tells student, "Create the space of the coaching session by locating 4 points in front of you and four points behind you." This is done on a gradient scale until student is doing the drill comfortably. Coach just asks, "Did you do that?" Then "A" above is reintroduced and the coach asking from time to time, "Did you create the space?" If student has difficulty coach goes back to getting student to locate the four points in front and the four points behind. 268 This drill is passed only when the student can put across a command naturally, without strain or artificiality or elocutionary bobs and gestures, and when the student can do it easily and relaxedly. HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, April 1956, to teach the communication formula to new students. Revised by L. Ron Hubbard 1961 to increase auditing ability. Revised 1963 by Reg Sharpe with the advices of L. Ron Hubbard. NUMBER: TR 2. Revised 1961 and 1963. NAME: Acknowledgments. PURPOSE: To teach student that an acknowledgment is a method of controlling preclear communication and that an acknowledgment is a full stop. Also that an acknowledgment lets a pc know that he has answered an auditing command. COMMANDS: The coach reads lines from "Alice in Wonderland" omitting "He saids" and the student thoroughly acknowledges them. POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other at a comfortable distance apart. Student with an E-Meter. TRAINING STRESS: To teach student to acknowledge exactly what was said so preclear knows it was heard. To ask student from time to time what was said. To curb over and under acknowledgment. To teach him that an acknowledgment is a stop, not beginning of a new cycle of communication or an encouragement to the preclear to go on. To teach further that one can fail to get an acknowledgment across or can fail to stop a pc with an acknowledgment or can take a pc's head off with an acknowledgment. Patter: The coach says, "Start," reads a line and says after student has acknowledged: 1. "What did I say?" 2. "Did you understand it?" 3. "Did your acknowledgment let me know I had originated something?" 4. "Did it end cycle?" 5. "Where did the acknowledgment start from?" 6. "Where did the acknowledgment land?" 7. "Did you own the space?" In questions 5 and 6 student must indicate as in TR 1. Ask "What happened?" as required in previous TRs. Coach checks carefully, "Are you really satisfied that you are giving good acknowledgments?" He reads the purpose of the TR and the Training Stress for the student to check over. HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956 to teach new students that an acknowledgment ends a communication cycle and a period of time, that a new command begins a new period of time. Revised 1961 by L. Ron Hubbard. Revised 1963 by Reg Sharpe with the advices of L. Ron Hubbard. NUMBER: TR 3. Revised 1961 and 1963. NAME: Duplicative Question. PURPOSE: To teach a student to duplicate without variation an auditing question, each time newly, in its own unit of time, not as a blur with other questions, and to acknowledge it. To teach that one never asks a second question until he has received an answer to the one asked. COMMANDS: "Do fish swim?" or "Do birds fly?" POSITION: Student and coach seated a comfortable distance apart. Student has an E-Meter. TRAINING STRESS: One question and student acknowledgment of its answer in one unit of time which is then finished. To keep student from straying into variations of command. Even though the same question is asked, it is asked as though it had never occurred to anyone before. 269 The student must learn to give and receive an answer and to acknowledge it in one unit of time. The student should not fail to get an answer to the question asked, or fail to repeat the exact question. Coach instructs student to run the command "Do birds fly?" or "Do fish swim?" etc. Student is required to acknowledge in such a way that the coach knows he has answered the command and if he doesn't answer the command to repeat the command, letting the coach know it is a repeat. Coach just answers the command to start. Patter is as follows: S. "Do birds fly?" C. "Yes." S. "Good." C. "Did I answer the command?" S. "Yes." C. "Did you feel that you had let me know that I had answered the command?" S. "No" or "Yes." C. "OK, start again." This patter is repeated over and over until student has a certainty that he is doing the drill. Then coach starts giving commands which are not answers. These communications must all be directed at the student, i.e., something to do with the pc's attitude, appearance, private life (real or imaginary). Example of patter: S. "Do birds fly?" C. "Your breath stinks." S. "I'll repeat the question. Do birds fly?" C. "That's it. Did I answer the question?" S. "No." C. "Did you let me know I hadn't?" S. "By not acknowledging, repeating the command." C. "OK, start." And so on. Coach continues until student is easily doing the drill and with great certainty. Coach can use such originations always directly concerned with the student personally and if he finds a button he continues until the student is tolerating it quite happily. If student breaks up or becomes misemotional coach merely asks "What happened?" No flunks. No evaluation, invalidation or validation. Ask "What happened?" as required. When the question is not answered, the student must say gently, "I'll repeat the auditing question," and do so until he gets an answer. Anything except commands, acknowledgment and, as needed, the repeat statement is queried. Unnecessary use of the repeat statement is queried. A poor command is queried. A poor acknowledgment is queried. Student misemotion or confusion is queried. Student failure to utter the next command without a long comm lag is queried. A choppy or premature acknowledgment is queried. Lack of an acknowledgment (or with a distinct comm lag) is queried. "Start", "Flunk", "Good" and "That's it" may not be used to fluster or trap the student. Any other statement under the sun may be. The coach may try to leave his chair in this TR. If he succeeds it is queried. The coach should not use introverted statements such as "I just had a cognition." "Coach divertive" statements should all concern the student, and should be designed to 270 throw the student off and cause the student to lose session control or track of what the student is doing. The student's job is to keep a session going in spite of anything, using only command, the repeat statement or the acknowledgment. The student may use his or her hands to prevent a "blow" (leaving) of the coach. If the student does anything else than the above, it is queried. By queried is meant coach asks student "What happened?" HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956 to overcome variations and sudden changes in sessions. Revised 1961 and 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard. The old TR had a comm bridge as part of its training but this is now part of and is taught in Model Session and is no longer needed at this level. Auditors have been frail in getting their questions answered. This TR was redesigned to improve that frailty. NUMBER: TR 4. Revised 1961 and 1963. NAME: Preclear Originations. PURPOSE: To teach a student not to be tongue-tied or startled or thrown off session by originations of preclear and to maintain ARC with preclear throughout an origination. COMMANDS: The student runs "Do fish swim?" or "Do birds fly?" on coach. Coach answers but now and then makes startling comments from a prepared list given by Instructor. Student must handle originations to satisfaction of coach. POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other at a comfortable distance apart. TRAINING STRESS: The student is taught to hear originations and do three things: (1) Understand it; (2) Acknowledge it; and (3) Return preclear to session. If the coach feels abruptness or too much time consumed or lack of comprehension, he corrects the coach into better handling. Patter: All originations concern the coach, his ideas, reactions or difficulties, none concern the auditor. Otherwise the patter is the same as in earlier TRs. The student's patter is governed by: 1. Clarifying and understanding the origin. 2. Acknowledging the origin. 3. Giving the repeat statement "I'll repeat the auditing command," and then giving it. Anything else is queried. The auditor must be taught to prevent ARC breaks and differentiate between a vital problem that concerns the pc and a mere effort to blow session. (TR 3 Revised.) If the student does more than (1) Understand, (2) Acknowledge, (3) Return pc to session, he is in error. Coach may throw in remarks personal to student as on TR 3. Student's failure to differentiate between these (by trying to handle them) and remarks aimed only at the student is queried. Student's failure to persist is always queried in any TR but here more so. Coach should not always read from list to originate, and not always look at student when about to comment. By Originate is meant a statement or remark referring to the state of the coach or fancied case. By Comment is meant a statement or remark aimed only at student or room. Originations are handled, Comments are disregarded by the student. TR 4 and anti-Q & A is what bothers auditors the most. Q & Aing is a fault which causes ARC breaks and therefore throws the pc out of session. The reason is that when you Q & A the pc is not permitted to let go of an origination and is therefore left with a Missed Withhold. Q & A = Missed Withholds = ARC Breaks. Coach starts by asking student to define TR 4. If student doesn't know it then coach gives the definition as follows: TR 4 is to hear an origination, to understand it, to acknowledge it and return pc to session. Similarly coach asks for a definition of Q & A, which is: Double questioning, changing because pc changed, following pc's instruction. 271 Coach then tells student to run the process "Do birds fly?" or "Do fish swim?" Coach frequently introduces an origination. When student has dealt with origination or has tried to deal with it, coach asks searchingly the following questions: 1. "Were you tongue-tied? startled? thrown off session?" 2. "Did you hear origination?" 3. "Did you understand it?" 4. "Did you acknowledge it?" 5. "Did you return me to session?" 6. "Did you double question me?" 7. "Did you change because I had changed?" 8. "Did you follow my instruction?" 9. "What did you do?" 10. "What happened?" Question 10 can be asked randomly throughout the drill whenever coach sees or hears something that indicates student is in trouble of any sort. Coach is permitted to "lead student up the garden path" for a little while before asking the above question. This drill needs to be done very thoroughly. If coach notices that student is using a method or pattern, coach can add in the question "Are you using a method or pattern in this drill?" The drill is continued over and over until student is doing it comfortably and happily. HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956 to teach auditors to stay in session when preclear dives out. Revised by L. Ron Hubbard in 1961 to teach an auditor more about handling origins and preventing ARC breaks. Revised 1963 by Reg Sharpe with the advices of L. Ron Hubbard. Coaches' Drill Coach and student (who is in this case the student coach) seated as in the normal TR drills. Coach has the copy of the drill in front of him. He tells student to coach a TR. Whenever student departs from the script coach says, "That's it. The correct question there should be _______." "The correct action there should be _______." This is continued until student coach is thoroughly conversant with the script. Coach keeps student on the drill and at the end of each cycle asks student, "Did you notice any physical changes on my part?" "What were they?" "Did you ask me 'What happened?' each time?" Drill is continued with each TR in turn until student is administering all the TRs efficiently, interestedly and competently. Ask "What happened?" as required. HISTORY: Developed by Reg Sharpe with the advices of L. Ron Hubbard in April 1963 at Saint Hill to teach students how to coach the TRs. Training Note It is better to go through these TRs several times getting tougher each time than to hang up on one TR forever or to be so tough at start student goes into a decline. LRH:jw.rd Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard L. RON HUBBARD ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 272  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=15/5/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  THE TIME TRACK AND ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS BULLETIN 1   Central Orgs Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 15 MAY AD13 Central Orgs Franchise THE TIME TRACK AND ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS BULLETIN 1 It has been so many years since engram running was a familiar tool of the auditor that it is hard to know where to begin to teach this skill all over again. Actually, millions of words have been written or spoken on the subject of running engrams. However, oddly enough there was not one condensed, summary HCO Bulletin on the subject. Engram running, developed, was never then summated. I will therefore attempt to remedy the matter. ENGRAM RUNNING SIMPLIFIED No recapitulation or summation of materials was ever done on engram running. Therefore while all lectures and books on it are true, not one contains a final survey of engram running including everything vital to this skill and the laws which govern it. The material in books and tapes should be reviewed. But the material in these HCO Bulletins should be learned thoroughly as it takes precedence over all earlier material. WHY PEOPLE HAVE TROUBLE RUNNING ENGRAMS I have gotten very impatient with the constant plea for a rote set of commands to run engrams. The need for such commands is a testimony to the Auditor's lack of knowledge of the mechanics of the Time Track and the pc's behavior during an engram running session. An auditor must know the basic laws and mechanics of the Time Track in order to run engrams. There is no rote procedure and never will be that will be successful on all cases in absence of a knowledge of what a Time Track is. There is no substitute for knowing what engrams are and what they do. Knowing that, you can run engrams. Not knowing that, there is nothing that will take the place of such knowledge. You have to know the behavior of and data about engrams. There is no royal road that avoids such knowledge. If you know all about engrams you can run them. If you don't, you'll make a mess regardless of the commands given for use. Therefore the essence of engram running is a knowledge of the character and behavior of engrams. This is not a vast subject. However, these three things stand in the way of learning about engrams: 1. Engrams contain pain and unconsciousness; fear of pain or inflicting pain causes the auditor not to confront the pc's engrams and unconsciousness is after all a not knowing condition; and 2. The auditor is so accustomed to projectionists reeling off movies and TV programs for him or her that the auditor tends to just sit while the action rolls forward, acting like a spectator, not the projectionist. 3. Failure to handle Time in Incidents. On (1) you can remedy this just by knowing about it and realizing it and surmounting it, and on (2) you can remedy the attitude by realizing that the auditor, 273 not the pc (or some installed movie projectionist), is operating the pc's bank. (3) is covered later. Take a pocket movie projector and any bit of a reel of film and wind it back and forth for a while and you'll see you are moving it. Then give a command and move the film and you'll have what you're doing as an auditor. Many drills can be developed using such equipment and (2) will be overcome. (1) requires just understanding and the will to rise superior to it. THE TIME TRACK The endless record, called the TIME TRACK, complete with 52 perceptions, of the pc's entire past, is available to the auditor and his or her auditing commands. The rules are: THE TIME TRACK OBEYS THE AUDITOR; THE TIME TRACK DOES NOT OBEY A PRECLEAR (early in auditing). The Time Track is a very accurate record of the pc's past, very accurately timed, very obedient to the auditor. If motion picture film were 3D, had 52 perceptions and could fully react upon the observer, the Time Track could be called a motion picture film. It is at least 350,000,000,000,000 years long, probably much longer, with a scene about every 1/25 of a second. DEFINITIONS That part of the Time Track that is free of pain and misadventure is called simply the Free Track, in that the pc doesn't freeze up on it. Any mental picture that is unknowingly created and part of the Time Track is called a FACSIMILE, whether an engram, secondary, lock or pleasure moment. Any knowingly created mental picture that is not part of a Time Track is called a MOCK-UP. Any unknowingly created mental picture that appears to have been a record of the physical universe but is in fact only an altered copy of the Time Track is called a DUB-IN. Those parts of the Time Track that contain moments of pain and unconsciousness are called ENGRAMS. Those parts of the Time Track which contain misemotion based on earlier engramic experience are called SECONDARIES. Those parts of the Time Track which contain the first moment an earlier engram is restimulated are called KEY-INS. Those parts of the Time Track which contain moments the pc associates with Key-ins are called LOCKS. A series of similar engrams, or of similar locks, are called CHAINS. A BASIC is the first incident (engram, lock, overt act) on any chain. BASIC BASIC is the first engram on the whole Time Track. Incidents are not in piles or files. They are simply a part of the consecutive Time Track. By INCIDENT is meant the recording of an experience, simple or complex, related by the same subject, location or people, understood to take place in a short and finite time period such as minutes or hours or days. 274 A CHAIN OF INCIDENTS makes up a whole adventure or activity related by the same subject, general location or people, understood to take place in a long time period, weeks, months, years or even billions or trillions of years. An incident can be an engram, secondary, key-in or lock. A chain of incidents can therefore be a chain of experiences which are engrams, secondaries, key-ins and locks. A chain of incidents has only one BASIC. Its BASIC is the earliest engram received from or overt act committed against the subject, location or beings which make it a chain. THE INFLUENCE OF THE TIME TRACK Shakespeare said all life was a play. He was right in so far as the Time Track is a 3D, 52 perception movie which is a whole series of plays concerning the preclear. But the influence of it upon the preclear removes it from the class of pretense and play. It is not only very real, it is what contains whatever it is that depresses the pc to what he is today. Its savageness relieved, the preclear can recover, and only then. There is no other valid workable road. There are valences, circuits and machinery in the reactive mind, as well as Reliable Items and Goals. But these all have their place on the Time Track and are part of the Time Track. The preclear, as a thetan, is the effect of all this recorded experience. Almost all of it is unknown to him. There are no other influencing agencies for the preclear than the Time Track and Present Time. And Present Time, a moment later, is part of the Time Track. THE CREATION OF THE TIME TRACK The preclear makes the Time Track as time rolls forward. He does this as an obsessive create on a sub-awareness level. It is done by an INVOLUNTARY INTENTION, not under the pc's awareness or control. The road to clear by making the preclear take over the creating of the Time Track was long explored and proved completely valueless and chancy. The road to clear by making the preclear leave the Time Track (exteriorization) lasts only for minutes, hours or days and has proven valueless. The road to clear, proven over 13 years of intense research and vast numbers of auditing hours and cases, lies only in an auditor handling the Time Track and removing from it, by means governed by the Auditor's Code, the material, both motivators and overts, which, recorded on it, is out of the control of the pc and holds the pc at effect. Listing for goals and reliable items, engram running, Prepchecking, Sec Checking, recall processes and assists all handle the Time Track successfully and are therefore the basis of all modern processing. APPARENT FAULTS IN THE TIME TRACK There are no faults in the recording of the Time Track. There are only snarls caused by groupers, and unavailability and lack of perception of the Time Track. A Grouper is anything which pulls the Time Track into a bunch at one or more points. When the grouper is gone the Time Track is perceived to be straight. Unavailability is caused by the pc's inability to confront or BOUNCERS and DENYERS. A BOUNCER throws the pc backward, forward, up or down from the track and so makes it apparently unavailable. A DENYER obscures a part of track by implying it is not there or elsewhere (a mis-director) or should not be viewed. 275 Groupers, bouncers and denyers are material (matter, energy, space and time in the form of effort, force, mass, delusion, etc) or command phrases (statements that group, bounce or deny). When a grouper, bouncer or denyer are enforced by both material and command phrases they become most effective, making the Time Track unavailable to the pc. Unless the Time Track is made available it cannot be as-ised by the pc and so remains aberrative. The Time Track is actual in that it is made of matter, energy, space and time as well as thought. Those who cannot confront Mest think it is composed only of thought. A grouper can make a pc fat and a bouncer thin if the pc is chronically stuck in them or if the track is grouped or made unavailable through bad auditing. THE ORIGIN OF THE TIME TRACK Through a great deal of study, not entirely complete, the following surmises can be made about the Time Track, the physical universe and the pc. The tendency of the physical universe is condensation and solidification. At least this is the effect produced on the thetan. Continued dwelling in it without rehabilitation causes the thetan to become less reaching ("smaller") and more solid. A thetan, being a static, may become convinced he cannot duplicate matter, energy, space, or time or certain intentions and so succumbs to the influence of this universe. This influence in itself would be negligible unless recorded by the thetan, stored and made reactive upon the thetan as a Time Track, and then maliciously used to trap the thetan. Recent researches I have done in the field of aesthetics tend to indicate that rhythm is the source of present time. The thetan is carried along both by his own desire to have, do or be and by having been overwhelmed in the distant past by a continuous minute rhythm. This is a possible explanation of a thetan's continuous presence in Present Time. Present Time, then, can be defined as a response to the continuous rhythm of the physical universe, resulting in a hereness in nowness. In response to this rhythm, undoubtedly assisted by overts and implants and convictions of the need of recording, the thetan began to respond to the physical universe in his creations and eventually obsessively created (by means of restimulatable involuntary intentions) the passing moments of the physical universe. But only when he began to consider these pictures important could they be used to aberrate him. These are only partly permanently created. Other moments of the past become re-created only when the thetan's intention is directed to them, on which these parts spontaneously appear, the thetan not voluntarily creating them. This forms the Time Track. Some parts of it, then, are "permanently" in a state of creation and the majority of it becoming created when the thetan's attention is directed to them. The "permanently created" portions are those times of overwhelm and indecision which almost entirely submerged the thetan's own will and awareness. Such parts are found in implants and great stresses. These parts are in permanent restimulation. The mechanism of permanent restimulation consists of opposing forces of comparable magnitude which cause a balance which does not respond to current time and remains "timeless". Such phenomena as the overt act-motivator sequence, the problem (postulate counter-postulate), tend to hold certain portions of the Time Track in "permanent creation" and cause them to continue to exist in present time as unresolved masses, energies, spaces, times and significances. 276 The intention of the physical universe (and those who have become degraded enough to further only its ends) is to make a thetan solid, immobile and decisionless. The fight of the thetan is to remain unsolid, mobile or immobile at will, and capable of decision. This in itself is the principal unresolved problem and it itself creates timeless mass which accomplishes the basic purpose of a trap. The mechanism of the Time Track can then be said to be the primary action in making a thetan solid, immobile and decisionless. For without a record of the past accumulating and forming a gradient of solidification of the thetan, the entrapment potential of the physical universe would be negligible and the havingness which it offers might be quite therapeutic. It probably requires more than just living in the physical universe to become aberrated. The main method of causing aberration and entrapment is therefore found in actions which create or confuse the Time Track. A thetan has things beyond Matter, Energy, Space and Time which can deteriorate. His power of choice, his ability to keep two locations separate, his belief in self and his ethical standards are independent of material things. But these can be recorded in the Time Track as well and one sees them recover when no longer influenced by the Time Track. As the thetan himself makes his own Time Track, even if under compulsion, and commits his own overts, even on provocation, it can be said, then, that the thetan aberrates himself. But he is assisted by mammoth betrayals and his necessity to combat them. And he is guilty of aberrating his fellows. It is doubtful if another type of being built the physical universe and still lurks within it to trap further. But older beings, already degraded, have continuously been about to help newer beings to go downhill. Each Thetan had his own "Home Universe" and these colliding or made to collide, probably are the physical universe. But of this origin and these intentions we are not at this time certain. It is enough for us to resolve the problem of the aberrative nature of this universe and provide a technology which assuages that aberration and keeps one abreast of it. This is practical and we can already do it. Further insight into the problem will be a further bonus. And further data is already in view. (Bulletin 2 on The Time Track and Engram Running will follow.) L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dr.rd Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 277  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=21/5/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  ROUTINE 3 R-3 MODEL SESSION   Central Orgs Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 21 MAY AD13 (CANCELLED -- see HCO B 19 Nov 63 Volume V -- 381) Central Orgs Franchise ROUTINE 3 R-3 MODEL SESSION Here is the new Routine 3 Model Session as outlined in HCO Bulletin May 13, AD13. All other Model Sessions are cancelled herewith. This form is to be used in all auditing in the future. SESSION PRELIMINARIES All auditing sessions have the following preliminaries done in this order. 1. Seat the pc and adjust his or her chair. 2. Clear the Auditing room with "Is it all right to audit in this room?" (not metered). 3. Can squeeze "Squeeze the cans, please." And note that pc registers, by the squeeze, on the meter, and note the level of the pc's havingness. (Don't run hav here.) 4. Put in R Factor by telling pc briefly what you are going to do in the session. START OF SESSION: 5. "Is it all right with you if I begin this session now?" "START OF SESSION." (Tone 40) "Has this session started for you?" If pc says, "No," say again, "START OF SESSION. Now has this session started for you?" If pc says, "No," say, "We will cover it in a moment." RUDIMENTS: 6. "What goals would you like to set for this session?" Please note that Life or Livingness goals have been omitted, as they tend to remind the pc of present time difficulties and tend to take his attention out of the session. 7. At this point in the session there are actions which could be undertaken: the running of General O/W or the running of Mid Rudiments using "Since the last time I audited you", or pull missed W/Hs as indicated. But if pc cheerful and needle smooth, just get down to work. One would run General O/W if the pc was emotionally upset at the beginning of the session or if the session did not start for the pc, the latter being simply another indication of the pc's being upset or ARC broken, but these symptoms must be present, as sometimes the session hasn't started merely because of poor Tone 40 or because the pc had something he wanted to say before the auditor started the session. 278 RUNNING O/W: "If it is all right with you, I am going to run a short, general process. The process is: 'What have you done?', 'What have you withheld?'" (The process is run very permissively until the needle looks smooth and the pc is no longer emotionally disturbed.) "Where are you now on the time track?" "If it is all right with you, I will continue this process until you are close to present time and then end this process." (After each command, ask, "When?") "That was the last command. Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this process?" "End of process." RUNNING THE MID RUDIMENTS: One would use the Middle Rudiments with, "Since the last time I audited you", if the needle was rough and if the Tone Arm was in a higher position than it was at the end of the last session. ORDER OF BUTTONS Here is the correct wording and order of use for the big Mid Ruds. "_______ has anything been suppressed?" "_______ is there anything you have been careful of?" "_______ is there anything you have failed to reveal?" "_______ has anything been invalidated?" "_______ has anything been suggested?" "_______ has any mistake been made?" "_______ is there anything you have been anxious about?" "_______ has anything been protested?" "_______ has anything been decided?" "_______ has anything been asserted?" In using the first three buttons (Suppressed, Careful of and Failed to Reveal), the rudiment question should be asked directly of the pc off the meter (repetitive). When the pc has no more answers, check the question on the meter. If the question reads, stick with it on the meter like in Fast Rud checking until it is clean. The last six buttons are cleaned directly on the meter as in Fast Ruds. PULLING MISSED WITHHOLDS Use: "Since the last time you were audited has a withhold been missed on you?" "Since the last time you were audited is there anything someone failed to find out about you?" "Since the last time you were audited has someone nearly found out something about you?" Any of the above versions may be used. They are always run repetitively. They 279 can also be used without the time limiter, e.g. "Is there anything someone failed to find out about you?" BODY OF SESSION: 8. Now go into the body of the session. END BODY OF SESSION: 9. "Is it all right with you if we end off ....... now?" "Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I do so?" "End of ....... " SMOOTH OUT SESSION: 10. Smooth out any roughness in the session if there has been any, favoring Suppress, Failed to Reveal, Protest, Decide, Overts, Assert, using prefix "In this session ....... GOALS & GAINS: 11. "Have you made any part of your goals for this session?" "Have you made any other gains in this session that you would care to mention?" HAVINGNESS: 12. (After adjusting the meter) "Please squeeze the cans." (If the squeeze test was not all right, the Auditor would run the pc's Havingness process until the can squeeze gives an adequate response.) ENDING SESSION: 13. "Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this session?" 14. "Is it all right with you if I end this session now?" 15. "Here it is: END OF SESSION (Tone 40). Has this session ended for you?" (If the pc says, "No," repeat, "END OF SESSION." If the session still has not ended, say, "You will be getting more auditing. END OF SESSION.") "Tell me I am no longer auditing you." Please note that Havingness is run after Goals and Gains as this tends to bring the pc more into present time and to take his attention to a degree out of the session. Wording for the above follows the tradition of earlier model sessions. Adhere severely to this session form. It is nearly an irreducible minimum and is very fast, but it is all necessary. The Random Rudiment here is "What happened?" Session Mid Ruds are simply "Protest, Assert and Decide". RI rudiments are "Suppress and Invalidate". ARC Break handling is in accordance with HCO Bulletin of March 14, 1963. Don't continue a session until you find out why the ARC Break. LRH:jw.rd L. RON HUBBARD Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 280  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=27/5/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  ALL AUDITING STAR RATING HCO BULLETIN FOR A ACADEMIES AND SHSBC CAUSE OF ARC BREAKS   CenOCon Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex CenOCon HCO BULLETIN OF 27 MAY 1963 Franchise ALL AUDITING STAR RATING HCO BULLETIN FOR A ACADEMIES AND SHSBC CAUSE OF ARC BREAKS LUCKY IS THE PC WHOSE AUDITOR HAS UNDERSTOOD THIS HCO BULLETIN AND LUCKY IS THE AUDITOR, MAY HIS OWN CASE RUN WELL. I have just narrowed the reason for ARC Breaks in auditing actions down to only one source. RULE: ALL ARC BREAKS ARE CAUSED BY BY-PASSED CHARGE. RULE: TO TURN OFF AN ARC BREAK FIND AND INDICATE THE CORRECT BY-PASSED CHARGE. Charge can be By-Passed by: 1. Going later than basic on any chain without further search for basic. Example: Looking for the pc's first automobile accident, finding the fifth instead and trying to run the fifth accident as the first accident, which it isn't. The By-Passed Charge here is the first accident and all succeeding accidents up to the one selected by the auditor as the first one or the one to run. To a greater or lesser degree depending on the amount the earlier material was restimulated, the pc will then ARC Break (or feel low or in "low morale"). One can run a later incident on a chain briefly but only to unburden earlier incidents, and the pc must know this. 2. Unknowingly ignoring the possibility of a more basic or earlier incident of the same nature as that being run after the pc has been restimulated on it. Or bluntly refusing to admit the existence of or let the pc "at" an earlier incident. 3. Cleanly missing a GPM, as one between two goals run consecutively in the belief they are consecutive. 4. Missing an earlier GPM and settling down to the assertion there are no earlier ones. 5. Cleanly missing one or more RIs, not even calling them. 6. Failing to discharge an RI and going on past it. 7. Accidentally missing a whole block of RIs, as in resuming session and not noticing pc has skipped (commoner than you'd think). 8. Accepting a wrong goal, missing the right one similarly worded. 9. Accepting a wrong RI, not getting the plot RI to fire. 10. Misinterpreting or not understanding data given to you by the pc and/or acting on wrong data. 11. Misinforming the pc as to what has or has not fired and discharged. 12. Locating the wrong By-Passed Charge and saying it is the source of the ARC Break. 281 13. Failing to follow the cycle of communication in auditing. These and any other way charge can be restimulated and left prior to where the auditor is working can cause an ARC Break. Charge left after (later) (nearer pt) than where the auditor is working hardly ever causes an ARC Break. The burden of skilled auditing then, is to get RIs (and GPMs and incidents) discharged as close to basic (first incident) as possible. And always be prowling for something earlier. In contradiction of this is that any GPM fairly well discharged by RRs unburdens the case, ARC Break or no ARC Breaks. And any incident partially discharged lets one go earlier. The pc never knows why the ARC Break. He may think he does and disclaim about it. But the moment the actual reason is spotted (the real missed area) the ARC Break ceases. If you know you've missed a goal or RI, just saying so prevents any ARC Break. An ARC Breaky pc can always be told what has been missed and will almost always settle down at once. Example: Pc refuses to come to session. Auditor on telephone says there's a more basic incident or RI or GPM. Pc comes to session. The auditor who is most likely to develop ARC Breaks in the pc will have greater difficulty putting this HCO Bulletin into practice. Perhaps I can help this. Such an auditor Qs and As by action responses, not acknowledgments after understanding. Action can be on an automaticity in the session. So this HCO Bulletin may erroneously be interpreted to mean, "If the pc ARC Breaks DO something earlier." If this were true then the only thing left to run would be Basic Basic -- without the pc being unburdened enough to have any reality on it. A drill (and many drills can be compiled on this) would be to have a lineal picture of a Time Track. The coach indicates a late incident on it with a pointer and says, "Pc ARC Break." The student must give a competent and informative statement that indicates the earlier charge without pointing (since you can't point inside the reactive bank of a pc with a pointer). Drawn Time Tracks showing a GPM, a series of engrams along free track, a series of GPMs, all plotted against time, would serve the purpose of the drill and give the student graphic ARC Break experience. The trick is TO FIND AND INDICATE the RIGHT By-Passed Charge to the pc and to handle it when possible but never fail to indicate it. It is not DO that heals the ARC Break but pointing toward the correct charge. RULE: FINDING AND INDICATING AN INCORRECT BY-PASSED CHARGE WILL NOT TURN OFF AN ARC BREAK. An automaticity (as covered later in this HCO Bulletin) is rendered discharged by indicating the area of charge only. This is an elementary example: Pc says, "I suppressed that." Auditor says, "On this incident has anything been suppressed?" Pc ARC Breaks. Auditor indicates Charge by saying, "I'm sorry. A moment ago I didn't acknowledge your suppression." ARC Break ceases. Why? Because the source of its charge that triggered an automaticity of above the pc's tone, was itself discharged by being indicated. 282 Example: Auditor asks for a Joburg overt. Pc gives it. Auditor consults meter at once asking question again, which is protested giving a new read. Pc ARC Breaks. Auditor says, "I did not acknowledge the overt you gave me. I acknowledge it." ARC Break ceases. Example: Auditor asks for RI No. 173 on First Series Line Plot. Pc ARC Breaks, giving various reasons why, such as auditor's personality. Auditor asks meter, "Have I missed an Item on you?" Gets read. Says to pc, "I've missed an Item." ARC Break ceases. Whether the missing item is looked for or not is immaterial to this HCO Bulletin which concerns handling ARC Breaks. If an auditor always does in response to an ARC Break, such as instantly looking for specific earlier Items, that auditor has missed the point of this HCO Bulletin and will just pile up more ARC Breaks, not heal them. Don't be driven by ARC Breaks into unwise actions, as all you have to do is find and indicate the missing charge that was By-Passed. That is what takes care of an ARC Break, not taking the pc's orders. If the ARC Break does not cease, the wrong By-Passed Charge has been indicated. The sweetest running pc in the world can be turned into a tiger by an auditor who always Qs and As, never indicates charge and goes on with the session plan. Some Qs and As would be a source of laughter if not so deadly. Here is a Q and A artist at work (and an ARC Breaky pc will soon develop) (and this auditor will soon cease to audit because it's "so unpleasant"). Example: Auditor: "Have you ever shot anyone?" Pc: "Yes, I shot a dog." Auditor: "What about a dog?" Pc: "It was my mother's." Auditor: "What about your mother?" Pc: "I hated her." Auditor: "What about hating people?" Pc: "I think I'm aberrated." Auditor: "Have you worried about being aberrated?" Pc: @! ! *?!!. Why did the pc ARC Break? Because the charge has never been permitted to come off shooting a dog, his mother, hating people, and being aberrated and that's enough By-Passed Charge to blow a house apart. This pc will become, as this keeps up, unauditable by reason of charge missed in sessions and his resulting session dramatizations as overts. Find and indicate the actual charge By-Passed. Sometimes you can't miss it, it has just happened. Sometimes you need a simple meter question since what you are doing is obvious. Sometimes you need a dress parade assessment from a list. But however you get it, find out the exact By-Passed Charge and then INDICATE IT TO THE PC. The violence of an ARC Break makes it seem incredible that a simple statement will vanquish it, but it will. You don't have to run another earlier engram to cure an ARC Break. You merely have to say it is there -- and if it is the By-Passed Charge, that ARC Break will vanish. Example: Pc: "I think there's an incident earlier that turned off my emotion." Auditor: "We'd better run this one again." Pc ARC Breaks. Auditor: (Consults meter) "Is there an earlier incident that turns off emotion? (Gets read) Say, what you just said is correct. Thank you. There is an earlier incident that turns off emotion. Thank you. Now let's run this one a few more times." Pc's ARC Break ends at once. Don't go around shivering in terror of ARC Breaks. That's like the modern systems of government which tear up their whole constitution and honor just because some hired demonstrators howl. Soon they won't be a government at all. They bend to every ARC Break. ARC Breaks are inevitable. They will happen. The crime is not: to have a pc ARC Break. The crime is: not to be able to handle one fast when it happens. You must be 283 able to handle an ARC Break since they are inevitable. Which means you must know the mechanism of one as given here, how to find By-Passed Charge and how to smoothly indicate it. To leave a pc in an ARC Break more than two or three minutes, is just inept. And be well-drilled enough that your own responding rancor and surprise doesn't take charge. And you'll have pleasant auditing. ARC BREAK PROCESSES We had several ARC Break processes. These were repetitive processes. The most effective ARC Break process is locating and indicating the By- Passed Charge. That really cures ARC Breaks. A repetitive command ARC Break process based on this discovery I just made would possibly be "What communication was not received?" Expanding this we get a new ARC Straight Wire: "What attitude was not received?" "What reality was not perceived (seen)?" "What communication was not acknowledged?" This process IS NOT USED to handle SESSION ARC BREAKS but only to clean up auditing or the track. If the pc ARC Breaks don't use a process, find the missed charge. Indeed this process may be more valuable than at first believed, as one could put "In auditing ....... " on the front of each one and straighten up sessions. And perhaps you could even run an engram with it. (The last has not been tested. "In auditing" + the three questions was wonderful on test. 2 div TA in each 10 mins on a very high TA case.) "ARC Break Straight Wire" of 1958 laid open implants like a band saw, which is what attracted my attention to it again. Many routine prefixes such as "In an organization" or "On engrams" or "On past lives" could be used to clear up past attitudes and overts. We need some repetitive processes today. Cases too queasy to face the past, cases messed up by offbeat processes. Cases who have overts on Auditing or Scientology or orgs. Cases pinned by session overts. The BMRs run inside an engram tend to make it go mushy. And Class I Auditors are without an effective repetitive process on modern technology. This is it. A Repetitive Process, even though not looking for basic, implies that the process will be run until the charge is off and therefore creates no ARC Breaks unless left unflat. Therefore the process is safe if flattened. RUDIMENTS Nothing is more detested by some pcs than rudiments on a session or GPM or RI. Why? The same rule about ARC Breaks applies. The Charge has been By-Passed. How? Consider the session is later than the incident (naturally). Ask for the suppress in the session. You miss the suppress in the incident (earlier by far). Result: Pc ARC Breaks. That's all there is to ARC Breaks caused by Session BMRs or Mid Ruds. 284 Example: "Scrambleable Eggs" won't RR. Auditor says, "On this Item has anything been suppressed?" Pc eventually gets anxious or ARC Breaks. Why? Suppress read. Yes, but where was the suppress? It was in the Incident containing the RI, the pc looked for it in the session and thereby missed the suppress charge in the incident of the RI which, being By-Passed Charge unseen by pc and auditor, caused the ARC Break. Remedy? Get the suppress in the incident, not the session. The RI RRs. Also, the more ruds you use, the more you restimulate when doing Routine 3, because the suppress in the incident is not basic on Suppress, and if you clean just one clean, even to test, bang, there goes the charge being missed on Suppress and bang, bang, ARC Break. Lightly, auditor, lightly. Q AND A ARC BREAKS Q and A causes ARC Breaks by BY-PASSING CHARGE. How? The pc says something. The auditor does not understand or Acknowledge. Therefore the pc's utterance becomes a By-Passed Charge generated by whatever he or she is trying to release. As the auditor ignores it and the pc re-asserts it, the original utterance's charge is built up and up. Finally the pc will start issuing orders in a frantic effort to get rid of the missed charge. This is the source of pc orders to the auditor. Understand and Acknowledge the pc. Take the pc's data. Don't pester the pc for more data when the pc is offering data. When the pc goes to where the auditor commands, don't say, "Are you there now?" as his going is thereby not acknowledged and the going built up charge. Always assume the pc obeyed until it's obvious the pc did not. ECHO METERING The pc says, "You missed a suppress. It's ....... " and the auditor reconsults the meter asking for a suppress. That leaves the pc's offering an undischarged charge. NEVER ASK THE METER AFTER A PC VOLUNTEERS A BUTTON. Example: You've declared suppress clean, pc gives you another suppress. Take it and don't ask suppress again. That's Echo Metering. If a pc puts his own ruds in, don't at once jump to the meter to put his ruds in. That makes all his offerings missed charge. Echo Metering is miserable auditing. MISSED WITHHOLDS Needless to say, this matter of By-Passed Charge is the explanation for the violence of missed withholds. The auditor is capable of finding out. So the pc's undisclosed overts react solely because the auditor doesn't ask for them. This doesn't wipe out all technology about missed withholds. It explains why they exist and how they operate. Indication is almost as good as disclosure. Have you ever had somebody calm down when you said, "You've got missed withholds"? Well it's crude but it has worked. Better is, "Some auditor failed to locate some charge on your case." or, "We must have missed your goal." But only a meter assessment and a statement of what has been found would operate short of actually pulling the missed withholds. APPARENT BAD MORALE There is one other factor on "Bad Morale" that should be remarked. 285 We know so much we often discard what we know in Scientology. But way back in Book One and several times after, notably 8-80, we had a tone scale up which the pc climbed as he was processed. We meet up with this again running the Helatrobus Implants as a whole track fact. The pc rises in tone up to the lower levels of the tone scale. He or she comes up to degradation, up to apathy. And it often feels horrible and, unlike an ARC Break and the Sad Effect, is not cured except by more of the same processing. People complain of their emotionlessness. Well, they come up a long ways before they even reach emotion. Then suddenly they realize that they have come up to being able to feel bad. They even come up to feeling pain. And all that is a gain. They don't confuse this too much with ARC Breaks but they blame processing. And then one day they realize that they can feel apathy! And it's a win amongst wins. Before it was just wood. And this has an important bearing on ARC Breaks. Everything on the whole Know to Mystery Scale that still lies above the pc finds the pc at effect. These are all on Automatic. Therefore the pc in an ARC Break is in the grip of the reaction which was in the incident, now fully on automatic. The pc's anger in the incident is not even seen or felt by the pc. But the moment something slips the pc is in the grip of that emotion as an automaticity and becomes furious or apathetic or whatever toward the auditor. None is more amazed at himself or herself than the pc in the grip of the ARC Break emotion. The pc is a helpless rag, being shaken furiously by the emotions he or she felt in the incident. Therefore, never discipline or Q and A with an ARC Broken pc. Don't join hands with his bank to punish him. Just find the By-Passed Charge and the automaticity will shut off at once to everyone's relief. Running Routine 3 is only unpleasant and unhappy to the degree that the auditor fails to quickly spot and announce By-Passed Charge. If he fails to understand this and recognize this, his pcs will ARC Break as surely as a ball falls when dropped. If an auditor has ARC Breaky pcs only one thing is basically wrong -- that auditor consistently misses charge or consistently fails to anticipate missed charge. One doesn't always have to run the earliest. But one had better not ignore the consequences of not pointing it out. One doesn't have to discharge every erg from an RI always but one had better not hide the fact from the pc. The adroit auditor is one who can spot earlier charge or anticipate ARC Breaks by seeing where charge is getting missed and taking it up with the pc. That auditor's pcs have only the discomfort of the gradually rising tone and not the mess of ARC Breaks. It is possible to run almost wholly without ARC Breaks and possible to stop them in seconds, all by following the rule: DON'T BY-PASS CHARGE UNKNOWN TO THE PC. LRH:jw.rd Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard L. RON HUBBARD ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 286  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=8/6/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  THE TIME TRACK AND ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS BULLETIN 2 HANDLING THE TIME TRACK   Central Orgs Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 8 JUNE AD13 Central Orgs Franchise THE TIME TRACK AND ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS BULLETIN 2 HANDLING THE TIME TRACK Although finding and curtailing the development of the Time Track at genus is not improbable, the ability of the preclear to attain it early on is questionable without reducing the charge on the existing track. Therefore, any system which reduces the charged condition of the Time Track without reducing but increasing the awareness and decisionability of the preclear is valid processing. Any system which seeks to handle the charge but reduces the preclear's awareness and decisionability is not valid processing but is degrading. According to early axioms, the single source of aberration is Time. Therefore any system which further confuses or overwhelms the preclear's sense of time will not be beneficial. Thus the first task of the student of engram running is to master the handling of Time on the preclear's Time Track. It must be handled without question, uncertainty or confusion. Failing to handle the Time in the pc's Time Track with confidence, certainty and without error will result in grouping or denying the Time Track to the pc. The prime source of ARC break in engram running sessions is by-passing charge by Time mishandling by the auditor. As a subhead under this, taking and trying to run incidents which are not basic on a chain constitute an error in Time and react on the pc like By-Passed RIs or GPMs. An ARC break-less session requires gentle accurate time scouting, the selection of the earliest Timed incident available and the accurate Time handling of the incident as it is run. There are only a few reasons why some cannot run engrams on pcs. These are: 1. Q and A with the pain and unconsciousness of incidents; 2. Failing to handle the Time Track of the pc for the pc; 3. Failure to understand and handle Time. 2 and 3 are much the same. However, there are three ways to move a Time Track about: (a) By Significance (the moment something was considered); (b) By Location (the moment the pc was located somewhere); (c) By Time alone (the date or years before an event or years ago). You will see all three have time in common. "The moment when you thought _______" "The moment you were on the cliff _______" "Two years before you 287 put your foot on the bottom step of the scaffold" are all dependent on Time. Each designates an instant on the Time Track of which there can be no mistake by either auditor or pc. The whole handling of the Time Track can be done by any one of these three methods, Significance, Location, Time. Therefore all projectionist work is done by the Time of Significance, the Time of Location or Time alone. The track responds. Those auditors who have trouble cannot grasp the totality and accuracy and speed of that response. The idiotic and wonderful precision of the Time Track defeats the sloppy and careless. They wonder if it went. They question the pc's being there. They fumble about until they destroy their command over the Time Track. "Go to 47,983,678,283,736 years 2 months, 4 days 1 hour and six minutes ago." Well, a clear statement of it, unfumbled, will cause just that to happen. The tiniest quiver of doubt, a fumble over the millions and nothing happens. Fumbled dating gets no dates. One must date boldly with no throat catches or hesitations. "More than 40,000? Less than 40,000?" Get it the first read. Don't go on peering myopically at the meter asking the same question the rest of the session. Accurate, Bold, Rapid. Those are the watchwords of dating and Time Track handling. In moving a Time Track about, move only the track. Don't mix it and also move the pc. You can say "Move to _______." You don't have to say (but you can) "The somatic strip will move to _______." But never say "You will move to _______." And this also applies to Present Time. The pc won't come to Present Time. He's here. But the Time Track will move to the date of present time unless the pc is really stuck. In getting a pc to Present Time (unimportant in modern engram running) say "Move to (date month and year of PT)." In scouting you always use To. "Move To _______." In running an engram or whatever, you always use THROUGH. "Move through the incident _______." If an auditor hasn't a ruddy clue about the Time Track and its composition, he or she won't ever be able to run engrams. So, obviously, the first thing to teach and have passed in engram running is Time Track Composition. When the auditor learns that, he or she will be able to run engrams. If the auditor does not know the subject of the Time Track well, then he or she can't be taught to run engrams, for no rote commands that cover all cases can exist. You couldn't teach the handling of a motion picture projector by rote commands if the operator had never imagined the existence of film. An auditor sitting there thinking the pc is doing this or that and being in a general fuddle about it will soon have film all over the floor and wrapped about his ears. His plea for a rote command will just tangle up more film so long as he doesn't know it is film and that he, not the preclear, is handling it. If an auditor can learn this, he will then be able to learn to run those small parts of the Time Track called engrams. If an auditor can't run a pc through some pleasant Time Track flawlessly, he or she sure can't run a pc through the living lightning parts of that Track called Engrams. An auditor who cannot handle the Time Track smoothly can scarcely call himself an auditor as that's all there is to audit besides postulates, no matter what process you are using, no matter what process you invent and even if you tried what is laughingly called a "biochemical approach" to the mind. There's only a Time Track for the bios to affect. There's a thetan, there's a Time Track. The thetan gets caught in the Time Track. The job of the auditor is to free the thetan by digging him out of his Time Track. So if you can't handle what you're digging a thetan out of, you're going to have an awful lot of landslides and a lot of auditing loses for both you and preclears. 288 Invent games, devices, charts and training aids galore and teach with them and you'll have auditors who can handle the Time Track and run engrams. CHARGE AND THE TIME TRACK Charge, the stored quantities of energy in the Time Track, is the sole thing that is being relieved or removed by the auditor from the Time Track. When this charge is present in huge amounts the Time Track overwhelms the pc and the pc is thrust below observation of the actual Track. This is the State of Case Scale. (All levels given are major levels. Minor levels exist between them.) Level (1) NO TRACK -- No Charge. Level (2) FULL VISIBLE TIME TRACK -- Some Charge. Level (3) SPORADIC VISIBILITY OF TRACK -- Some heavily charged areas. Level (4) INVISIBLE TRACK -- Very heavily charged areas (Black or Invisible Field) exist. Level (5) DUB-IN -- Some areas of Track so heavily charged pc is below consciousness in them. Level (6) DUB-IN OF DUB-IN -- Many areas of Track so heavily charged, the Dub-in is submerged. Level (7) ONLY AWARE OF OWN -- Track too heavily charged EVALUATIONS to be viewed at all. Level (8) UNAWARE -- Pc dull, often in a coma. On this new scale the very good, easy to run cases are at Level (3). Skilled engram running can handle down to Level (4). Engram running is useless from Level (4) down. Level (4) is questionable. Level (1) is of course an OT. Level (2) is the clearest clear anybody ever heard of. Level (3) can run engrams. Level (4) can run early track engrams if the running is skilled. (Level (4) includes the Black V case.) Level (5) has to be run on general ARC processes. Level (6) has to be run carefully on special ARC processes with lots of havingness. Level (7) responds to the CCHs. Level (8) responds only to reach and withdraw CCHs. Pre-Dianetic and Pre-Scientology mental studies were observations from Level (7) which considered Levels (5) and (6) and (8) the only states of case and oddly enough overlooked Level (7) entirely, all states of case were considered either neurotic or insane, with sanity either slightly glimpsed or decried. In actuality on some portion of every Time Track in every case you will find each of the Levels except (1) momentarily expressed. The above scale is devoted to chronic case level and is useful in Programming a case. But any case for brief moments or longer will hit these levels in being processed. This is the Temporary Case Level found only in sessions on chronically higher level cases when they go through a tough bit. Thus engram running can be seen to be limited to higher level cases. Other processing, notably modern ARC processes, moves the case up to engram running. Now what makes these levels of case? 289 It is entirely charge. The more heavily charged the case, the lower it falls on the above scale. It is charge that prevents the pc from confronting the Time Track and submerges the Time Track from view. Charge is stored energy or stored or recreatable potentials of energy. The E-Meter registers charge. A very high or low tone arm, a sticky or dirty needle, all are registrations of this charge. The "chronic meter of a case" is an index of chronic charge. The fluctuations of a meter during a session are registering relative charge in different portions of the pc's Time Track. More valuably the meter registers released charge. You can see it blowing on the meter. The disintegrating RR, the blowing down of the TA, the heavy falls, the loosening needle all show charge being released. The meter registers charge found and then charge released. It registers charge found but not yet released by the needle getting tight, by DN, by a climbing TA or a TA going far below the clear read. Then as this cleans up, the charge is seen to "blow". Charge that is restimulated but not released causes the case to "charge up", in that charge already on the Time Track is triggered but is not yet viewed by the pc. The whole cycle of restimulated charge that is then blown gives us the action of auditing. When prior charge is restimulated but not located so that it can be blown, we get "ARC Breaks". The State of Case, the Chronic Level, as given on the above scale, is the totality of charge on the case. Level (1) has no charge on it. Level (8) is total charge. The day to day condition of a case, its temper, reaction to things, brightness, depends upon two factors, (a) the totality of charge on the case and (b) the amount of charge in restimulation. Thus a case being processed varies in tone by (a) the totality of charge remaining on the case (b) the amount of charge in restimulation and (c) the amount of charge blown by processing. Charge is held in place by the basic on a chain. When only later than basic incidents are run charge can be restimulated and then bottled up again with a very small amount blown. This is known as "grinding out" an incident. An engram is getting run, but as it is not basic on a chain, no adequate amount of charge is being released. Later than basic incidents are run either (a) to uncover more basic (earlier) incidents or (b) to clean up the chain after basic has been found and erased. No full erasure of incidenand to free him of his most intimate trap, his own Time Track. You cannot have decent, honest or capable beings as long as they are trapped and overwhelmed. While this philosophy may be contrary to the intentions of a slavemaster or a degrader it is nevertheless demonstrably true. The universe is not itself a trap capable only of degradation. But beings exist who, beaten and overwhelmed themselves, can utilize this universe to degrade others. 290 The Mission of engram running is to free the charge which has accumulated in a being and so restore that being to appreciated life. All cases, sooner or later, have to be run on engrams, no matter what else has to be done. For it is in engrams that the bulk of the charge on the Time Track lies. And it is therefore those parts of the Time Track called engrams which overwhelm the thetan. These contain pain and unconsciousness and are therefore the record of moments when a thetan was most at effect and least at cause. In these moments then the thetan is least able to confront or to be causative. The engram also contains moments when it was necessary to have moved and most degrading to have held a position in space. And the engram contains the heaviest ARC Break with a thetan's environment and other beings. And all these things add up to charge, an impulse to withdraw from that which can't be withdrawn from or to approach that which can't be approached, and this, like a two pole battery, generates current. This constantly generated current is chronic charge. The principal actions are: (a) When the attention of the thetan is directed broadly in the direction of such a track record the current increases. (b) When the attention is more closely (but not forcefully) and accurately directed, the current is discharged. (c) When the basic on the chain is found and erased, that which composes the poles themselves is erased and later incidents eased, for no further generation is possible by that chain and it becomes incapable of producing further charge to be restimulated. The above are the actions which occur during auditing. If these actions do not occur despite auditing, then there is no case betterment, so it is the auditor's responsibility to make sure they do occur. As the Time Track is created by an involuntary response of the thetan, it is and exists as a real thing, composed of space, matter, energy, time and significance. On a Level (8) Case the Time Track is completely submerged by charge even down to a total unawareness of thought itself. At Level (7) awareness of the track is confined by extant charge to opinions about it. At Level (6) charge on the track is such that pictures of pictures of the track are gratuitously furnished, causing delusive copies of inaccurate copies of the track. At Level (5) charge is sufficient to cause only inaccurate copies of the track to be viewable. At Level (4) charge is sufficient to obscure the track. At Level (3) charge is sufficient to wipe out portions of the track. At Level (2) there is only enough charge to maintain the existence of the track. At Level (1) there is no charge and no track to create it. All charge from Level (1) and up into higher states that is generated is knowingly generated by the thetan, whose ability to hold locations in space and poles apart results in charge as needful. This would degenerate again as he put such matters on automatic or began once more to make a Time Track, but these actions alone are not capable of aberrating a thetan until he encounters further violent degradation and entrapment in the form of implants. Aberration itself must be calculated to occur. The existence of a Time Track only makes it possible for it to occur and be retained. Thus a thetan's first real mistake is to consider his own pictures and their recorded events important, and his second mistake is in not obliterating entrapment activities in such a way as not to become entrapped or aberrated in doing so, all of which can be done and should be. Engram running is a step necessary to get at the more fundamental causes of a Time Track and handle them. So it is a skill which must be done and done well. LRH:dr.jh Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard L. RON HUBBARD ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 291  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=24/6/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  ROUTINE 3 ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS BULLETIN 3 ROUTINE 3-R ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS   Central Orgs Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 24 JUNE AD13 Central Orgs Franchise ROUTINE 3 ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS BULLETIN 3 ROUTINE 3-R ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS Given a knowledge of the Composition and Behavior of the Time Track, engram running by chains is so simple that any auditor begins by overcomplication. You almost can't get uncomplicated enough in engram running. In teaching people to run engrams in 1949, my chief despair was summed up in one sentence to the group I was instructing: "All auditors talk too much." And that's the first lesson. The second lesson is: "All auditors acknowledge too little." Instead of cheerily acking what the pc said and saying "continue", auditors are always asking for more data, and usually for more data than the pc ever could give. Example: Pc: "I see a house here." Auditor: "Okay. How big is it?" That's not engram running, that's just a lousy Q and A. The proper action is: Pc: "I see a house here." Auditor: "Okay. Continue." The exceptions to this rule are non-existent. This isn't a special brand of engram running. It is modern engram running. It was the first engram running and is the last and you can put aside any complications in between. The auditor is permitted ONE question per each hew point of track and that is ALL. Example: Auditor: "Move to the beginning of the 88 plus trillion year incident. (Waits a moment.) What do you see?" Pc: "It's all murky." Auditor: "Good. Move through the incident." Wrong Example: Auditor: "Move to the beginning of the 88 plus trillion year incident. (Waits a moment.) What do you see?" Pc: "It's all murky." Auditor: "Can you see anything in the murk?" FLUNK! FLUNK! FLUNK! The rule is ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT THE PC SAYS AND TELL HIM TO CONTINUE. Then there's the matter of being doubtful of control. Wrong Example: Auditor: "Move to yesterday. Are you there? How do you know it's yesterday? What do you see that makes you think...." FLUNK FLUNK FLUNK. Right Example: Auditor: "Move to yesterday. (Waits a moment.) What do you see? ....... Good." Another error is a failure to take the pc's data. You take the pc's data. Never take his orders. Right Example: Auditor (meter dating): "Is it greater than eighteen trillion, less than eighteen trillion (gets contradictory reads or a DN). (Off meter.) Are you thinking of something?" Pc: "It's less than 18 trillion." Auditor: "Thank you. (On meter.) Is it greater than seventeen trillion five hundred billion. Less than...." Pc: "It's seventeen trillion, nine hundred and eight billion, four hundred and six million, ninety-five thousand, seven hundred and six years ago." Auditor (having alertly written it all down): "Thank you." (Ends dating.) 292 Wrong Example: Auditor: "Is it greater than eighteen trillion, less than eighteen tr...." Pc: "It's less than eighteen trillion." Auditor: "OK. Is it greater than eighteen trillion, less than eighteen...." FLUNK FLUNK FLUNK. In dating, the pc's contrary data unspoken and untaken can give you a completely wrong date. Your data comes from the pc and the meter always for anything. And if the pc's data is invalidated you won't get a meter's data. If the pc says he has a PTP and the meter says he doesn't, you take the pc's data that he does. In dating, an argument with the pc can group the track. So take the pc's data. And if the pc is a dub-in, you should be running the ARC processes not engrams anyway as the case is over-charged for engrams. If the pc isn't a dub-in then the pc's data is quite reliable. Also, minimize a pc's dependency on a meter. Don't keep confirming a pc's data by meter read with, "That reads. Yes, that's there. Yes, there's a rocket read...." Just let the pc find his own reality in running an engram. "All auditors talk too much." You can date on a meter but only so long as the pc doesn't cognite on the date. You can help a pc identify or choose an area of track but only if he specifically asks you to. Example: Pc: "I've got two pictures here. Can you find out which one is the earlier? One is of a freight engine, the other is a whole train." Auditor: (on meter) "Is the freight engine earlier than the whole train? Is the whole train earlier than the freight engine? (To pc) The whole train reads as earlier." Now, however, if the pc has two facsimiles, your problem is only that you've missed something. RULE: WHENEVER CHARGE IS MISSED THE TIME TRACK TENDS TO GROUP. This does not mean the Auditor has to do something about it unless the pc gets confused and asks for help, at which time the only action is to spot on the meter what charge has been missed and tell the pc. ARC BREAKS All Routine 3 ARC Breaks, including R3-N and R3-R, are handled the same way, an exact way. There is no deviation from this. If the pc becomes critical of anything outside the engram (room, auditor, Scientology, the technology) it is an ARC Break. ARC Breaks are of greater and lesser magnitude ranging throughout the misemotional band of the tone scale. The handling of ARC Breaks always follows this rule: ARC BREAK RULE 1: IF THE PC ARC BREAKS, ISSUE NO FURTHER AUDITING COMMANDS UNTIL BOTH PC AND AUDITOR ARE SATISFIED THAT THE CAUSE OF THE ARC BREAK HAS BEEN LOCATED AND INDICATED. Do not issue more orders, do not run a process, do not offer to run a process, do not sit idly letting the pc ARC Break. Follow this rule. ARC BREAK RULE 2: WHEN A PC ARC BREAKS OR CAN'T GO ON FOR ANY REASON, DO AN R3-R ARC BREAK ASSESSMENT AND LOCATE AND INDICATE TO THE PC THE BY-PASSED CHARGE. The only harm that can be done in R3-R (or R3-N) is issuing further orders to the pc or trying to run something before the by-passed charge has been located and indicated. Given this handling of ARC Breaks and an exact adherence to the rote of R3-R, all former problems of engram running vanish! 293 EARLY ENGRAM RUNNING No auditor who knew earlier than June 1963 engram running should consider he or she knows how to run engrams. Routine 3-R is itself. It has no dependence on earlier methods of running engrams. Failure to study and learn R3-R "because one knows about engram running" will cause a lot of case failure. Early engram running was often attempted on cases below Case Level 4. The technology, further, was too varied. Too much was demanded of the pc. Too little effort was put into finding the basic on a chain. Too many forcing techniques were used. Too often the auditor ran just any engram he could get. These and other faults prevented engrams from being run. R3-R is a rote procedure. That is a victory in itself. But it is a better procedure. If you know old-time engram running, there is no attempt here to invalidate you or that knowledge or make you wrong in any way. Those are all ways to run engrams and gave you a better grasp on it. I only wish to call to your attention that R3-R is not old-time engram running but is a Scientology Routine designed to achieve the state of OT and is not designed for any other use than freeing the spirit of man. Therefore, study and use R3-R and don't mix it with any earlier data on engram running. Anything you know about engram running will help you understand R3-R. But it won't help your pc if mixed in with R3-R. I couldn't put this too strongly. You'll trace any failure in the auditor with R3-R to: 1. Inability to execute the auditing cycle; 2. Inability to run a session; 3. Failure to study and understand the Time Track; 4. Failure to follow R3-R exactly without deviation; 5. Failure to handle ARC Breaks as above; 6. Using R3-R on lower level cases not prepared by pre-engram running processes. ROUTINE 3-R Engram Running by Chains is designated "Routine 3-R" to fit in with other modem processes. It is a triumph of simplicity. It does not demand visio, sonic or other perception at once by the pc. It develops them. The ordinary programming of the lowest level case would be Reach and Withdraw Processes, CCHs, Repetitive Processes, R3-R, R3-N, R3-R. Routine 3-R is the process that leads to Case Level 2. Only some additional exercises are needed, then, to attain the next level, OT. So R3-R is the fundamental bridge step to OT. And we're going only for OT now for various reasons including political. We have by-passed clear which remains only as a courtesy title denoting one or more GPMs run. Many cases, even the Black V, can begin at once on R3-R. R3-R BY STEPS R3-R is run in the 3N model session. PRELIMINARY STEP: Establish the type of chain the pc is to run by assessment. 294 STEP ONE: Locate the first incident by dating. STEP TWO: Move pc to the incident with the exact command, "Move to (date)." STEP THREE: Establish duration (length of time) of incident. (An incident may be anything from a split second long to 15 trillion trillion years or more long.) STEP FOUR: Move pc to beginning of incident with the exact command, "Move to the beginning of the incident at (date)." Wait until meter flicks. STEP FIVE: Ask pc what he or she is looking at with the exact command, "What do you see?" (If pc's eyes are open, tell pc first, "Close your eyes.") Acknowledge whatever pc says. Do not ask a second question, ever. STEP SIX: Send the pc through the incident with the exact command, "Move through the incident to a point (duration -- ) later." STEP SEVEN: Ask nothing, say nothing, do nothing (except observe meter or make quiet notes) while pc is going through the incident. If the pc says anything at all, just acknowledge and let him continue, using this exact command softly, "Okay, Continue." Do not coax, distract, or question pc during this period. Exception: only if the pc ARC Breaks, take action and then only do the R3- R ARC Break Assessment. If the pc gets stuck, bounces, gets into another incident or if the somatic strip sticks or refuses to obey the auditor, only do an ARC Break Assessment. Do not force the pc onward by any command or question. STEP EIGHT: When the pc reaches the end of the incident (usually pc moves or looks up) say only, "What happened?" Take whatever pc says, acknowledge only as needful. Say nothing else, ask nothing else. When pc has told little or much and has finished talking, give a final acknowledgement. STEP NINE: Repeat exactly and only Steps Two to Eight. Continue to do so until pc either (a) Spots an earlier incident or (b) Gets no change on a run through the incident from the run just before. In event of either (a) or (b) do Steps One to Eight exactly and only on the new incident. 295 STEP TEN: At the end of any session of R3-R leave the pc where he is on the time track. Do not attempt to bring the pc to present time or take the pc to a rest point, as these actions may very well by-pass charge. End any R3-R session with very careful goals, gains (as the pc is usually rather anaten) and any needed havingness, but keep the havingness very brief, only enough to restore can squeeze. Do not end a session on a boil-off or ARC Break. STEP ELEVEN: At the beginning of any new R3-R session, if you finished the last engram you were working on, begin precisely and anew with Step One. If you are still working on an engram already found, begin precisely with Step Four and carry on. STEP TWELVE: If the pc gets into trouble in the session do not use Mid Ruds or ask for missed withholds. Mid Ruds will mush an engram. Missed withholds, unless found as part of the ARC Break Assessment, may move the pc violently about through recently found engrams. Do only the ARC Break Assessment, and locate and indicate charge accordingly if the session goes wrong. (Since the last time I audited you Mid Ruds and missed withholds are permissible at session start before any R3-R action is taken in that session.) STEP THIRTEEN: When encountering a goals engram such as the Helatrobus Implants lay aside R3-R and use R3-N. When encountering a goals engram prior to the Helatrobus Implants or subsequent to them use R3-M2 but only when such an engram has RIs. STEP FOURTEEN: When Basic on any chain is found flatten it fully and permit it to be stripped of any lock engrams or earlier incidents that appear. (In finding basics remember that the Time Track by my most recent measurements considerably exceeds a trillion, trillion, trillion years. Basics may occur as early as they occur but seldom nearer PT than 200 trillion years ago, and quite ordinarily at 15 trillion, trillion years ago.) END OF STEPS There is no variation of these steps for any reason. This is the most exact procedure known. And there you have it, rote engram running, superior to any engram running ever done and giving superior and faster results. Future HCO Bulletins will expand the reasons for these steps, give exact methods of dating, give the ARC Break Assessment for R3-R, the assessment for types of chains, and the administration. LRH:jw.rd Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard L. RON HUBBARD ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 296  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=25/6/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  ROUTINE 2H ARC BREAKS BY ASSESSMENT   Central Orgs Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 25 JUNE AD13 Central Orgs Franchise ROUTINE 2H ARC BREAKS BY ASSESSMENT This is not just a training process. It is a very valuable unlimited process that undercuts Repetitive Processes and produces tone arm action on cases that have none on repetitive processes. R2H, however, is a training must before an auditor is permitted to run engrams. It does not have to be run on a pc before engrams are run. Only when an auditor can produce results with R2H should he or she run engrams on any pc. For R2H combines the most difficult steps of engram running, dating, assessing, locating and indicating by-passed charge. If an auditor can date skillfully and quickly handle ARC Breaks (and handle the Time Track) he or she is a safe auditor on R3R. If not, that auditor will not produce results with R3R or make any OTs. In Academies and the SHSBC, R2H is placed after skill is attained in Model Session and repetitive processes. In auditing programming R2H comes immediately after Reach and Withdraw and the CCHs. For sweetening a pc's temper and life, R2H has had no equal for cases above but not including level 8. ARC stands for the Affinity -- Reality -- Communication triangle from which comes the Tone Scale and is best covered by the booklet "Notes on Lectures". By-passed charge is covered very fully in recent HCOBs on ARC Breaks. R2H BY STEPS The auditing actions of Routine 2H are complex and must be done with great precision. The actions are done in Routine 3 Model Session. Mid Ruds and Missed Withholds may be used. STEP ONE: Tell the pc, "Recall an ARC Break." When pc has done so acknowledge that the pc has done so. Do not ask the pc what it is. If pc says what it is, simply acknowledge. It is no business of R2H to know what the ARC Break consists of! STEP TWO: Date the ARC Break on the meter. If the pc volunteers the date do not verify it on the meter further. Accept it at once and write it down. The date is more important than the content of the ARC Break. STEP THREE: Assess the ARC Break for by-passed charge, using the attached list. Find the greatest read. The assessment is seldom gone over more than once as a whole and those that read are then read again until one remains. 297 This is a rapid action on the meter. Look only for tiny ticks or falls or a small left to right slash of the needle. Do not expect large reactions. The Mark V meter is indispensable. STEP FOUR: Indicate to the pc what charge was missed in that ARC Break he or she has recalled. The pc must be satisfied that that was the charge missed. The pc may try to recall what it was that was indicated. This is not a vital part of the drill but THE PC MUST BE SATISFIED THAT THE LOCATED BY-PASSED CHARGE WAS THE SOURCE OF THE ARC BREAK. There is a danger here of a great deal of auditor ad-libbing and tanglefoot. If the pc is not satisfied and happier about it, the wrong by- passed charge has been found and Step Three must be re-done. It is no part of this process to run an engram or secondary thus located. THE ASSESSMENT FORM This is a sample form. It may be necessary to add to it. Some lines of it may eventually be omitted. However, this form does work. The auditor may add a few lines to it. In asking the questions preface the whole assessment with, "In the ARC Break you recalled _______." Do not preface each question so unless pc goes adrift. A dirty needle means pc has started to speculate. Ask, "Have you thought of anything?" and clean needle. Had an engram been missed? Had a withhold been missed? Had some emotion been rejected? Had some affection been rejected? Had a reality been rejected? Had a communication been ignored? Had a similar incident occurred before? Had a goal been disappointed? Had some help been rejected? Was an engram restimulated? Had an overt been committed? Had an overt been contemplated? Had an overt been prevented? Was there a secret? Routine 2H is a skilled operation. Practice gives the auditor a knack of doing it rapidly. An ARC Break should be disposed of about every fifteen minutes of auditing time. Longer shows ineptitude. LRH:dr.cden Copyright $c 1963 L. RON HUBBARD by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 298  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=1/7/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  ROUTINE 3R BULLETIN 4 PRELIMINARY STEP   Central Orgs Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 1 JULY AD13 Central Orgs Franchise ROUTINE 3R BULLETIN 4 PRELIMINARY STEP The R3R Preliminary Step is done to assure that the correct incident chain is run on the pc for that pc. Many chains, locks, secondaries and engrams, are available on any pc. But some of them are beyond the pc's reality and ability and some of them are too featherweight to get any case gain. The basic problem in starting a case on R3R is to run the pc on a chain that will (a) improve the case, (b) hold the pc's interest, (c) be within the pc's current ability to handle. The establishing of the correct chain was a missing element in all earlier engram running. Almost any pc from Level 7 upwards could have run engrams if the exact chain necessary to resolve the case could have been established. This is accomplished now by an accurate assessment using a sensitive E-Meter and the following form and procedure. It does not matter if the pc begins on a chain of locks, secondaries or engrams so long as running it does (a), (b) and (c) above. You do not have to specify in R3R whether you are running engrams, secondaries or locks. The word "Incident" covers all. Also, it does not matter if the pc stays within this lifetime or goes whole track so long as the assessed chain is followed and a basic eventually discovered for it. The chain leads where the chain leads. But once having found the proper chain the auditor must follow that chain, not skip about. To do this, the auditor, when asking for an earlier incident in later R3R steps always specifies the proper chain found in this assessment by the Level + Item result of this Preliminary Step Assessment. For example, if the chain found here in the Preliminary Step is "Decisions to die" (Level found = Decided + Item Found = To die), one obtains earlier incidents by always saying, "Is the next earlier decision to die more than ....... years ago? Less than ....... years ago?" Thus the result obtained in the Preliminary Step is used on and on until an actual basic is reached. This may be fifty or more engrams run and perhaps even some R3N in the middle of the chain if the chain leads into a GPM by normal rote use of R3R. When a basic is reached and discharged and the chain being run now gives little or no TA action (or even free needle), a new Preliminary Step is done. But until that happens, this Preliminary Step is not repeated with the other steps. Once it has happened (a basic found and run), however, a new Preliminary Step is done exactly as given here for the first chain assessment. You find the chain. You run engram after engram on that chain (or lock after lock or secondary after secondary). You find a basic. You run the basic thoroughly. With TA action now gone on the chain found you do a new Preliminary Step. RULE: TA ACTION EXISTS ON THE CORRECT CHAIN. RULE: A CHAIN ONCE ASSESSED MUST BE FULLY RUN. RULE: TA ACTION CEASES ON A DISCHARGED CHAIN. 299 RULE: A NEW ASSESSMENT IS DONE ONLY WHEN A CHAIN IS DISCHARGED. RULE: ANY PROPERLY ASSESSED CHAIN WILL PRODUCE TA ACTION. RULE: IF A CHAIN ASSESSED DOES NOT PRODUCE IMMEDIATE TA ACTION WITH SKILLED R3R THE ASSESSMENT (OR THE RESULTING QUESTION FORMED) IS INCORRECT. ------------ The exact procedure of assessment is: 1. Assess pc by elimination as below for a R3R Form Level. 2. List the Form Level found to a completed List. 3. Nul the completed list to a single subject. 4. Use the Form Level plus subject to designate the character of the incident to be found every time an incident is looked for. All rules of listing as developed in R2-12 apply to this Preliminary Step. They are not repeated here. One is not looking for RRs or RSes in the Preliminary Step Assessment. Any type of read is valid. ARC BREAKS When doing this step of R3R use the ARC Break Assessment for Listing Form, not the R3R ARC Break Assessment Form. The main sources of ARC Breaks in the Preliminary Step are: 1. Wrong level assessed. 2. The listed list incomplete. 3. The wrong Item taken from the list. 4. A former chain or engram abandoned to do a new assessment. 5. Earlier levels restimulated (old Pre-Hav auditing). 6. Earlier listing restimulated. Such forms will be published from time to time as they tend to change and improve. EARLIER ASSESSMENTS DONE The very earliest assessment (1948) used was "What the pc could see" when he closed his or her eyes. This was then run. This was followed by an arbitrary method of assigning necessary incidents to be run such as birth and prenatals. The next earliest assessment (1949) was to ask each time for "the incident necessary to resolve the case". An automaticity known as the "File Clerk" was depended upon, impinged into action by finger snapping. The next period (1951) concerned whole track exploration running whatever you could get to read on a meter. The next period (1952) concerned overt engrams located by what the pc seemed to be doing physically. This ended the Dianetic period where engrams were run to clear but mainly to cure psychosomatic illnesses. Variations of these assessments were revived from time to time in Dianetic uses, culminating in the 5th London ACC where overt engrams were run with confront and great stress was laid on getting the postulates out of them. The meter and shrewd guesses played their part in assessments. 300 Up to this time there was a great dependence on "insight" and judgment. We were barred to some degree by my own ability to see other people's pictures which made engram running very easy for me to do, along with my general knowledge of the whole track and the mind. This led me to be very hard to convince that engram assessment was a subject at all or that most auditors couldn't do it. With the advent of Scientology with its complete shift from Dianetic goals, healing went out as a reason for running engrams and concern about the body vanished as an auditing target. This led to stresses on exteriorization of the spirit, moving it away from the body. As the reactive bank was thought to be part of the body, its engrams received no further attention. Eventually I discovered that the thetan had engrams and that these were being automatically (involuntarily) created by him. Engram running has vanished as a healing process. Engram handling by chains has emerged as an entirely reoriented subject, not even vaguely connected with the body and with the target not of a human clear but of Operating Thetan. The assessment for engram chains (or any kind of chain) emerges finally in Routine 3R. This assessment technology from beginning to end is Scientology. None of it was ever heard of in Dianetics. Therefore we have crossed a bridge. I have finally understood that precise assessment is vital for an auditor and that an auditor can learn the exact chain to be run on the pc without any intuition or second sight and that even my own auditing is bettered thereby, and that the thetan cannot be freed and re-empowered without an assessment and rote technology for engram running. This is R3R. The earliest R3R assessment for chains was done by pc interest and the button Protested, The pc was merely asked, "In this Lifetime what have you protested?" and with no listing, whatever the pc said and seemed interested in was taken. This however did not often produce adequate TA action when the chain was then run. The next improvement was using the 18 Prepcheck buttons. This drew a blank on some pcs, no level reacting. Accordingly, I then developed a new Pre-Hav Scale, based mainly on flows. It is Protest that is basically responsible for making a mental image picture. However, very few cases are up to this level. In order to bring more levels of case under engram running and to get more TA action for any case, I developed this Preliminary Step Scale. The present scale takes some account of (1) The old Pre-Hav Scale, (2) The Know-to-Mystery Scale, (3) The Chart of Attitudes, (4) The 18 Buttons and (5) The Flows Scale, as well as some old well-known buttons. Several possible levels (such as Create) have been left out because they would go at once into the GPM or Implant Goals. It may not be important that they do. Indeed, with experience we may even come to guide the pc at them. But for the moment they are left out. There would be nothing wrong in borrowing further from these sources to draw up a longer Preliminary Step Scale, but I think this should cover most pcs. The three most important visible factors in R3R are: (a) Pc's interest. (b) Tone Arm Action. (c) The ability of the pc to run the incidents. If the auditor can see these he knows his Preliminary Assessment was right. Interest does not mean happiness and joy. Interest is only absorbed attention and a desire to talk about it. Tears, terror or agony may be present without the Interest factor being absent. A chain of engrams is expected to produce pain and anaten. A chain of secondaries is expected to produce misemotion. These have nothing in them to head an auditor off a chain. 301 Equally, significance and story content have no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of a chain selected. They are entirely incidental to judging the correctness of a chain. All the auditor is interested in is whether (a) the pc is interested; (b) the TA action is good and (c) can the pc run the incidents on the chain with correct and exact R3R. That careless auditing and bad R3R can influence (c), leaves us with only two exact criteria for a correct assessment: (a) Pc's Interest and (b) TA Action while running incidents. Only these two things tell us the assessment was right. The assessment can be right and unskilled R3R can wreck both in the later steps, a fact which has to be taken into account in reviewing cases in progress. R3R ASSESSMENT This is the Assessment for R3R Preliminary Step. In this form will be recognized the old Pre-Hav Scales and others, but improved for the purpose of engram chain assessment. This assessment must be done accurately. It is hard to do if the pc doesn't understand a level during assessment, ks startled by one or disagrees. These will make the assessment inaccurate. If the assessment is inaccurately done, the pc will ARC Break or the resulting engram chain will not give TA action when being run. The final level assessed will probably give TA action at once when found if right. The key sentence in assessing is "In this lifetime have you mainly ....... (level)." This is repeated for each level called. Levels are called once, as in ordinary elimination. Those that stayed in are reassessed the same way. The one form can be used for many additional assessments on the same pc as chains are run out. The use of this form brings R3R down to Case Level 7 in workability. A chain of engrams being run must give TA action. If none is present in running engrams and the TA stays high or low the assessment was wrong. The level found here is used to make and complete a list with the question, "In this lifetime what have you ....... (level found)?" "In this lifetime" is used not because we only want chains in this lifetime but to keep pc from going all over the track during the preliminary assessment, this making it too long. The chain you want comes into this lifetime. All rules of listing apply as in R2-12A in doing this list. In event of an ARC Break while doing the Preliminary Step, use the ARC Break Assessment for Listing. If needle dirties up in assessing this form, give form to pc and ask "What happened?" and if that fails, get in BMRs "On this Assessment". SUPPRESSED WITHHELD FAILED TO SUPPRESS FAILED TO WITHHOLD NOT SUPPRESSED NOT WITHHELD INVALIDATED PROTESTED FAILED TO INVALIDATE FAILED TO PROTEST NOT INVALIDATED NOT PROTESTED BEEN CAREFUL WITHDRAWN FAILED TO BE CAREFUL FAILED TO WITHDRAW NOT BEEN CAREFUL NOT WITHDRAWN SUGGESTED CONVINCED FAILED TO SUGGEST FAILED TO CONVINCE NOT SUGGESTED NOT CONVINCED 302 PROVEN AGREED FAILED TO PROVE FAILED TO AGREE NOT PROVEN NOT AGREED HIDDEN DISAGREED FAILED TO HIDE FAILED TO DISAGREE NOT HIDDEN NOT DISAGREED REVEALED IGNORED FAILED TO REVEAL FAILED TO IGNORE NOT REVEALED NOT IGNORED MADE MISTAKES DECIDED FAILED TO MISTAKE FAILED TO DECIDE NOT MADE MISTAKES NOT DECIDED ASSERTED PROPITIATED FAILED TO ASSERT FAILED TO PROPITIATE NOT ASSERTED NOT PROPITIATED CHANGED HELD OFF FAILED TO CHANGE FAILED TO HOLD OFF NOT CHANGED NOT HELD OFF DAMAGED PULLED IN FAILED TO DAMAGE FAILED TO PULL IN NOT DAMAGED NOT PULLED IN REMAINED HELPED FAILED TO REMAIN FAILED TO HELP NOT REMAINED NOT HELPED PREVENTED KNOWN FAILED TO PREVENT FAILED TO KNOW NOT PREVENTED NOT KNOWN PRESSED ON CAUSED FAILED TO PRESS ON FAILED TO CAUSE NOT PRESSED ON NOT CAUSED BEEN RIGHT BELIEVED FAILED TO BE RIGHT FAILED TO BELIEVE NOT BEEN RIGHT NOT BELIEVED BEEN WRONG CURED FAILED TO BE WRONG FAILED TO CURE NOT BEEN WRONG NOT CURED WON LIKED FAILED TO WIN FAILED TO LIKE NOT WON NOT LIKED LOST AVOIDED FAILED TO LOSE FAILED TO AVOID NOT LOST NOT AVOIDED 303 BLOCKED BEEN BORED FAILED TO BLOCK NOT BEEN BORED NOT BLOCKED BEEN ANTAGONISTIC RETREATED NOT BEEN ANTAGONISTIC FAILED TO RETREAT NOT RETREATED ENDURED FAILED TO ENDURE REACHED NOT ENDURED FAILED TO REACH NOT REACHED ABANDONED FAILED TO ABANDON ATTACKED NOT ABANDONED FAILED TO ATTACK NOT ATTACKED GIVEN UP STOPPED FAILED TO GIVE UP FAILED TO STOP NOT GIVEN UP NOT STOPPED BEEN SANE CONFRONTED FAILED TO BE SANE FAILED TO CONFRONT NOT BEEN SANE NOT CONFRONTED BEEN CURIOUS COMMUNICATED FAILED TO BE CURIOUS FAILED TO COMMUNICATE NOT BEEN CURIOUS NOT COMMUNICATED DESIRED BEEN PRIDEFUL FAILED TO DESIRE FAILED TO BE PROUD NOT DESIRED NOT BEEN PRIDEFUL ENFORCED SYMPATHIZED FAILED TO ENFORCE FAILED TO SYMPATHIZE NOT ENFORCED NOT SYMPATHIZED INHIBITED RECOVERED FAILED TO INHIBIT FAILED TO RECOVER NOT INHIBITED NOT RECOVERED BEEN ANGRY HAD FAILED TO BE ANGRY FAILED TO HAVE NOT HAD RESENTED FAILED TO RESENT LOOKED NOT RESENTED FAILED TO LOOK NOT LOOKED FEARED SERENE FAILED TO FEAR FAILED TO BE SERENE NOT FEARED BEEN ENTHUSIASTIC BEEN IN GRIEF FAILED TO BE ENTHUSIASTIC FAILED TO CRY BEEN CONSERVATIVE BEEN APATHETIC FAILED TO BE CONSERVATIVE FAILED TO BE APATHETIC 304 INFLOWED THOUGHT FAILED TO INFLOW FAILED TO THINK STOPPED INFLOW NOT THOUGHT OUTFLOWED EVALUATED FAILED TO OUTFLOW FAILED TO EVALUATE STOPPED OUTFLOW NOT EVALUATED HAD OPINIONS ABOUT FAILED TO HAVE OPINIONS ABOUT NOT HAD OPINIONS ABOUT In nulling this scale the pc may suddenly break down emotionally or get an overpowering reaction. (Not just a twinge or an interest in a level, since the pc will not know the real level until it is found.) If so, STOP, don't go on. Go back to above the point where pc was all right and then carefully null back down to where you stopped. Go over this area getting in suppress and invalidate if needful and you'll have the pc's level found. You may lead into ARC Breaks if you persist in going on as you have by-passed charge. But the pc's reaction must be large for you to use this mechanism. Beware of a "sell" by the pc. A pc doesn't know the level until it is actually found. Some pcs will decide on a level and it will then read. In such a case get in Protested and Decided with "On this scale have you ....... " by fast check. Don't let your pc mess up an assessment by a "sell" or decision. But don't keep on down a long assessment of this scale with the pc shattered by pain or emotion as the pc will suppress the right level. When you have found the pc's level on the above scale by elimination, then list the following question, using that level found: "In this lifetime what have you ....... (level found)?" List the list to a clean needle so that it nuls very easily, leaving a very few in on the first nulling, only two or three in on the second nulling of what has been left in. Put mid ruds in on these if necessary. Nul out to the final Item. Combine the Level found and the Item found. This is a very simple step. The wording may have to be altered in tense but not in sense. "Decided" may become "Decision". "Failed to think" may become "Failure to think". In the Item found some shift of the pc's wording may be needful. But be very careful that you get a combination of Level and Item that makes sense to the pc and reads on the meter without protest reading too. These reads are often not very large and at best assume steep falls with TA action. So be careful to add up the Level and the Item found to a sensible statement that does not alter the sense. For instance you can err greatly if the Level was "Fear" and the Item was "Entrapment" if you vary it to "Fear of Traps". That won't give you the same chain at all. The correct one is "Fear of Entrapment" of course. You can have a correct Level, a correct Item and then fail to combine the two sensibly. If so you will get (a) A confused pc and (b) A wrong chain. Either way you'll get little TA action and no R3R done. The Level "Failed to Convince" and the Item "Father" had better be left just that way. It gives a short chain, this lifetime, soon done. By changing the Item "Father" to "Fathers" you would go whole track but the significance is wildly altered and might not run at all. The less alteration the better. And never alter the sense of it. Use the question: "Is the first available (Level) (Item) incident earlier than five years ago? Later than five years ago?" And using times to suit, go on with Step One of R3R. (Note: The above scale is in random order of arrangement at this time and positions of levels on the scale have no significance.) L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dr.rd Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 305  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=5/7/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  ALL ROUTINES ARC BREAK ASSESSMENTS   Franchise Academies CenOCon BPI (HCO Secs: Check out all ARC Break Assessment HCO Bulletins on all executives including registrars and on all staff auditors and Instructors)  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 5 JULY AD13 Franchise Academies ALL ROUTINES CenOCon BPI (HCO Secs: Check out all ARC Break Assessment HCO Bulletins on all executives including registrars and on all staff auditors and Instructors) ARC BREAK ASSESSMENTS These lists are valuable. Intelligently used they put an auditor or Scientology staff or executive at cause over all session ARC Breaks and Scientology upsets. The following Assessments are for use in finding by-passed charge in various auditing activities. The source of all ARC Breaks is by-passed charge. There is no other source of ARC Breaks. The type of charge that can be by-passed varies from one auditing activity to another (R3R, 3N, etc). Therefore different lists for assessment are necessary for different Routines in auditing. Another list for general auditing is also necessary. Everything that has been written about by-passed charge is valid. All by- passed charge is in some degree a missed withhold, missed by both auditor and pc. Having these lists for assessment, there is no excuse for an ARC Break to long continue in a session or for anyone to remain ARC Broken with Scientology. The following assessments find what kind of charge has been missed. It is then up to the auditor to locate it more precisely as to character and time and indicate it to the pc. The pc will feel better the moment the right type of by-passed charge is identified by assessment and indicated by the auditor. If the pc does not feel better but further ARC Breaks then the assessment is either incomplete or incorrect. Many complicated ways exist for a charge to be by-passed. There is no reason to go into these. You will find it is always by-passed charge and that it could have been located and indicated in any ARC Break. R2H is the training process for use of these lists. In R2H devoted to "In auditing" or when an ARC Break is found in a past auditing session during an R2H session the type of list that applied to that session is used. There are four ways of using these lists. The first is to assess by elimination and come up with one list line still reading on the meter and indicate it as the charge to the pc. The second is to go down a list taking each one that reads and clearing it up with the pc, finishing the whole list and then finally indicate what read the most. The third way is like the second except that the pc is required to help find what made the type of charge read and actually identify it as a particular thing. The fourth way is to assess only for biggest read or one line and have the pc help spot it. The third way is the one most commonly used at the end of a session where it is just cleaning up the session, and each question is completely cleaned on the needle in turn. The first way is most used on violent ARC Breaks. The second or the fourth ways are used in R2H. Assessment often has to be done through a dirty needle. No effort is made to clean it up before assessment. And just because the needle is dirty is no reason to call them all "in". Learn to read through a DN for both ARC Break Assessments and dating. It is rather easy to do with a Mark V meter as the characteristic of the DN shifts when one is "in". No effort has been made here to convert the words to non-Scientology language, as the sense would be lost to a Scientologist. These lists are all bare-bone and contain only the usual types of by- passed charge. They may be added to as experience with them increases. They become too unwieldy when they are too long. The only way you can get confused as to how to locate and indicate charge is by finding the wrong charge. 306 GENERAL ARC BREAK ASSESSMENT Used in general sessions of all kinds where an ARC Break has occurred, or at session end in all routines and for R2H. The prefix sentence "In this session has???" is used when cleaning up a session at its end or during the session. "At that time had"??" is used for R2H. The actual date may be occasionally substituted for "time" to keep the pc oriented but only if necessary. LIST L-1 a withhold been missed? some emotion been rejected? some affinity been rejected? a reality been refused? a communication been cut short? a communication been ignored? an earlier rejection of emotion been restimulated? an earlier rejection of affinity been restimulated? an earlier refusal of reality been restimulated? an earlier ignored communication been restimulated? a wrong reason for an upset been given? a similar incident occurred before? something been done other than what was said? a goal been disappointed? some help been rejected? a decision been made? an engram been restimulated? an earlier incident been restimulated? there been a sudden shift of attention? something startled you? a perception been prevented? a willingness not been acknowledged? there been no auditing? (Note: If "overt" is added to this list or any BMR buttons, the scale cannot be used in an R3R or 3N session as these "mush" up engrams.) (Note: If this list is used do not also use any other end rudiments except goals, gains and pc's havingness.) ASSESSMENT SESSIONS LISTING SESSIONS PRELIMINARY STEP R3R THE ARC BREAK FOR ASSESSMENTS LIST When doing any listing step or type of auditing use the following list for ARC Break Assessment in event of an ARC Break in the session or at session end. The prefix "In this session has..." is used for a listing session, and "In that session had..." if a listing session ARC Break is recalled by the pc doing R2H. LIST L-2 an incorrect level been found? an incorrect item been found? a list not been completed? a level abandoned? an item abandoned? you not given items you thought of? a goal been restimulated? 307 an implant been restimulated? an engram been restimulated? a withhold been missed? earlier listing been restimulated? earlier wrong levels been restimulated? earlier wrong items been restimulated? earlier listing ARC Breaks been restimulated? ROUTINE R3R ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS In all engram running sessions, and those combined with 3N in that session, use the following list. Prefix each question with "In this session have..." in event of an ARC Break or at session end. For R2H where an ARC Break is discovered in an earlier engram running session (clear back to 1950), prefix with "In that session had the auditor..." and omit "I" and "we". LIST L-3 I found an incorrect date? I found an incorrect duration? I demanded more than you could see? two or more engrams been found on the same date? you skidded to another incident? we moved to another chain? we gotten to a goals implant? we scanned through a GPM? we restimulated an earlier incident? we restimulated an earlier implant? we restimulated an earlier ARC Break on engrams? we failed to find the real beginning of the incident? we by-passed important data? we skipped an incident? two or more incidents been confused? I missed a withhold on you? we left an incident too heavily charged? we scanned through one or more series of goal implants? we abandoned a chain? we abandoned an incident? I prevented you from running an incident? I changed processes on you? (Note: Do NOT use any BMR buttons during engram running or add overts to this list as they will "mush" engrams.) ROUTINE 3N GPMs, ALL GOALS SESSIONS When a session is being run on GPMs or goals no matter with what routine, use the following ARC Break assessment when any ARC Break, great or small, occurs (or when pc becomes critical of the auditor even "playfully"). If R3R and R3N are both run in the same session, do both L -- 3 and L -- 4. 308 Prefix the lines with "In this session have...", or for R2H ARC Breaks found in goals sessions "In that session had the auditor..." and omit "I" or "we". In event that the current pc was the auditor in that session and ARC Broke (applies also to List L -- 3 above) use List L -- 1. LIST L-4 I given you an incorrect item? I given you a wrongly worded goal? I given you a wrong goal? I left an Item charged? I skipped an Item? I skipped more than one Item? I skipped a goal? I skipped more than one goal? we restimulated an earlier wrong goal? we restimulated an earlier wrong item? we restimulated an earlier implant? I failed to give you a goal? I failed to give you an item? I misdated a goal? you run items out of different GPMs (or goals)? we run more than one series of goals? we restimulated an earlier goals series? we restimulated an earlier engram? you skidded on the time track? we gone over an engram inside this GPM? we restimulated another GPM? we missed part of the incident? I given you no auditing? I missed a withhold on you? we missed some other kind of charge? we abandoned a goal? we abandoned an item? I given you more Items than are here? I given you more goals than are here? we listed an item wrong way to? I restimulated earlier errors in running GPMs? we slipped into a later goals series? I changed processes on you? L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.cden Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [The above lists have been later revised by HCO Bs 19 March 1971, List-1-C, Volume VII, page 203; 11 April 1971RA, Revised 8 March 1974, L3RD -- Dianetics and Int RD Repair List, Volume VIII, page 265; and 15 December 1968R, Revised 2 June 1972, L4BR -- For Assessment of All Listing Errors, Volume VIII, page 138.] 309  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=5/7/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  CCHs REWRITTEN  Type = 11 iDate=2/11/61 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0 Type = 21 iDate=15/5/62 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  CenOCon Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 5 JULY 1963 (REPLACED -- see HCO B 1 Dec 65 Volume VI -- 118) CenOCon Franchise CCHs REWRITTEN (Replaces HCO Bulletin of 2 November 1961, "Training CCHs" and HCO Policy Letter of 15 May 1962, "CCHs Rewritten") The following revised rundown on the CCHs is to be used by all Students in Scientology Orgs. CONTROL-COMMUNICATION-HAVINGNESS PROCESSES The following rundown of CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4 has been slightly amended. They are for use in training. CCHs are run as follows: CCH 1 to a flat point then CCH 2 to a flat point then CCH 3 to a flat point then CCH 4 to a flat point then CCH 1 to a flat point, etc. To bring the CCH training into line with current methods of teaching TRs, etc, at the end of each drill a list of Coach's questions is given. In addition Coach should take instructions from the "Commands" and "Training Stress" and frame them in the form of questions. For example, in CCH 1 Coach could ask, "Did you make every command and cycle separate?" Coach must avoid invalidating Student and not ask questions on what Coach thinks the Student has done wrong. The correct method is to ask a few questions at a time choosing and forming questions at random. On the other hand Coach should not ask a question about something that has not happened in the drill. For example, in CCH 3, if Coach has not manifested a "dope-off", Coach would not ask, "When I doped off did you take my hand and execute the command one hand at a time?" No. CCH 1. NAME: GIVE ME THAT HAND. Tone 40. COMMANDS: GIVE ME THAT HAND. Physical action of taking hand when not given and then replacing it in the Coach's lap. Making physical contact with the Coach's hand if Coach resists. THANK YOU ending each cycle. All Tone 40 with clear intention, one command in one unit of time. Take up each new physical change manifested as though it were an origin by the Coach, when it happens, and querying it by asking "What's happening?" This two-way comm is not Tone 40. Run only on the right hand. POSITION: Student and Coach seated in chairs without arms. Student's knees on outside of both Coach's knees. PURPOSE: To demonstrate to pc that control of pc's body is possible, despite revolt of circuits, and inviting pc to directly control it. Absolute control by auditor then passes over towards absolute control of his own body by pc. TRAINING STRESS: Never stop process until a flat place is reached. Freezes may be introduced at end of cycle, this being after the THANK YOU and before the next command, maintaining a solid comm line, to ascertain information from the Coach or to bridge from the process. This is done between two commands, holding the Coach's hand after acknowledgement. Coach's hand should be clasped with exactly correct pressure. Make every command and cycle separate. Maintain Tone 40, stress on intention from Student to Coach with each command. To leave an instant for Coach to do it by own will before Student decides to take hand or make contact with it. Stress 310 Tone 40 precision; can be coached for some time silently with Coach looking for silent Student intention. Student indicates hand by nod of head. COACH'S QUESTIONS: CCH 1: 1. What is a Tone 40 Command? (Intention without reservation) 2. Did you give me a Tone 40 Command? 3. Was the command executed? 4. What is a change? (Any physical observed manifestation) 5. Did you notice any change? 6. What was it? 7. Did you take it up with me? 8. Did you introduce a freeze at end of cycle to ascertain information from me or to bridge from the process? HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in the 17th ACC Washington DC, 1957. No. CCH 2. NAME: TONE 40 8C. COMMANDS: YOU LOOK AT THAT WALL. THANK YOU. YOU WALK OVER TO THAT WALL. THANK YOU. YOU TOUCH THAT WALL. THANK YOU. TURN AROUND. THANK YOU. Take up each new physical change manifested as though it were an origin by the Coach, when it happens, and querying it by asking "What's happening?" This two- way comm is not Tone 40. Commands smoothly enforced physically when necessary. Tone 40, full intention. POSITION: Student and Coach ambulant, Student in physical contact with Coach as needed. PURPOSE: To demonstrate to pc that his body can be controlled and thus inviting him to control it. To orient him in his present time Environment. To increase his ability to duplicate and thusly increase his Havingness. TRAINING STRESS: Absolute Student precision. No drops from Tone 40. No flubs. Total present time. Student on Coach's right side. Student's body acts as block to forward motion when Coach tums. Student gives command, gives Coach a moment to obey, then enforces command with physical contact of exactly correct force to get command executed. Student does not block Coach from executing commands. Method of introduction as in CCH 1. Freezes may be introduced at the end of cycle, this being after the THANK YOU and before the next command, maintaining a solid comm line, to ascertain information from the Coach or to bridge from the process, this being the acknowledgement "THANK YOU" after the command "TURN AROUND". COACH'S QUESTIONS: CCH 2: 1. What is a Tone 40 Command? (Intention without reservation) 2. Did you give me a Tone 40 Command? 3. Was the command executed? 4. What is a change? (Any physical observed manifestation) 5. Did you notice any change? 6. What was it? 7. Did you take it up with me? 8. Did you introduce a freeze at end of cycle to ascertain information from me or to bridge from the process?) HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington DC, in 1957 for the 17th ACC. 311 No. CCH 3. NAME: HAND SPACE MIMICRY. COMMANDS: Student raises 2 hands palms facing Coach's about an equal distance between the Student and Coach and says "PUT YOUR HANDS AGAINST MINE, FOLLOW THEM AND CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION." He then makes a simple motion with right hand then left. "DID YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION?" Acknowledge answer. Student allows Coach to break solid comm line. When this is flat, the Student does this same with a half inch of space between his and the Coach's palms. The command being "PUT YOUR HANDS FACING MINE ABOUT 1/2 INCH AWAY, FOLLOW THEM AND CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION." "DID YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION?" Acknowledge. When this is flat, Student does it with a wider space and so on until Coach is able to follow motions a yard away. POSITION: Student and Coach seated, close together facing each other, Coach's knees between Student's knees. PURPOSE: To develop reality on the auditor using the reality scale (solid communication line). To get pc into communication by control and duplication. To find auditor. TRAINING STRESS: That Student be gentle and accurate in his motions, all motions being Tone 40, giving pc wins. To be free in 2-way communication. That process be introduced and run as a formal process. To teach student that if coach dopes off in this process Student may take Coach's wrist and help him execute the command one hand at a time. That if Coach does not answer during anaten to question "DID YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION?", Student may wait for normal comm lag of that Coach, acknowledge and continue process. COACH'S QUESTIONS: CCH-3: 1. What is a Tone 40 motion? (Intention without reservation) 2. Did you give me a Tone 40 motion? 3. Was the motion executed? 4. What is a change? (Any physical observed manifestation) 5. Did you notice any change? 6. What was it? 7. Did you take it up with me? 8. Did you do a simple movement? 9. Define two-way communication. (One question -- the right one.) 10. Did you receive a verbal origination? 11. Did you understand it? 12. Did you acknowledge it? 13. Did you return me to session? 14. Did you double question me? 15. Did you change because I had changed? 16. Did you follow my instruction? 17. What did you do? 18. What happened? HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington DC, 1956, as a therapeutic version of Dummy Hand Mimicry. Something was needed to supplant 'Look at me' 'Who am I?' and 'Find the auditor' part of rudiments. No. CCH 4. NAME: BOOK MIMICRY. COMMANDS: THERE ARE NO SET VERBAL COMMANDS. Student makes simple motions with a book. Hands book to the Coach. Coach makes motion, duplicating Student's mirror-image-wise. Student asks pc if he is satisfied that the Coach duplicated the motion. If Coach is and Student is also fairly satisfied, 312 Student takes back the book and goes to next command. If Coach is not sure that he duplicated any command, Student repeats it for him and gives him back the book. If Coach is sure he did and Student can see duplication is pretty wrong, Student accepts Coach's answer and continues on a gradient scale of motions either with the left or right hand till Coach can do original command correctly. This ensures no invalidation of the Coach. Tone 40, only in motions, verbal 2-way quite free. POSITION: Student and Coach seated facing each other, a comfortable distance apart. PURPOSE: To bring up pc's communication with control and duplication (control and duplication = communication). TRAINING STRESS: Stress giving Coach wins. Stress Student's necessity to duplicate his own commands. Circular motions are more complex than straight lines. Tolerance of plus or minus randomity are apparent here and the Student should probably begin on the Coach with motions that begin in the same place each time and are neither very fist nor very slow, nor very complex. Introduced by the Student seeing that Coach understands what is to be done, as here is no verbal command, formal process. COACH'S QUESTIONS: CCH 4: 1. What is a Tone 40 motion? (Intention without reservation) 2. Did you give me a Tone 40 motion? 3. Was the motion executed? 4. What is a change? (Any physical observed manifestation) 5. Did you notice any change? 6. What was it? 7. Did you take it up with me? 8. Did you do a simple movement? 9. Define two-way communication. (One question -- the right one.) 10. Did you receive a verbal origination? 11. Did you understand it? 12. Did you acknowledge it? 13. Did you return me to session? 14. Did you double question me? 15. Did you change because I had changed? 16. Did you follow my instruction? 17. What did you do? 18. What happened? HISTORY: Developed by L.R.H. for the 16th ACC in Washington DC, 1957. Based on duplication. Developed by L.R.H. in London, 1952. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dr.rd Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [This HCO B is replaced by HCO B 1 December 1965, CCHs, Volume VI, page 118. See also HCO PL 17 May 1965, CCHs, Volume VI, page 40, which says that processes may not be used as drills.] 313  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=9/7/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  A TECHNICAL SUMMARY THE REQUIRED SKILLS OF PROCESSING AND WHY   Central Orgs Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 9 JULY 1963 Central Orgs Franchise A TECHNICAL SUMMARY THE REQUIRED SKILLS OF PROCESSING AND WHY Here is where we stand and where we're going. An auditor, to make a Clear or OT, has to be able to handle confidently certain skills. Today we assume that every successful process we ever had is and was a valid process. We are at a point of summation and valuation as we are achieving excellent and steady progress even on the most unlikely cases. I consider that the period of basic mental research has ended and the period of adjustment of skills, on which I will for some time be engaged, has been entered upon. I list here the auditor skills which are requisite to handle any case. SKILLS BY CASE LEVEL Case Levels 8, 7 and 6 Objective Processes Reach and Withdraw Commands CCHs Havingness Processes Case Levels 7, 6 and 5 Model Session Repetitive Command Processes R2H Meter Reading Simple Assessment of a form Case Levels 6, 5, 4 and 3 Assessment of Levels Listing and nulling Lists R3R 3N These constitute, to use another table, the following exact skills: Handling the pc's body (as in Reach and Withdraw or 8c). Ability to execute the auditing cycle. Ability to give repetitive commands. Ability to handle a meter. Ability to run a Model Session and keep the pc in session. Ability to read a Tone Arm. Ability to accurately meter date. Ability to run R2H. 314 Ability to locate and handle ARC Breaks. Ability to assess a simple form. Ability to find a level. Ability to list, complete and nul a list. Ability to run R3R. Ability to do 3N. Ability to do a form Line Plot for a GPM. Ability to do a Line Plot for an off-beat GPM. Ability to list for and find a goal. Ability to list for and find a top oppterm. Knowledge of the Time Track. Knowledge of the Thetan. Knowledge of the basics of Life. A General Knowledge of Scientology. (Note: The abilities of R3R, R3N and R2H are also listed separately in the above.) These, briefly, are the skills required to make an OT. They are well taught at Saint Hill. They are practiced in Central Orgs as fast as released. HCO Bulletins exist on nearly all this material, except some fine points of R3R which are known but not yet written up, and some of the R3N Line Plots not yet issued. BASIC SKILLS If you examine the above you will find that where the auditor cannot do the required skill the faults are only one or more of the following: Cannot execute the auditing cycle. Cannot execute an auditing cycle repetitively. Cannot handle a session. Cannot read a meter. Cannot study and apply Scientology data. Given the ability to execute the auditing cycle once or repetitively, handle a session, read a meter and study and apply procedures, all the above listed auditing skills are easily acquired and successfully done. Therefore in looking for the reasons for no results, one finds the failure to apply the required procedure and in tracing that, one inevitably finds one or more of these five basics amiss in the auditor. It is no longer a question of whether Scientology works, it is only a question of whether the auditor can work Scientology. If he or she can't, then the trouble lies in one or more of these basics. The trouble does not lie with the procedure or with the pc. Of course some procedures above are harder to do than others and some pcs can worry an auditor far more than others, but these are incidental and are very junior to the five basics above. 315 The lower the case level of the auditor, the harder time he or she will have grasping the know-how and using it. For instance a squirrel is only a dramatizing Case Level 6 or 7. A student having a rough time is a Case Level 6 or 5. Somebody almost heartbreaking to teach is a Case Level 7 or 8. BUT, with alert guidance and even making mistakes, I have seen Case Levels from 3 to 8 alike getting wins and finally smoothing out on the five basics above. I've seen it myself in the past two years of training at Saint Hill. So I've discarded Case Level as an index of auditing ability, it is only an index of how-hard-to-train. The question of psychotic or neurotic does not enter. These are artificial states and have no real bearing, surprisingly enough, on Case Level. My belief in an auditor's ability to audit has far more bearing on his auditing than his or her aberrations. The only factor left is auditor judgment. This varies about and improves with wins. But processes are so arranged that it is a question only of what is the highest process that gives TA action, rather than pre-session case estimation. Trial and error is the best test. I would use it myself, for I have often found the most unlikely preclear (at first glance) capable of running high level processes and some very "capable" people (at casual inspection) unable to see a wall. So I always run the highest level that I hope pc can run, and revise on experience with the pc if necessary. FORMER TRAINING As all modern courses and Academies have stressed basic skills as above for some time, no past training has been lost. Those who learned R2-12 are much better fitted to do R3R and 3N than those who did not. We look on any auditor today to be able to do repetitive processes but remember, that was sometimes a hard-won ability and old Book and Bottle was developed to assist it. People who learned Pre-hav assessing or goals finding are definitely well progressed. Anyone who can do the CCHs successfully will always find them handy. So I count no training lost. And I am about to collect ill earlier processes that worked on psychosomatic ills and publish them, since being careful not to do healing has not protected us at all and we might as well take over the medical profession for I now find that only their trade association has been firing at us in the press. So that opens up a use for almost all training on processes ever given. If an auditor has learned the above basics he or she can easily do the long list of skills required for Clearing or OT. CLEARING We can clear to keyed-out clear or clear stably. I have considered it necessary to stress thorough clearing. We are on a longer road but a more certain and stable road when we erase the Time Track or sections of it. Clear is now Case Level 2. The main goal, however, is OT, due to the general situation. When we were attacked I decided on a policy of:. 1. Hold the line on the Legal Front and 2. Accelerate research to OT as our best means of handling the situation. Both these policies are being successful in the extreme and I hope you agree with them. By courtesy, one GPM run gives a first goal clear. No further test is done. 316 One chain of engrams completed is an R3R one-chain clear. This is easier than you might think. Theta clear at this time is a Case Level 2 that is exterior. OT is a Case Level 1 complete with skills rehabilitated. The route to these states is very well established and is contained in the first list above. HOURS OF PROCESSING Cases require as many hours as they are located on the Case Level Scale. The lower they are the more hours they require. The higher they are the less they require. As some index, I have had about 800 hours lately including all techniques from R2-12 forward, much of it purely research auditing on myself as a pc, developing procedures and getting line plots. Barely 250 hours of this was effective auditing. And I am definitely on the easy last half to OT. In a period of about half that, Mary Sue achieved 10 goal clear and has just completed her first assessed R3R chain. This included all the R3 goals work, the research of R2-12 on her as a pc, as well as R3N and R3R. Effective Auditing, given the data now known, amounted to about 150 hours or less. A guess to OT, given a skilled auditor and training on all modern data as above, and an able pc, would be less than 500 hours to a one chain R3R clear. This expectancy is being fulfilled on the Saint Hill Course for those now in Z Unit. To this would have to be added any processing time necessary to get the pc up to R3R. I consider that OT lies on the sunny side of 1,000 hours of processing now for cases that can be audited. DIFFICULTY OF CLEARING No case is really easy. A higher state attained is an uphill fight. So don't underestimate the difficulty of clearing. We went too long on the Time Track before developing and working at Scientology. BUT we can do it. And it is a lot more than worthwhile -- it is vital that we do do it. If we miss now, we may be finished. For there is no help elsewhere and there never has been this technology or any successful mental technology. And just now nobody cares but us. When we've succeeded all the way everybody will want on. But not yet. My own job is very far from an end. The job of getting the purely technology developed and organized is practically over, unless you consider a recording of the full technology as part of the job. I've only recorded essentials and am just writing the last bulletins on those. But ahead is a vast panorama of research on other dynamics and enormous amounts of other technology. LRH:dr.rd L. RON HUBBARD Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 317  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=11/7/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  AUDITING RUNDOWN MISSED WITHHOLDS TO BE RUN IN X 1 UNIT   Sthil SHSBC  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 11 JULY 1963 Sthil SHSBC AUDITING RUNDOWN MISSED WITHHOLDS TO BE RUN IN X 1 UNIT 1. Complete a list on the following question: "In this lifetime what have you done that you have withheld from someone?" 2. On each withhold listed ask: (a) "When was it?" (b) "Where was it?" (c) "Who failed to find out about it?" (d) "Who nearly found out about it?" (e) "Who still doesn't know about it?" Each answer must be written down and the sheet of answers showing to which withhold they relate must be turned in with the auditing report. The answer sheet will be made available to all instructors on the Course. The above suggestion was made by Bernie Pesco, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course student, and accepted for use. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:gl.bh Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [This HCO B is superseded by HCO B 23 July 1963, Auditing Rundown -- Missed Withholds -- To be Run in X 1 Unit.] 318  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=21/7/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  CO-AUDIT ARC BREAK PROCESS   Central Orgs Franchise for info  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JULY 1963 Central Orgs Franchise for info CO-AUDIT ARC BREAK PROCESS A despatch from Dennis Stephens, DScn, Acting Assoc Sec Sydney, is informative in handling a co-audit on the ARC Break Process. The Commands of the ARC Break Process are not entirely fixed at this time but are more or less as follows, each command being called a "leg". What Attitude has been rejected? What Reality has been refused? What Communication has been ignored? In private sessions each leg of this process is run flat (more or less) before the next is run and so on and on, around and around, some effort being made to give each leg an equal time. The rules of ARC (to raise one that is low, raise the other two) apply so that no great stress is given an inability on one leg, but all are treated equally. The process fits in at Case Level 5, is a bit higher than R2H. L. RON HUBBARD The despatch follows: Dear Ron, The new ARC 1963 Process is producing good results here in Sydney. We have recently introduced it onto our public co-audit. Certain problems introduced themselves in the application of this process to a group of unskilled auditors who were not trained in the use of E-Meters, etc. The process as given was to be run a leg at a time, each leg to quiet TA or 3 equal comm lags, or a cognition. Now to run it against the TA on public co-audit meant each student had a meter (which they haven't) and the idea was rejected as impractical. Similarly training them in spotting cognitions and comm lags was also rejected as being time consuming. The other possibility was the supervisors go around continuously and take TA reads. Now this system is not good because the supervisor coming up and taking reads disturbs the pc and so disturbs the TA and so defeats its own purpose. The other possibility was an elaborate series of wiring where each pc is switched in to a Master Board and the supervisor, by switches, plugs each pc onto the meter at his desk. We haven't got such equipment and can barely afford its installation. Anyway that was discarded too. How to run it? Well, I tried the following system out and it works like a dream. Other orgs might find it useful too. The pc runs the first leg until he has no more answers, he then goes to second leg until he has no more answers, and similarly with the 3rd leg. He then returns to the first leg, etc, etc. If the pc should ever (heaven forbid! and it's never happened yet) have "no more answers" for each and every leg he either has a thumping ARC Break or needs a "prod" from the meter. So the supervisor would just meter check one of the legs and steer the pc's attention to the answer and he's off on another chain! 319 The system works OK because the pc is going round and round the same series of commands and always gets another chance to look at each question. Run in this manner the process becomes virtually unlimited. This system of running the process is particularly applicable where raw people are concerned, with not even a comm course under their belt and fresh from PE course. Anyway it works very well. Very best, DENNIS LRH:dr.jh Copyright $c 1963 L. RON HUBBARD by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 320  Dennis Stephens L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=22/7/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  YOU CAN BE RIGHT   MA Franchise BPI  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 22 JULY 1963 MA Franchise BPI YOU CAN BE RIGHT Rightness and wrongness form a common source of argument and struggle. The concept of rightness reaches very high and very low on the Tone Scale. And the effort to be right is the last conscious striving of an individual on the way out. I-am-right-and-they-are-wrong is the lowest concept that can be formulated by an unaware case. What is right and what is wrong are not necessarily definable for everyone. These vary according to existing moral codes and disciplines and, before Scientology, despite their use in law as a test of "sanity", had no basis in fact but only in opinion. In Dianetics and Scientology a more precise definition arose. And the definition became as well the true definition of an overt act. An overt act is not just injuring someone or something: an overt act is an act of omission or commission which does the least good for the least number of dynamics or the most harm to the greatest number of dynamics. (See the Eight Dynamics.) Thus a wrong action is wrong to the degree that it harms the greatest number of dynamics. And a right action is right to the degree that it benefits the greatest number of dynamics. Many people think that an action is an overt simply because it is destructive. To them all destructive actions or omissions are overt acts. This is not true. For an act of commission or omission to be an overt act it must harm the greater number of dynamics. A failure to destroy can be, therefore, an overt act. Assistance to something that would harm a greater number of dynamics can also be an overt act. An overt act is something that harms broadly. A beneficial act is something that helps broadly. It can be a beneficial act to harm something that would be harmful to the greater number of dynamics. Harming everything and helping everything alike can be overt acts. Helping certain things and harming certain things alike can be beneficial acts. The idea of not harming anything and helping everything are alike rather mad. It is doubtful if you would think helping enslavers was a beneficial action and equally doubtful if you would consider the destruction of a disease an overt act. In the matter of being right or being wrong, a lot of muddy thinking can develop. There are no absolute rights or absolute wrongs. And being right does not consist of being unwilling to harm and being wrong does not consist only of not harming. There is an irrationality about "being right" which not only throws out the validity of the legal test of sanity but also explains why some people do very wrong things and insist they are doing right. The answer lies in an impulse, inborn in everyone, to try to be right. This is an insistence which rapidly becomes divorced from right action. And it is accompanied by an effort to make others wrong, as we see in hypercritical cases. A being who is apparently unconscious is still being right and making others wrong. It is the last criticism. We have seen a "defensive person" explaining away the most flagrant wrongnesses. This is "justification" as well. Most explanations of conduct, no matter how far-fetched, seem perfectly right to the person making them since he or she is only asserting self-rightness and other-wrongness. We have long said that that which is not admired tends to persist. If no one admires a person for being right, then that person's "brand of being right" will persist, no matter how mad it sounds. Scientists who are aberrated cannot seem to get many theories. They do not because they are more interested in insisting on their own odd rightnesses than they are in finding truth. Thus we get strange "scientific truths" from 321 men who should know better, including the late Einstein. Truth is built by those who have the breadth and balance to see also where they're wrong. You have heard some very absurd arguments out among the crowd. Realize that the speaker was more interested in asserting his or her own rightness than in being right. A thetan tries to be right and fights being wrong. This is without regard to being right about something or to do actual right. It is an insistence which has no concern with a rightness of conduct. One tries to be right always, right down to the last spark. How then, is one ever wrong? It is this way: One does a wrong action, accidentally or through oversight. The wrongness of the action or inaction is then in conflict with one's necessity to be right. So one then may continue and repeat the wrong action to prove it is right. This is a fundamental of aberration. All wrong actions are the result of an error followed by an insistence on having been right. Instead of righting the error (which would involve being wrong) one insists the error was a right action and so repeats it. As a being goes down scale it is harder and harder to admit having been wrong. Nay, such an admission could well be disastrous to any remaining ability or sanity. For rightness is the stuff of which survival is made. And as one approaches the last ebb of survival one can only insist on having been right, for to believe for a moment one has been wrong is to court oblivion. The last defense of any being is "I was right". That applies to anyone. When that defense crumbles, the lights go out. So we are faced with the unlovely picture of asserted rightness in the face of flagrant wrongness. And any success in making the being realize their wrongness results in an immediate degradation, unconsciousness, or at best a loss of personality. Pavlov, Freud, psychiatry alike never grasped the delicacy of these facts and so evaluated and punished the criminal and insane into further criminality and insanity. All justice today contains in it this hidden error -- that the last defense is a belief in personal rightness regardless of charges and evidence alike, and that the effort to make another wrong results only in degradation. But all this would be a hopeless impasse leading to highly chaotic social conditions were it not for one saving fact: All repeated and "incurable" wrongnesses stem from the exercise of a last defense: "trying to be right". Therefore the compulsive wrongness can be cured no matter how mad it may seem or how thoroughly its rightness is insisted upon. Getting the offender to admit his or her wrongness is to court further degradation and even unconsciousness or the destruction of a being. Therefore the purpose of punishment is defeated and punishment has minimal workability. But by getting the offender off the compulsive repetition of the wrongness, one then cures it. But how? By rehabilitating the ability to be right! This has limitless application -- in training, in social skills, in marriage, in law, in life. Example: A wife is always burning dinner. Despite scolding, threats of divorce, anything, the compulsion continues. One can wipe this wrongness out by getting her to explain what is right about her cooking. This may well evoke a raging tirade in some extreme cases, but if one flattens the question, that all dies away and she happily ceases to burn dinners. Carried to classic proportions but not entirely necessary to end the compulsion, a moment in the past will be recovered when she accidentally burned a dinner and could not face up to having done a wrong action. To be right she thereafter had to burn dinners. Go into a prison and find one sane prisoner who says he did wrong. You won't 322 find one. Only the broken wrecks will say so out of terror of being hurt. But even they don't believe they did wrong. A judge on a bench, sentencing criminals, would be given pause to realize that not one malefactor sentenced really thought he had done wrong and will never believe it in fact, though he may seek to avert wrath by saying so. The do-gooder crashes into this continually and is given his loses by it. But marriage, law and crime do not constitute all the spheres of living where this applies. These facts embrace all of life. The student who can't learn, the worker who can't work, the boss who can't boss are all caught on one side of the right-wrong question. They are being completely one-sided. They are being "last-ditch-right". And opposing them, those who would teach them are fixed on the other side "admit-you-are-wrong". And out of this we get not only no-change but actual degradation where it "wins". But there are no wins in this imbalance, only loses for both. Thetans on the way down don't believe they are wrong because they don't dare believe it. And so they do not change. Many a preclear in processing is only trying to prove himself right and the auditor wrong, particularly the lower case levels, and so we sometimes get no-change sessions. And those who won't be audited at all are totally fixed on asserted rightness and are so close to gone that any question of their past rightness would, they feel, destroy them. I get my share of this when a being, close to extinction, and holding contrary views, grasps for a moment the rightness of Scientology and then in sudden defense asserts his own "rightnesses", sometimes close to terror. It would be a grave error to go on letting an abuser of Scientology abuse. The route is to get him or her to explain how right he or she is without explaining how wrong Scientology is, for to do the last is to let them commit a serious overt. "What is right about your mind" would produce more case change and win more friends than any amount of evaluation or punishment to make them wrong. You can be right. How? By getting another to explain how he or she is right -- until he or she, being less defensive now, can take a less compulsive point of view. You don't have to agree with what they think. You only have to acknowledge what they say. And suddenly they can be right. A lot of things can be done by understanding and using this mechanism. It will take, however, some study of this article before it can be gracefully applied -- for all of us are reactive to some degree on this subject. And those who sought to enslave us did not neglect to install a right-wrong pair of items on the far back track. But these won't really get in your way. As Scientologists, we are faced by a frightened society who think they would be wrong if we were found to be right. We need a weapon to correct this. We have one here. And you can be right, you know. I was probably the first to believe you were, mechanism or no mechanism. The road to rightness is the road to survival. And every person is somewhere on that scale. You can make yourself right, amongst other ways, by making others right enough to afford to change their minds. Then a lot more of us will arrive. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:gl.jh.cden Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED (Note: This is the first in a series of HCO Bulletins designed for publication in Continental Magazines. I am developing a whole presentation of Scientology at this level for general use in life. Follow this HCO Bulletin with the next in magazines.) 323  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=22/7/63 Volnum=0 Issue=2 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  ORG TECHNICAL HGC PROCESSES AND TRAINING   Central Orgs Tech Depts (HCO Secs: Check out on all technical staff Star Rating.)  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 22 JULY 1963 Issue II Central Orgs Tech Depts ORG TECHNICAL HGC PROCESSES AND TRAINING (HCO Secs: Check out on all technical staff Star Rating.) It is of the utmost importance that HGC Technical continues to be maintained as the world's best auditing. The whole repute of Scientology on a continent ultimately depends on the quality of technical delivered by Central Organizations. In times of shifting technology this may be considered difficult. However, nothing in the book maintains that an HGC must only deliver "the latest". The book only says the best. Staff morale, the unit, broad dissemination depend basically upon technical quality. If you will look into even the oldest HGC files you will find profiles with fine gains. This does not mean, then, that today's research line has to be installed at once to get gains on pcs. Of course to attain clear or OT today's research line is vital. But the problem is not upper echelon processing in HGCs, it is lower level cases. If you go not on the basis of "make clears and OTs" but solely on the basis of "get maximum Tone Arm Action on the pc" you will have very happy pcs and eventual OTs. To get Tone Arm Action it is necessary to 1. Have pcs who are getting wins and 2. Have staff auditors doing processes they can do successfully. HGC Gains then depend on: A. Getting Tone Arm Action on every pc; and B. Training Auditors to handle the five basics well. Programming for HGC pcs depends on the pc and the auditor available. PROGRAMMING PCS The stable datum for programming a pc is: RULE: RUN THE HIGHEST LEVEL PROCESS ON THE PC THAT CAN BE RUN THAT PRODUCES GOOD TONE ARM ACTION. The stable don't for programming a pc is: RULE: DON'T RUN A PROCESS A PC FEELS HE OR SHE CANNOT DO OR THE AUDITOR CANNOT DO. 324 You don't need to predetermine (and sometimes downgrade) a pc's level in order to process him or her. Programming has nothing to do with tests or hope or critical opinion. Programming is a trial and error proposition based on: C. What highest process gives the pc TA Action? D. What process has the pc been interested in? E. What process can the auditor do confidently? PC INTEREST is a nearer certainty of needle reads on the meter and Tone Arm Action than many other methods of assessment. Any pc who has had earlier auditing can tell you what was or was not interesting. A discussion of this with the pc will establish which type of process it was. Don't necessarily just go on doing that process. But use it to classify what type of process the pc will most likely have wins doing -- i.e. objective processes, repetitive processes, engram running, etc. A lot of pcs are audited at levels they have no idea they can do. They will do them, but a simple discussion about processes they have been interested in doing will reveal to them and the auditor where they are most likely to get TA Action with no strain. GAINS Gains on a pc can be measured in terms of charge discharged, not necessarily in goals run out or some specific action done. You can run out goals with no TA Action, run out engrams with no TA Action and yet the pc does not change. The goals set by the pc at session beginning change on a changing pc. In reviewing cases watch those goals on the auditor's report. If they deteriorate the auditor has messed it up, leaving by-passed charge. If they remain the same session after session there was no real TA Action. If the goals change session by session there's lots of TA Action, too. You can just get lots of TA Action, whatever you run, and eventually see a cleared pc. No matter what is run, lack of TA Action will clear no one. Wrong time is the exclusive source of no TA Action. Therefore as a pc's time concept is improved or his dates corrected you will see more TA Action. But many things contribute to wrong time, including bad meter dating and time disorienting implants. The question is not what corrects the pc's time so much as: is the pc getting the Tone Arm Action that shows Time is being corrected. Well done auditing cycles alone correct a flawed Time Concept. So you have PC INTEREST, and TONE ARM ACTION that tell you the programming is right and if the pc is going Clear and OT. Buck these things and the pc won't go anywhere no matter what is run. PRECAUTIONS Wrong dates, wrong goals, wrong Items, by-passing charge, never flattening a process, running a pc beyond regaining an ability or cogniting the process flat account for most upset in auditing. There is no valid reason for a pc getting upset now that ARC Break assessments exist, providing that the auditor is auditing as per the next section. 325 AUDITOR SKILL Basic Auditor Skill consists of five things. If an auditor can do these five, little further trouble will be found. Any staff training program, any Academy basic goal any HGC Auditing that produces results depend on these five basics. If you review staff auditors or examine students on these basics by themselves, all auditing would rest on solid ground and get gains. Where any one of the following are out in an auditor there is going to be trouble all along the line. No fancy new process will cure what is wrong in a session if these things are not present. The Basic Auditing Skills are: 1. ABILITY TO EXECUTE THE AUDITING CYCLE. 2. ABILITY TO EXECUTE THE AUDITING CYCLE REPETITIVELY. 3. ABILITY TO HANDLE A SESSION. 4. ABILITY TO READ A METER: 5. ABILITY TO STUDY AND APPLY SCIENTOLOGY DATA. It takes very little to establish the presence or absence of these abilities in an HGC Auditor or a Student. Each one can be reviewed easily. View an auditor's ability to audit in the light of the above only. Put him on TV for a half-hour rudiments and havingness actual session of any Model Session he or she is trained to use, and watch 1 to 4 above. Then give him or her an unstudied short HCO Bulletin and see how long it takes for the auditor to pass a verbal exam on it. A comparison of this data with a number of the staff auditor's HGC case reports will show direct co-ordination. To the degree that few results were obtained the auditor missed on 1 to 5 above. To the degree that good results were obtained the auditor could pass 1 to 5 above. Inspection of half a dozen different cases the auditor has done is necessary to see a complete co- ordination. There is your training stress for staff training programs. Only when the above skills are polished up do you dare to go into involved processes with the auditor. For a more complicated process further throws out any existing errors in the above five abilities and makes hash out of the lot. During such a period, one can fall back on auditor confidence. What process is the auditor confident he or she will get wins with? Well let him or her run it on the current pc. And meanwhile, with training, smooth the auditor out and get him or her genned in on higher level or more recent processes. Without an auditor, a case will not progress. And a case will progress more with a confident auditor who can do something of what he or she is doing than with an auditor who is shaky. For the shakiness will magnify any faults in the five skills that the auditor has. Auditors do by and large a pretty fine job. It takes a while to gen in a new skill. I can do it in one or two sessions so it's not causing me any strain. Mary Sue can get one straight in about four sessions. So nobody expects a new skill to appear magically perfect in no time at all. But the length of time it will take to groove in on a new skill depends on the five abilities above. The main auditor faults will be found in auditors who are trying so hard themselves to be right that thee and me must be proven wrong. That shows up most strongly in No. 5 above. The degree of disagreement an auditor has with data measures the degree of unworkability that auditor will enter into processing and this is the same degree that that auditor thinks he or she has to preserve his or her survival by making 326 others wrong. This also enters into the other four abilities by a covert effort to make the pc wrong. This is rare. But it is best measured by an inability to accept data, and so can be tested by No. 5 above. Processing on rightness and wrongness remedies this. Other processing remedies it. And just practice remedies it. This factor is easily disclosed as unhandled in some training courses where a blowing student sometimes gives long dissertations on "What they don't agree with in Scientology." That what they say doesn't exist in Scientology does not deter them from believing it does, for their last spark of survival demands that only they be right and all others wrong. Such a state of mind doesn't make a good auditor since both Scientology and the pc must be made wrong. Squirrels are only Case Levels 7 or 6 dramatizing alter-is on Scientology instead of their track. Even they can be made to audit by long training even in the absence of processing. They aren't just trying to make others wrong. Essentially that is the characteristic of a Case Level 8, Unaware. There aren't many of these around. Auditing and training can handle them, even if it takes a long time. Such people would almost die literally if they found they had ever been wrong and they get quite ill with aplomb just to prove you are wrong; it goes that far. Case Level or sanity have little to do with anything when it comes to training auditors. Insanity is a goal "To be Insane", not an index of potential auditing ability. And only Case Level 8 does a complete shatter of a session as an auditor. Take these factors into first account in an HGC. Don't keep a staff upset by shifting processes continually. Processing is pretty stable which is why I can give you this expectancy for a new high level performance in HGC. Groove the staff auditor in for wins and TA Action. And all will be well. Groove them in by processes only and all will be chaos. And in the Academy stress this data and teach the five abilities above beyond all other data and you'll have auditors. If the HGC could expect from an Academy graduates who had the five abilities listed above, everyone would get more comfortable. An HGC need not have to run a school of its own to provide itself with auditors. SUMMARY The data I have given you in this HCO Bulletin is not subject to change or modification. HGC pcs will only win if they are run so as to obtain good TA Action. The HGC will have trouble achieving that only to the degree that its staff has not achieved the five abilities above. We are building on very solid ground. All actions we now undertake in the HGC and Academy should contribute to successful auditing, for out of that alone can clearing be achieved. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dr.rd Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 327  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=23/7/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  AUDITING RUNDOWN MISSED WITHHOLDS TO BE RUN IN X 1 UNIT  Type = 11 iDate=11/7/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  Central Orgs for info Sthil SHSBC  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 23 JULY 1963 Central Orgs for info Sthil SHSBC AUDITING RUNDOWN MISSED WITHHOLDS TO BE RUN IN X 1 UNIT (supersedes HCO Bulletin of July 11, 1963, same title, which was issued to Sthil SHSBC only) 1. Ask pc following question: "In this lifetime what have you done that you have withheld from someone?" 2. When pc has answered ask: (a) "When was it?" (b) "Where was it?" (c) "Who failed to find out about it?" (d) "Who nearly found out about it?" (e) "Who still doesn't know about it?" Each withhold and answer must be written down and the sheet of withholds and answers must be turned in with the auditing report. The sheet will be made available to all instructors on the Briefing Course. The above suggestion was made by Bernie Pesco, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course student, and accepted for use. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.jh Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 328  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=28/7/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  TIME AND THE TONE ARM   Central Orgs Franchise STAR RATING (HCO Secs: Check out on all Technical staff except for percentage of cases which is not Star Rated)  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 28 JULY AD13 Central Orgs Franchise STAR RATING TIME AND THE TONE ARM (HCO Secs: Check out on all Technical staff except for percentage of cases which is not Star Rated) I recently completed a study begun many years ago which gives us new hope and easier auditing of difficult cases. We have known for many years (Dianetic Axioms) that Time is the Single Source of human aberration. This did not have the importance it deserved. To make an OT one has to clear the Time Track. This seemed very easy when I discovered a few months ago that anybody can run an engram. The reasons one can't are just (1) wrong time of the incident, (2) wrong duration of the incident, (3) incident may contain an implanted GPM or (4) it may be false track (therefore having wrong time and wrong duration). So anybody that can be put into an auditing session can run Time Track with good perception. If the perceptions aren't there it's just wrong time or wrong duration or both, or it's a GPM in which case one reverts at once to R3N, or it's false track in which event one finds accurately when it was installed and the duration of that incident. All apparent grouping of the track comes either from wrong time or false track (which is also wrong time). Either one looks like incidents are grouping. Well, that seemed to wrap up clearing and OT, but I still didn't broadly release it; I wanted to be sure. I don't mind being wrong but I dislike making you wrong in your auditing, it's already happened too often. So I carefully researched this all over again and found it was not enough just to clean track. One had to run track with TONE ARM MOTION. That's the real barrier to clear and OT, given the above data. One can run incidents and GPMs but do these when run give Tone Arm Motion? Without Tone Arm Motion no charge is being released and no actual case betterment is observed beyond a few somatics removed. The pc's session goals stay the same. The pc's life doesn't change. So the clue to OT (and clear) is Tone Arm Motion. It must exist during the session. If it doesn't something is wrong. At first I thought that a dating prepcheck "On Dating" or "On Dates" would re-establish all ceased TA action. It will up to a point and is valuable. Repair of cases must contain such a Prepcheck and also discovering wrong dates and durations on engrams and GPMs. This is vital. But it will not make some cases continue to get TA motion on the Time Track. If a case, even when cleaned up on dating and properly assessed for level and Item in R3R or on R3N, does not then get TA motion on running track, another factor is present. What is that factor? The pc has a "fragile Tone Arm". Just one wrong date or duration in R3R or just one wrong RI in R3N and Tone Arm Action ceases, the TA going way up or down and staying there. Stuck TA cases then give us a type of case. 329 So I knew there was another factor involved rather than Time alone. Time remains the single source. But a pc's regard for or attitude about Time can make it difficult for the auditor to run R3R or R3N. Regard for Time sums up, of course, into ARC about Time, or just ARC. THE MECHANICS OF TIME As in earlier writings Time is actual but is also an apparency. (See Dianetics '55 or other similar material.) Time is measured by motion. Motion is Matter with energy in space. Thus a person can conceive of Time as only Matter and energy in space. Such as a clock or a planetary rotation. Time is actual. But the person has become so dependent on Matter moving in space to tell Time that his Time Sense has become dependent on Matter, energy and space. We care only for TA action. Our opinion of a pc's Time Sense is unimportant. Does the pc get TA action on R3R and/or R3N? If so, the pc's Time Sense is okay for making OT straight away. If not, if the TA is "fragile" (sticks easily high or low) then the pc's Time Sense needs improving. Time Sense deteriorates to the degree that one has depended upon Matter, energy and space to tell Time (and on Time Confusing Implants such as false track; however, running out false track on a no TA motion case is not an answer). The dwindling spiral was as follows: State A -- Time Sense. State B -- Time Sense dependent upon Matter, Energy and Space. State C -- ARC Breaks with Matter, Energy, Space and other beings. State D -- Deteriorated Time Sense. By the time State D is thoroughly reached, you have a pc who gets no TA motion running track, as energy will not flow in the absence of Time. There are four degrees of "Poor Time Sense". The first is average and common but is not enough to impair TA action. The TA sticks but getting wrong dates off restores TA action which then continues. The second is a case that has to be continuously repaired and delicately handled to get any TA action at all. The third is a case that gets TA action on repetitive processes or rudiments but not on GPMs or engram running (while silently moving through an engram few people get TA action; this comes when they answer "What happened?": the third under consideration doesn't get any TA even when answering "What happened?" and rarely if ever RRs). The fourth is a case that gets no TA action on repetitive processes and very little if any on Rudiments. The four types of "Poor Time Sense" compare to Case Level 5 -- (first type above) Gets TA action only when wrong dates are cleaned up. Case Level 6 -- (second above) Gets TA action only with constant careful handling and TA action always packing up. Case Level 7 -- (third above) TA action only on some repetitive processes and rudiments. Case Level 8 -- (fourth above) No TA action on repetitive processes and only now and then on rudiments. Case Levels 2 to 4 get TA action no matter what happens. This then (TA Action) is your best index of Case Levels. IQ, graphs, tests, behavior in life are all incidental. Identification (A=A=A) is most easily present when Time Sense is awry, therefore, the degree a person Identifies different things establishes the degree of aberration. 330 PROGRAMMING Cases are programmed only against TA Action obtainable in auditing. A case must not be run without TA Action or with minimal TA Action. A case may be a Case Level 5 and need only a few wrong dates and durations corrected to get good TA Action. But it may also be a Case Level 6, 7 or 8. Trial and error programming is best. Program high and drop low, no matter what the morale factor may be. Try to run GPMs, the Goal to Forget, etc, with R3N. If it can't be done, assess for R3R (Preliminary Step) and run a chain of engrams. If still no TA, drop to processes for Case Level 7. If still no TA, drop to processes for Case Level 8. You may see by the pc's past auditor's reports what the Case Level is. How stuck has that TA been? Don't run a case lower than it easily gets TA Action. And don't brand a case at a low case level and then never graduate it upwards. When the lower process is flat, the upper process should now be runnable. The story is told by the TA with one exception -- auditor ability and training. But Case Levels 2, 3, 4 are not all that influenced by the auditor ability. The auditor's skill has to be pretty good to run Case Level 5 on R3R and R3N. The auditor doesn't live who can run R3R or R3N on Case Levels 6, 7 or 8. It just won't run. In the guess department the bulk of the cases about are 4s and 5s. A good- sized percentage are 6s and 7s. About 10% are Case Level 8. About 1% are Case Level 3. Therefore about 30% of a usual group of pcs will run with good TA on the Time Track, given trained auditing, without trouble. Another 30% will run with good TA on the Time Track with careful coddling and no serious date goofs. Except for the 1% Case 3, the rest will fall into Case Levels 6, 7 and 8, meaning that about 39% of the cases in Scientology won't run at once on R3R or R3N, and another 30% (Case Level 5s) need a Saint Hiller hanging over the auditor's shoulder or in the chair. And the other 30% (Case Level 4s) will run very well and easily on R3R and R3N. So the biggest percentage group (Case Levels 6, 7, 8 combined) need special processes to graduate up to action with R3R and R3N. These Case Level 6, 7 and 8 processes now exist and are being released as rapidly as they are demonstrated workable. R2H for Case Levels 5 and 6 has already been released. R2HL for Case Levels 6 and 7 is being readied up for bulletin. The Corner Process and others for Case Level 8 are tested and the data is being assembled. And other advances can be made. To audit easily and relaxed with good TA Action on the pc is my immediate desire for auditors and auditing supervisors. I feel we are over the hump on this. The fundamental solution to it -- Time and the Tone Arm -- is contained in this HCO Bulletin. Don't audit a pc without getting TA Action. Either repair the wrong dates and durations before going on or drop to processes of a lower case level or both. ARC Breaks in session won't stop a TA. Only Time errors. LRH:jw.rd L. RON HUBBARD Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 331  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=29/7/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY REVIEW   Central Orgs Franchise (HCO Secs, take up at a Staff Meeting. Field Auditors, take up at group meetings.)  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 29 JULY 1963 Central Orgs Franchise SCIENTOLOGY REVIEW (HCO Secs, take up at a Staff Meeting. Field Auditors, take up at group meetings.) Exactly where are we technically, personally and organizationally? It may be of some surprise to you that we have just about arrived. We've been so long on the road that some fainter hearts have begun to despair and less high case levels have begun to gloom. Since last October I have been cracking through trying to get there before we were got. It now is obvious that we have made it and even if we were hard hit socially or politically we would still make it. For we have the data. I have not had time to get it all to you yet, but the data is now assembled for OT for everyone who can be audited at all. You already have most of it. On the various PTPs of Scientology we have had some very significant wins as follows: 1. The discoveries about Time and the Tone Arm (HCO Bulletin of July 28, AD13) related to case levels tells us if a case is winning, why it isn't winning and how to make it win, and gives us far less worries as auditors auditing cases. For some time now, overlooking four score of cases, many very rough, I have been breathing easy. And they're all winning. 2. Getting cases to RR on GPMs is entirely a matter of auditing those cases who don't on current basic processes until they do. So it isn't a worry about getting the case to RR. It's only how to get the case to run with TA action and get high enough to RR and run GPMs. We have the patterns and technology needful now. 3. ARC Breaky Cases. The ARC Break Assessments correctly done finish the problem of the consequences of ARC Breaks and put the Auditor at cause over ARC Breaks. 4. Natter. Persons who get auditing and natter, staff members who snap and snarl, bad morale, all wrap up in the ARC Break Assessments. This, done weekly in any group on group members, clearing every line, restores a theta atmosphere. 5. Incredulity of our data and validity. This is our finest asset and gives us more protection than any other single thing. If certain parties thought we were real we would have infinitely more trouble. There's actual terror in the breast of a guilty person at the thought of OT, and without a public incredulity we never would have gotten as far as we have. And now it's too late to be stopped. This protection was accidental but it serves us very well indeed. Remember that the next time the ignorant scoff. 6. The cold war has gotten less threatening, differences are less violent. We have had the time we needed. 7. Government attacks have entered a more desultory stage. Meters will go to jury trial eventually and we will certainly win. The U.S. Government Attorney handling the case became terribly ill and had to resign it. 332 8. Economic Problems. In organizations gross income is generally on the increase throughout the world, and shows no signs of dwindling and all this in the face of bad press. Personal income depends upon steady organizational gains and more positive results on pcs. Future personal income is without ceiling. 9. Personal States of Case. If you heed HCO Bulletin of July 28, AD 13 and are getting good Tone Arm action on any process you will eventually make OT. OT is wholly a matter of consistent Tone Arm motion, session after session, not the significance of what is run. 10. State of Training as Auditors. Although I would like to see more auditors trained at Saint Hill, general training has improved and training data is complete. Shortened training time will soon be a reality. A new positive goal for HPA/HCAs will make more good auditors. I feel very good about general auditing ability. I recently summed up the basic skills of auditing and find that over the years we have been working right along and winning on training. All training done has been to the good. Changing technology has not influenced the basic skills and forthcoming material follows the pattern in which we have been trained. OTHER PROBLEMS Solutions unexpectedly leaped up in fields where we were only vaguely aware of problems. We bought an awful lot of time with the discovery of the exact nature of between lives implants and how it's worked. Using this data it is possible to keep any Scientologist from ever getting another one of those implants. As the general course of living is therapeutic, it takes violent implants such as Earth people get at every death to keep people unaware of former lives and aberrated. Just by omitting those implants and using their reporting technology to keep in touch amongst ourselves, we would salvage the lot in a few hundred years in any event. Our data is too widely disseminated to be re- collected and burned. And just the other day I was personally looking over their shoulders. World clearing is possible without extensive Auditing if we just keep our own show on the road and keep track of each other. This was a breakthrough I didn't expect. And it's all ours. The discovery of false pasts and futures was also a bonus. For it means more TA action on more cases and faster clearing. It's doubtful if ordinary track ever hurt anybody. SUMMARY All we've got to do is keep going as we are for things to improve now. The only thing which could slow us down is our own self-created dissidence. All we have to do is do our jobs and keep the peace and we've got it. The make-break point is behind us. Ahead are only better days, improving little by little, day by day. We've made it over the worst part. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dr.cden Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 333  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=4/8/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  ALL ROUTINES E-METER ERRORS COMMUNICATION CYCLE ERROR   Central Orgs Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 4 AUGUST 1963 Central Orgs Franchise ALL ROUTINES E-METER ERRORS COMMUNICATION CYCLE ERROR The E-Meter has its role in all processing and must be used well. However an E-Meter can be misused in several ways. METER DEPENDENCE The meter in actual fact does nothing but locate charged areas below the awareness of the pc and verify that the charge has been removed. The meter cures nothing and does not treat. It only assists the auditor in assisting the preclear to look and verify having looked. A pc can be made more dependent upon the meter or can be made more independent of the meter, all in the way a meter is used by the Auditor. If a pc's case is improving the pc becomes more independent of the meter. This is the proper direction. Meter dependence is created by invalidation by or poor acknowledgement of the Auditor. If the Auditor seems not to accept the pc's data, then the pc may insist that the Auditor "see it read on the meter". This can grow up into a formidable meter dependence on the part of the pc. The rise of the TA is a "What's It?" The Fall of a meter TA is an "It's a _______." To get maximum charge off, the pc's groping (What's It) must become a pc's finding (It's a). If the pc asks the Auditor what or which reads on the meter and the Auditor always complies, the pc's TA will rise more and fall less as the pc is saying, "What's It?" and only the meter is saying, "It's a _______." A pc must be carefully weaned of meter dependence, not abruptly chopped off. The pc says, "What's It?" The Auditor must begin to ask occasionally, "Well, What's It seem to you?" and the pc will find his own "It's a _______" and the TA will fall -- as it would not if only the meter were employed. Milking the TA of all the action you can get requires that the pc get most of the "It's a's" for his "What's Its". (See diagram attached.) DATING DEPENDENCE RULE: USE THE METER TO DATE AND VERIFY DATE CORRECTNESS BY ALL MEANS BUT ONLY AFTER THE PC HAS BEEN UNABLE TO COME UP WITH THE DATE. Example: Pc can't decide, after much puzzling, if it was 1948 or 1949. Finally, the Auditor says, "1948" "1949" and sees the meter reads on 1948 and says, "It was 1948." But if the pc says, "It was 1948," the Auditor only checks it if the TA sticks up higher, meaning probably a wrong date. He checks with, "In this session have we had a wrong date? That reads, what date was wrong?" and lets the pc argue it out with himself -- TA action will restore. RIs Reliable Items have to be clean. The pc can usually tell. But the pc can't tell the right RI out of a list or the right goal unless the Auditor sees it RR or fall. But sometimes the Auditor thinks an RI is clean (no longer reads having read) when it still has somatics on it. In this case it's suppressed and the Auditor checks it for suppress. 334 The pc saying the RI is not clean (should still be reading) carries more weight than the meter. As the pc gets along in running Time Track and GPMs with their goals and Reliable Items he or she often becomes better than the meter as to what is right or wrong, what is the goal, what RI still reads. METER INVALIDATION An Auditor who just sits and shakes his head, "Didn't Rocket Read" can give a pc too many loses and deteriorate the pc's ability to run GPMs. In a conflict between pc and meter, take the pc's data. Why? Because Protest and Assert and Mistake will also read on a meter. You can get these off, but why create them? The meter is not there to invalidate the pc. Using the meter to invalidate the pc is bad form. You'll have less trouble by taking the pc's data for the pc will eventually correct it. The meter is invaluable in locating by-passed charge and curing an ARC Break. But it can be done without a meter, just by letting the pc think over each line read to him or her from the ARC Break Assessment ana say whether it is or isn't and if it is, spotting the thing by-passed. CLEANING CLEANS The Auditor who cleans a clean meter is asking for trouble. This is the same as asking a pc for something that isn't there and develops a "withhold of nothing". Example: Ask "Do you have a present time problem?" Get no needle reaction. Ask the pc for the PTP that hasn't read. That is impossible for the pc to answer. That's what's meant by cleaning a clean. DIRTY NEEDLE All dirty needles are caused by the Auditor failing to hear all the pc had to say in answering a question or volunteering data. Charge is removed from a case only by the Comm Cycle pc to Auditor. The Auditor's command restimulates a charge in the pc. The only way this charge can be blown is by the pc telling the Auditor. "Auditor" means "A listener". The Auditor who has not learned to listen gets: First -- Dirty Needle Next -- Stuck Tone Arm Finally -- ARC Break The most important line in Auditing is from pc to Auditor. If this line is open and not hurried or chopped you get no Dirty Needles and Lots of TA Action. To continuously get in Auditor to pc and impede the line pc to Auditor is to pile up endless restimulated charge on a case. RULE: TONE ARM ACTION OF ANY KIND WITHOUT ANY SIGNIFICANCE OF WHAT'S BEHIND IT WILL TAKE A PC TO OT EVENTUALLY. RULE: THE MOST CORRECT TRACK SIGNIFICANCES RUN BUT WITHOUT TA ACTION WILL NOT CHANGE BUT CAN DETERIORATE A CASE. RULE: THE CORRECT TRACK SIGNIFICANCES RUN WITH TA ACTION WILL ATTAIN OT FASTEST. 335 Thus we see that an Auditor can get everything right except TA action and not make an OT. And we see that TA action without running specific things will make an OT, (though it might take a thousand years). Therefore TA action is superior to what is run. Running the right things with TA action is faster only. Thus the line pc to Auditor is somewhat senior to the Comm Line Auditor to pc. (See diagram.) Don't get the idea that the process is not important. It is. People were made to talk in psychoanalysis without getting anywhere but there they probably had no TA and ran the wrong significances. It takes the right process correctly run to get TA action. So don't underrate processes or the action of the Auditor. Realize that the answering of the process question is senior to the asking of another process question. A pc could talk for years without getting any TA action. Got it? So listen as long as a TA moves. Learn to see if the pc has said everything he or she wants to say before the next Auditor action, never do a new Auditor action while or if the pc wants to speak and you'll get superior TA action. Cut the pc off, get in more actions than the pc is allowed to answer and you'll have a Dirty Needle, then a stuck TA and then an ARC Break. See the attached drawing of this. And all will suddenly get clearer about any pc you've audited. And trouble will evaporate. By cutting the "Itsa Line" an Auditor can make case gain disappear. "Learn To Listen." That's what "Auditor" means. It has taken me so long to see this in others because I don't cut the pc's line very often and repair it fast when I do. So forgive me for bringing it up so late. When the pc is talking and you're getting no TA, you already have an ARC Break or are about to get one. So assess the by-passed charge. RULE: DON'T DEMAND MORE THAN THE PC CAN TELL YOU. RULE: DON'T RECEIVE LESS THAN THE PC HAS TO SAY. Watch the pc's eyes. Don't take auditing actions if the pc is not looking at you. Don't give acknowledgements that aren't needed. Over acknowledgement means acknowledging before the pc has said all. SUMMARY Running the right process is vital. Getting TA action on the right process is skilled auditing. Listening is superior to asking. Build up the pc's confidence in his own knowingness and continuously and progressively reduce the pc's dependence on a meter. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dr.cden Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 336 Basic Error of the Auditing Cycle Comm Cycle Cause - Distance - Effect What's It C ---------------------------------------------------------- E Restim AUD PC (1) DN (2) Stuck TA (3) ARC Br [GRAPHICS INSERTED] Body Discomfort Body Mass ARC Breaks [Shows upward TA] What's it [Shows Downward TA] Itsa Tone Arm Action When Itsa Line is cut, auditing ceases to work $bx  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=9/8/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  DEFINITION OF RELEASE  Type = 11 iDate=14/1/63 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  HCO Secs Org Secs Franchise Field BPI  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 9 AUGUST 1963 HCO Secs Org Secs Franchise Field BPI DEFINITION OF RELEASE (Cancels HCO Bulletin of 14 January 1963) A RELEASE is one who knows he or she has had worthwhile gains from Scientology processing and who knows he or she will not now get worse. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dr.rd Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=11/8/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  ARC BREAK ASSESSMENTS   Central Orgs Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 11 AUGUST 1963 Central Orgs Franchise ARC BREAK ASSESSMENTS In a session don't ever do an ARC Break Assessment until the pc has given up trying to untangle it. This particularly applies to R3R and 3N. DATES R2H Don't ever date anything for the pc until the pc has completely given up trying himself. DON'T USE METERING, ARC BREAK ASSESSMENTS, DATING, or incomprehensible or new commands to CUT THE ITSA LINE. Let it run. Help only when it's stopped. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dr.jh Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 338  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=14/8/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  LECTURE GRAPHS   Central Orgs  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 14 AUGUST 1963 Central Orgs LECTURE GRAPHS The following graphs accompany Saint Hill Special Briefing Course Lectures of: July 25, AD13 August 7, AD13 August 8, AD13 L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dr.cden Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [SEVERAL PAGES OF GRAPHICS INSERTED]  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=19/8/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY TWO STAR RATED HCO BULLETIN HOW TO DO AN ARC BREAK ASSESSMENT   Central Orgs Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 19 AUGUST AD13 Central Orgs Franchise SCIENTOLOGY TWO STAR RATED HCO BULLETIN HOW TO DO AN ARC BREAK ASSESSMENT (HCO Secs: Check out on all technical Executives and Personnel. Tech Dir: Check out on HCO Secs and Assn Org Secs.) The successful handling of an ARC Break Assessment is a skilled activity which requires: 1. Skill in handling a Meter. 2. Skill in handling the Itsa Line of the Auditing Cycle. 3. Skill in Assessment. The lists given in HCO Bulletin of July 5, AD 13 "ARC BREAK ASSESSMENTS", are used, either from that HCO Bulletin or amended. There are several uses for ARC Break Assessments. 1. Cleaning up a session ARC Break. 2. Cleaning up auditing in general. 3. Cleaning up a pc's or student's possible ARC Breaks. 4. Cleaning up a member of the public's possible or actual ARC Breaks. 5. Regular use on a weekly basis on staff or organization members. There are others. Those above are the chief uses. For long time periods the standard 18 button prepcheck is faster, but an ARC Break Assessment is still useful in conjunction with it. The drill is simple. If complicated by adding in R2H material, dating, and other additives, the ARC Break Assessment ceases to work well and may even create more ARC Breaks. If used every time a pc gets in a little trouble in R3N Dr R3R the ARC Break Assessment is being used improperly. In R2H, R3N, R3R sessions it is used only when the pc shows definite signs of an ARC Break. To use it oftener constitutes no auditing. Unnecessary use of an ARC Break Assessment may ARC Break the pc with the Assessment. The ARC Break Assessment may be repaired by an 18 Button Prepcheck "On ARC Break Assessments ....... ARC BREAK ASSESSMENT BY STEPS STEP ONE: Select the proper list. This is done by establishing what the pc has been audited on. If more than one type of by-passed charge is suspected, do more than one list. If the ARC Break is not completely cured by one list, do another kind of list. (All lists have been in HCOBs as "L".) STEP TWO: Inform the pc that you are about to assess for any charge that might have been restimulated or by-passed on his or her case. Do not heavily stress the ARC Break aspect. Right: "I am going to assess a list to see if any charge has been by-passed on your case." Wrong: "I'm going to try to cure (or assess) your ARC Break." 345 STEP THREE: Without regard to pc's natter, but with quick attention for any cognition the pc may have during assessment as to by-passed charge, assess the list. Phrase the question in regard to the reason for the Assessment -- "In this session ....... " "During this week ....... " "In Scientology ....... " etc. Call each line once to see if it gives an instant read. The moment a line gives a reaction, stop, and do Step Four. STEP FOUR: When a line reacts on the needle, say to the pc, "The line ....... reacts. What can you tell me about this?" STEP FIVE: Keep Itsa Line in. Do not cut the pc's line. Do not ask for more than pc has. Let pc flounder around until pc finds the charge asked for in Step Four or says there's no such charge. (If a line reacted because the pc did not understand it, or by protest or decide, make it right with the pc and continue assessing.) STEP SIX: In a session: If pc found the by-passed charge, ask pc "How do you feel now?" If pc says he or she feels OK, cease assessing for ARC Breaks and go back to session actions. If pc says there's no such charge or gets misemotional at Auditor, keep on assessing on down the list for another active line, or even on to another list until the charge is found which makes pc relax. In a routine ARC Break check (not a session but for a longer period), don't stop assessing but keep on going as in Step Five, unless pc's cognition is huge. END OF STEPS Please notice: This is not R2H. There is no dating. The auditor does not further assist the pc with the meter in any way. If the pc blows up in your face on being given a type of charge, keep going, as you have not yet found the charge. Typical response to wrong charge found: Pc: "Well of course it's a cut communication! You've been cutting my communication the whole session. You ought to be retreaded ....... etc." Note here that pc's attention is still on auditor. Therefore the correct charge has not been found. If the by-passed charge has been found the pc will relax and look for it, attention on own case. Several by-passed charges can exist and be found on one list. Therefore in cleaning up a week or an intensive or a career (any long period) treat a list like rudiments, cleaning everything that reacts. Blow down of the Tone Arm is the meter reaction of having found the correct by-passed charge. Keep doing Steps One to Six until you get a blow down of the Tone Arm. The pc feeling better and being happy about the ARC Break will coincide almost always with a Tone Arm Blow Down. You can, however, undo a session ARC Break Assessment by continuing beyond the pc's cognition of what it is. Continuing an assessment after the pv has cognited, invalidates the pc's cognition and cuts the Itsa Line and may cause a new ARC Break. Rarely, but sometimes, the ARC Break is handled with no TA blow down. PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT The purpose of in ARC Break Assessment is to return the pc into session or into Scientology or into an Org or course. By-passed charge can cause the person to blow out of session, or out of an Org or a course or Scientology. WITH A SESSION (formerly "in"): Is defined as "INTERESTED IN OWN CASE AND WILLING TO TALK TO THE AUDITOR . AGAINST SESSION: Against session is defined as "ATTENTION OFF OWN CASE AND TALKING 346 AT THE AUDITOR IN PROTEST OF AUDITOR, PT AUDITING, ENVIRONMENT OR SCIENTOLOGY". WITH SCIENTOLOGY: With Scientology is defined as "INTERESTED IN SUBJECT AND GETTING IT USED". AGAINST SCIENTOLOGY: Against Scientology is defined as "ATTENTION OFF SCIENTOLOGY AND PROTESTING SCIENTOLOGY BEHAVIOR OR CONNECTIONS". WITH ORGANIZATION: With organization can be defined as "INTERESTED IN ORG OR POST AND WILLING TO COMMUNICATE WITH OR ABOUT ORG". AGAINST ORGANIZATION: Against organizationness is defined as "AGAINST ORGANIZATION OR POSTS AND PROTESTING AT ORG BEHAVIOR OR EXISTENCE". The data about ARC Breaks can be expanded to marriage, companies, jobs, etc. Indeed to all dynamics -- With Dynamic, Against Dynamic. What it boils down to is this: There are only two conditions of living, but many shades of grey to each one. These conditions are: 1. LIFE: NOT ARC BROKEN: Capable of some affinity for, some reality about and some communication with the environment; and 2. DEATH: ARC BROKEN: Incapable of affinity for, reality about and communication with the environment. Under One we have those who can disenturbulate themselves and make some progress in life. Under Two we have those who are in such protest that they are stopped and can make little or no progress in life. One, we consider to be in some ARC with existence. Two, we consider to be broken in ARC with existence. In a session or handling the living lightning we handle, people can be hit by a forceful charge of which they are only minutely aware but which swamps them. Their affinity, reality and communication (life force) is retarded or cut by this hidden charge and they react with what we call an ARC Break or have an ARC Broken aspect. If they know what charge it is they do not ARC Break or they cease to be ARC Broken. It is the unknown character of the charge that causes it to have such a violent effect on the person. People do not ARC Break on known charge. It is always the hidden or the earlier charge that causes the ARC Break. This makes life look different (and more understandable). People continuously explain so glibly why they are acting as badly as they are. Whereas, if they really knew, they would not act that way. When the true character of the charge (or many charges as in a full case) is known to the person the ARC Break ceases. How much by-passed charge does it take to make a case? The whole sum of past by-passed charge. This fortunately for the pc is not all of it in constant restimulation. Therefore the person stays somewhat in one piece but prey to any restimulation. Auditing selectively restimulates, locates the charge and discharges it (as seen on the action of a moving Tone Arm). However, accidental rekindlings of past charge unseen by pc or auditor occur and the pc "mysteriously" ARC Breaks. Similarly people in life get restimulated also, but with nobody to locate the charge. Thus Scientologists are lucky. 347 In heavily restimulated circumstances the person goes OUT OF. In such a condition people want to stop things, cease to act, halt life, and failing this they try to run away. As soon as the actual by-passed charge is found and recognized as the charge by the person, up goes Affinity and Reality and Communication and life can be lived. Therefore ARC Breaks are definite, their symptoms are known, their cure is very easy with this understanding and technology. An ARC Break Assessment seeks to locate the charge that served, being hidden, as a whip-hand force on the person. When it is located life returns. Locating the actual by-passed charge is returning life to the person. Therefore, properly handling ARC Breaks can be called, with no exaggeration "Returning Life to the person". One further word of caution: As experience will quickly tell you, seeking to do anything at all with an earlier by-passed charge incident which led to the ARC Break immediately the earlier incident is found will lead to a vast mess. Let the pc talk about it all the pc pleases. But don't otherwise try to run it, date it or seek to find what by-passed charge caused the earlier incident. In assessing for ARC Breaks, keep the Itsa Line in very well and keep the What's It out in every respect except as contained in the above Six Steps. SUMMARY An ARC Break Assessment is simple stuff, so simple people are almost certain to complicate it. It only works when kept simple. Old auditors will see a similarity in an ARC Break Assessment List and old end rudiments. They can be handled much the same but only when one is covering a long time period. Otherwise assess only to cognition and drop it. The trouble in ARC Break Assessments comes from additives by the auditor, failure to keep on with additional lists if the type of charge causing the ARC Break isn't found on the first list chosen, failure to read the meter, and failure to keep the Itsa Line in. Doing ARC Break Assessments to cure ARC Breaks is not the same drill as R2H and confusing the two leads to trouble. Handled skillfully as above, ARC Break Assessing cures the great majority of woes of auditing, registraring, training and handling organization. If you find you aren't making ARC Break Assessments work for you check yourself out on this HCO Bulletin carefully, review your meter reading and examine your handling of the Itsa Line. If you want live people around you, learn to handle ARC Break Assessments. Don't worry about pcs getting ARC Breaks. Worry about being able to cure them with assessment until you have confidence you can. There's nothing so uplifting as that confidence, except perhaps the ability to make any case get TA motion. Don't ever be "reasonable" about an ARC Break and think the pc is perfectly right to be having one "because ....... ". If that ARC Break exists, the pc doesn't know what's causing it and neither do you until you and the pc find it! If you and the pc knew what was causing it, there would be no further ARC Break. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dr.cden Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 348  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=20/8/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY THREE & FOUR R3R -- R3N THE PRECLEAR'S POSTULATES   Central Orgs Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 20 AUGUST AD 13 Central Orgs Franchise SCIENTOLOGY THREE & FOUR R3R -- R3N THE PRECLEAR'S POSTULATES We have long known that the preclear's postulates made at the time of the incident contained charge. As the preclear is moved back on his time track beyond Trillions Three, you will find that incidents and Reliable Items contain less charge proportionately to the pc (who was stronger then) and that the pc's postulates made then contained more charge. In short as you go earlier on the Time Track, the incidents seemed weaker to the pc then and the pc, being more capable, had stronger postulates. Thus it is not uncommon to find a GPM on the early track producing only falls on the pc and the pc's postulates made at that time rocket reading (or falling). This, in fact, gets even more disproportionate so that on the very early track you might find that running RIs out of a GPM produces no TA motion, but taking the pc's postulates out produces a TA blow down that "goes through 7" (around the whole TA dial and back up). In my recent surveys of the Tone Arm and its relationship to auditing, it became apparent that three types of charge existed in a GPM. 1. Charge as an engram. 2. Charge as Reliable Items. 3. Charge as postulates. All three must be removed from a GPM. Any incident, wherever it is on the track, contains postulates (comments, considerations, directions) made by the pc at that time. Thus in all incidents the pc's postulates must be called for and removed. To remove a postulate from any incident, have the pc repeat it until it no longer reacts on the needle of the meter. If it comes down to a persistent tick get suppress off it and get it repeated again, just as in the case of any RI in a GPM. DON'T LEAVE POSTULATES CHARGED. Treat them like GPM Items whether in a GPM or an engram. Add to your ARC Break L lists L3 and L4, "Have we by-passed any postulates?" There are implants which tell the pc not to erase his own postulates. There is also a Bear Series Goal "To Postulate" Sometimes the postulate lies ahead of the actual engram in R3R. Example: A man decides to get hurt, then enters into an engramic situation. The engram does not wholly free until the postulate is removed. 349 Occasional calling for "any postulates, considerations or comments you had in this incident" while running R3R engrams or R3N will keep the incident going well. When the pc says one, have him or her repeat it until it no longer reacts on the needle. I bring this up at this time as I have found a case that got no TA action on engrams or GPMs or RRs on RIs until the postulates were given special attention, at which time TA action of an excellent kind occurred. SUMMARY A stuck TA is always caused by running the pc above the pc's tolerance of charge. You can stop any TA by ramming the pc into incident after incident without cleaning them up. A postulate is only one kind of charge. At any position on the Time Track also look for the pc's postulates. Early on the Time Track expect them to occasionally "blow the Meter apart". Flatten any postulate found by getting it repeated until the reaction is gone off the needle. And all charge, of course, on anything, whether falls or RRs, must be removed from engrams or GPMs. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dr.bh Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 350  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=22/8/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  TECH PREPARATION FOR HCO POL LTR 21 AUG AD13 PROJECT 80 THE ITSA LINE AND TONE ARM   Route Copy to: HCO Org/Assn Sec D of T D of P Head of Staff Co-audit PE Director  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 22 AUGUST AD13 Route Copy to: HCO Area Sec Org/Assn Sec D of T TECH PREPARATION D of P FOR HCO POL LTR 21 AUG AD13 Head of Staff Co-audit PE Director PROJECT 80 THE ITSA LINE AND TONE ARM The HCO Area Secretary should cause to be played to staff the SHSBC LRH lectures of: 14 August AD13 15 August AD13 20 August AD13 21 August AD13 22 August AD13 These lectures contain all the material necessary for great technical improvement in the organization in both training and processing and particularly on the staff co-audit. Public Dissemination via PE and outside unskilled co-audit is resolved in these lectures. A great many questions, complications and additives can grow up around the Itsa Line so as to amount to several brands of Scientology. These are taken up in great detail in these lectures. This is part of a program to bring home to Central Organizations the current ease of getting acceptable results in the Academy, on the HGC and in the Co-audit by use of only the Tone Arm and Itsa Line. And carry forward the groundwork for outside co-auditing and broader dissemination. We are building all future processing, training and dissemination on the very firm foundation of the definition of an auditor (one who listens), the Itsa Line (listen to the preclear) and the solution of problems (the preclear is always right). This communicates with extreme ease and simplicity. We are building all professional auditing on the Itsa Line, plus directing pc's attention plus the Tone Arm. We are building all top skill auditing on the Itsa Line, directing the pc's attention to what must be audited to make clear and OT and the Tone Arm. These tapes contain all the vital basic information. If you are having any difficulties with income, results, staff co-audit or public dissemination, the broad technical data contained in the Itsa Line, ARC Break Assessments and Tone Arm Action will rapidly resolve them. This begins a new era for Scientology. Get the data known to staff by holding these tape plays for me, at least two of these tapes a week, with all staff attending. 351 Stressing any other data or reviewing any other material, playing any other tapes broadly to staff or students at this time will retard your forward progress by overloading the line. So I'm counting on you as HCO Area Sec to take care of this for me and keep staff attention squarely on: 1. The Itsa Line 2. The Tone Arm 3. Proper use of ARC Break Assessments 4. Directing pc's attention adroitly. This does not affect what we already know and does not outmode such things as metering, Auditor's Code, etc. If you take care of this one for me on the technical end, you'll get a lot of gains and prosperity. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.rd Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [HCO PL 21 August 1963, Change of Organization Targets -- Project 80, referred to above is in OEC Vol. 2, page 95.] 352  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=1/9/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY THREE CLEARING -- CLEARING -- CLEARING ROUTINE THREE SC   Central Orgs Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 1 SEPTEMBER 1963 Central Orgs Franchise SCIENTOLOGY THREE CLEARING -- CLEARING -- CLEARING ROUTINE THREE SC There has been such a rush on in technical that it may have looked to you that we were in a state of rapid change. This was occasioned by a speed-up caused by various events. You are getting about a century of research (or more) in a very few months. So bear with me. The end is not only in sight. It's here. My job is mainly now to refine and get the data to you. The order brought into our work by making FIVE LEVELS OF SCIENTOLOGY is paying off rapidly. Level One is in development. Level Two is well away. Level Four is complete. And suddenly Level Three leaped to a final phase. We can CLEAR, CLEAR, CLEAR. This has been a stepchild for months, even years now. It has been mauled, messed up, invalidated and rehabilitated and knocked around. But a BOOK ONE CLEAR was what most people came into Scientology to obtain. And now I've done it. I've found out why not and how. And this HCO Bulletin is a hurry-skurry outline of the steps so you can do it. There will be lots of HCO Bulletins on this. The tapes of August 27, 28 and 29, AD13, give most of its theory. CLEAR DEFINED -- Book One definition holds exactly true. A Clear is somebody with no "held down fives" in this lifetime (see Evolution of a Science). CLEAR TEST -- Clear sits at Clear read on the TA with a free needle. No natter. No upsets. No whole track keyed in. No SERVICE FACSIMILE. CLEAR STABILITY -- We are not concerned with stability. But we can now key out so thoroughly that we need not stress "keyed out clear". I have found the means, I am sure, to make this state far more stable and recreate it easily if it slips. So forgive me for being indecisive about clear states for these past many months. The breakthrough is stated as follows: IF YOU CANNOT MAKE A CLEAR IN A 25-HOUR PREPCHECK THE PC HAS ONE OR MORE SERVICE FACSIMILES. The barrier to clearing and the reason for fast relapse when clear was attained has been the SERVICE FACSIMILE. SERVICE FACSIMILE defined: Advanced Procedure and Axioms definition accurate. Added to this is: THE SERVICE FACSIMILE IS THAT COMPUTATION GENERATED BY THE PRECLEAR (NOT THE BANK) TO MAKE SELF RIGHT AND OTHERS WRONG, TO DOMINATE OR ESCAPE DOMINATION AND ENHANCE OWN SURVIVAL AND INJURE THAT OF OTHERS. 353 Note that it is generated by the pc, not the bank. Thus the pc restimulates the bank with the computation; the bank, unlike going to OT, does not retard the pc in this instance. The Service Facsimile is usually a this lifetime effort only. It might better be called a SERVICE COMPUTATION but we'll hold to our old terms. The pc is doing it. In usual aberration the bank is doing it (the pc's engrams, etc). Where you can't clear the pc by auditing just bank, you have to get out of the road what the pc is doing to stay aberrated. If you clear only what the bank is doing the clear state rapidly relapses. If you clear what the pc is doing the bank tends to stay more quiet and unrestimulated. It is the pc who mostly keys his bank back in. Therefore the pc who won't go free needle clear is himself unconsciously preventing it. And by knocking out this effort we can then key out the bank and we have a fast clear who pretty well stays clear (until sent on to OT). The state is desirable to attain as it speeds going to OT. All this came from studies I've been doing of the Tone Arm. The Tone Arm must move during auditing or the pc gets worse. All those pcs whose Tone Arms don't easily get into action and hang up are SERVICE FACSIMILE pcs. Note that the SERVICE FACSIMILE is used to: FIRST: Make self right. Make others wrong. SECOND: To Avoid Domination. To Dominate Others. THIRD: To Increase own survival. To hinder the survival of others. The Service Facsimile is all of it logical gobbledygook. It doesn't make good sense. That's because the pc adopted it where, in extreme cases, he or she felt endangered by something but could not Itsa it. Hence it's illogical. Because it is senseless, really, the computation escapes casual inspection and makes for aberrated behavior. TO MAKE A CLEAR The steps, in brief, are: 1. ESTABLISH SERVICE FAC. This is done by Assessment of Scientology List One of 2-12 and using that for a starter and then using the Preliminary Step of R3R as published (HCO Bulletin of July 1, AD13). One uses only things found by assessment, never by wild guesses or pc's obvious disabilities. These assessments already exist on many cases and should be used as earlier found. 2. AUDIT WITH RIGHT-WRONG. Ask pc with Itsa Line carefully in, FIRST QUESTION: "In this lifetime, how would (whatever was found) make you right?" Adjust question until pc can answer it, if pc can't. Don't force it off on pc. If it's correct it will run well. Don't keep repeating the question unless pc needs it. Just let pc answer and answer and answer. Let pc come to a cognition or run out of answers or try to answer the next question prematurely and switch questions to: SECOND QUESTION: "In this lifetime, how would (whatever was found) make others wrong?" Treat this the same way. Let the pc come to a cog, or run out of answers or accidentally start to answer the first question. Go back to first question. Do the same with it. Then to second question. Then to first question again, then to second. If your assessment was right pc will be getting better and better TA action. But the TA action will eventually lessen. On any big cognition, end the process. This may all take from 2 hours to 5, I don't think more. The idea is not to beat the process to 354 death or sink pc into bank GPMs. The pc will have automaticities (answers coming too fast to be said easily) early in the run. These must be gone and pc bright when you end. You are only trying to end the compulsive character of the Service Facsimile so found and get it off automatic and get pc to see it better, not to remove all TA action from the process. 3. AUDIT SECOND PROCESS. Using the same method of auditing as in 2. above, use the THIRD QUESTION: "In this lifetime how would (same one used in Step 2) help you escape domination?" When this seems cooled off use FOURTH QUESTION: "In this lifetime how would (same one) help you dominate others?" Use THIRD QUESTION and FOURTH QUESTION again and until pc has it all cooled off or a big cognition. 4. AUDIT THIRD PROCESS. Using the same method as in 2. above use the FIFTH QUESTION: "In this lifetime, how would (same one) aid your survival?" and then SIXTH QUESTION: "In this lifetime how would (same one) hinder the survival of others?" Use FIVE and SIX as long as is necessary to cool it all off or to produce a big cognition. 5. PREPCHECK WITH BIG MID RUDS, using the question, "In this lifetime, on (same one) has anything been...?" and get in Suppress, Careful of, Failed to Reveal, Invalidate, Suggest, Mistake been made, Protest, Anxious about, Decided. If the pc has a really shattering cognition just halt Prepcheck and end it off. This Prepcheck is done of course off the meter until the pc says no, then checking it on the meter and cleaning it off. Once you've gone to meter on a button stay with meter for further queries. But don't clean cleans and don't leave slows or speeded rises either. And don't cut pc's Itsa Line. That should be the end of a Service Facsimile. But a pc may have several, so do it all again through all steps as often as is needed. Pcs who have had Scientology List One of R2-12 should be given these as the first things used. Pcs who have had assessments done for R3R chains should have these assessment results used (or as much of them as apply) for the next runs. Even if the chain assessment has been run on R3R still use it for R3SC. COMPLETING CLEARING To complete clearing then, it is only necessary to give a permissive In This Lifetime 18 button Prepcheck making the pc look hard for answers, short of ARC Breaking pc. And you should have a beautiful free needle and TA at the clear read and the pc shining. If clearing did not occur these following faults were present in the auditing: 1. Pc did not agree with assessment, it read only because pc did not understand it or protested it. 2. The assessment was wrong. 3. The atmosphere of auditing was critical of pc. 4. The Itsa Line was not in. 5. The auditor let the Itsa Line wander to early track. 6. The auditor Q'ed and A'ed and went off process and into engrams on pc's "sell". 355 7. The process was not done. 8. The assessment was done by physical disability inspection or by choosing pc's habits, not by actual assessment. 9. The auditing did not produce TA action (wrong assessment and/or Itsa Line out would be all that could produce no TA action). 10. Pc already sitting in a heavy ARC Break by reason of whole track by- passed charge. 11. This process used instead of an ARC Break Assessment well done, thus making this process a punishment. 12. Questions phrased wrong. 13. Questions were over-run. 14. Questions were under-run. 15. Auditor too choppy on Prepchecking. 16. ARC Breaks in these sessions were not cleaned up. 17. Pc trying to plunge into early track and stay restimulated. 18. Pc trying to get early track GPMs or engrams run to avoid giving up Service Facsimile. 19. Auditor missed withholds accumulated during clearing. 20. Process end product "clear" overestimated by auditor, pc or supervisors. The keynote of clearing a Service Facsimile is INTEREST. If pc isn't interested in it, the assessment is wrong. The keynote of auditing tone is permissive, happy, easy, not militant. Let pc run on and on. On phrasing question, no matter what is assessed it is always IT MAKES PC RIGHT AND OTHERS WRONG. Pc is not trying to make it wrong. An ordinary Prepcheck, done with a Service Facsimile present, will turn on mass on the pc. Why? Pc is asserting Service Facsimile. Well that's the fast rundown on R3SC (Routine Three, Service Facsimile Clear). And that's clearing. A lot of theory is missing in this HCO Bulletin but not one essential step. You can do it. If a person is cleared before going on to OT they make it hundreds of hours faster! (NOTE: All OT processes will shortly be released with R4 designations but with little other change.) LRH:jw.cden L. RON HUBBARD Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 356  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=6/9/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY FIVE INSTRUCTING IN SCIENTOLOGY AUDITING INSTRUCTOR'S TASK D of P's CASE HANDLING   HCO Sec Tech Dir D of T, D of P Five copies to each Org Orgs do not restencil  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 6 SEPTEMBER 1963 HCO Sec Tech Dir D of T, D of P Five copies to each Org SCIENTOLOGY FIVE Orgs do not restencil INSTRUCTING IN SCIENTOLOGY AUDITING INSTRUCTOR'S TASK D of P's CASE HANDLING As given at the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course Instructors Conference of this date, the task of the Scientology Auditing Course Instructor (and D's of P handling cases through uncleared staff auditors) is to accomplish training and processing and therefore auditing with uncleared students or auditors. The following drawings and explanations were made. In Drawing A we see the auditor's perception of the pc as limited by auditor's own Service Facsimile. In Drawing B we see the Auditor's perception of the pc the way it would be if the Service Fac were removed. Thus we see judgement missing because of lack of perception of the pc or his or her condition or case in Drawing A, thus permitting only processes not requiring high level perception or decisions based upon the momentary condition of the pc. In Drawing B we see that perception is not limited, judgement can be exercised by the auditor because the pc can actually be observed by him. Higher level processes can only be run by an auditor approximating the observation condition shown in Drawing B. In Drawing C we see the actual observation limitations of auditor or pc in an aberrated condition. The keynote is SAFE ASSUMPTIONS as per Service Fac. Thus only Safe Assumptions will be entertained and no real auditing occurs. Only ineffective assumptions or questions are likely to be asked or viewed. Example: "What about thinking about stealing a paper clip from HASI?" This actual question was once asked in O/W, and its prototypes keep real auditing from occurring since neither pc nor auditor get close to any real aberration. (That either auditor or pc consider the assumption safe does not mean it is not aberrated and subject to fault.) So no real auditing of the case is undertaken and when something worth while auditing is contacted, either auditor draws off or pc (unobserved by an aberrated auditor) draws off. This reduces processing results to next to nothing. It also sometimes leads both auditor and pc in over both their heads as little is observed and all these "Safe Assumptions" are also aberrated. The Instructor's (and Case Supervisor's) Solution is seen in Drawing D. Auditing at lower stages, done by aberrated auditors (who have Service Facs in place) must be assumed to be independent of observation of the PC Occurrences (since observation of the pc as in Drawing A does not exist). The Instructor therefore directs the Student Auditor's attention toward the Scientology Body of Data in order to get effective auditing done. So does any Case Supervisor. This body of data is designed to accomplish auditing independent of observation of the pc and the many varieties of changes and differences amongst pcs. The Instructor uses such mechanisms as "If you can breathe you can audit," "Do it exactly by the Bulletin." He instructs only in broadly workable processes and along 357 definite rote lines. He uses the habit patterns of discipline to enforce the auditor's attention to and compliance with workable drills and data. If this is done (and only if this is done) will auditing occur that is capable of producing effective results independent of the condition shown in Drawing A. If the condition shown in Drawing C is permitted to occur, then all manner of squirrel processes and actions will occur in sessions, wild solutions will reign and general chaos will result. But more importantly the auditing necessary to produce the ideal condition shown in Drawing B can occur only in the presence of Instruction or Supervision shown in Drawing D. Thus one produces cleared auditors by operating only as per Drawing D. These facts are not the result of theoretical supposition, but of careful empirical observation and test. Therefore, Instruction and performance of uncleared auditors must follow Drawing D. The accomplishment of Classes II and III auditing and Levels II and III results is possible by following Drawing D. It fails only when Drawing D is not understood and followed by Instructors and Auditing Supervisors. The liability is that the student's or auditor's Service Fac may contest Instruction as shown in Drawing D. There is no liability if the student is already capable of Drawing B observation (which is rare in uncleared persons). If a Service Fac is in the road of Instruction as per Drawing D, it still has been and can be overcome far more easily than overcoming various erroneous and varying observations of pcs, as to confront the pc is to confront aberration directly and to confront the Body of Data is to confront only an orderly and pleasant arrangement of truthful facts that will still hold good when the student is cleared, whereas the pc's aberration, unstable before processing, will be gone. Thus we study valid workable data that is broadly true and enforce compliance with it rather than studying or classifying Individual Cases and their aberrations as was done exclusively in older Mental Sciences (which failed where we have already succeeded for years). Class IV material (OT and Whole Track) is sometimes too much for the uncleared auditor since it is complex. It requires strict adherence to the Body of Data as well as some observation of the pc. Thus Class IV materials (OT and Whole Track) are best done when the conditions of Drawing B and Drawing D both be present in the session. This establishes levels of data and classification of its use. Some auditors with Service Facsimiles in place will be unable to successfully handle Class IV data. And some pcs unless cleared of the added restimulation of this life and the environment before being put on Whole Track will be unable to climb the hill. Therefore all Instruction and use of Scientology Auditing Skills and Materials are most successfully done as per Drawing D and have proven unsuccessful when auditor observation of the pc was assumed or auditor judgement relied upon while the auditor or student was in an uncleared state as per Drawings A and C. This shows an Instructor in or Supervisor of Scientology Auditing his surest route to success with students without blocking those students already in condition to observe pcs. Those students whose Service Facsimiles revolt at Drawing D will also most surely prevent their observation of the pc and Instruction and Supervision Methods as per Drawing D can overcome the barrier whereas nothing will actually surmount the failure to observe the pc, short of clearing the auditor's Service Fac. This last is a matter, also, of close observation of students over a period of two years. The object is to get auditing done under supervision and both during and after Instruction. Only then can we ever broadly attain cleared auditors or any of our objectives. 358 Instruction fails when these principles are not present or when done without heavy stress on the Body of Data and compliance with good auditing practice. This is in no way critical of students or uncleared auditors. It is simple observation. It is effective. It is no mean development to accomplish auditing without observing the more subtle conditions of the pc. We have done just that. Therefore, as the student or auditor does not usually observe the pc because of his own Service Fac, and as Level II and III can be done entirely by data, drills and rote procedures, all but Class IV can be attained without cleared auditors. If only cleared auditors were permitted to audit then nobody would be able to start the clearing. This shortage of cleared auditors will exist to nearly the end of this universe. So it is a good thing to have the problem resolved, as it is in this HCO Bulletin. Of course, the most valid reason for using this approach is that only the disciplined Body of Data used exactly is capable of resolving cases and no amount of confront of PC occurrence would by itself resolve anything. It's the Body of Data exactly and precisely used that resolves the human or any other mind. And that's the main reason to make the student concentrate upon it. So this is a safe thing to do -- concentrate on the Body of Data -- no matter why. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dr.bh Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 359 [GRAPHICS INSERTED] 360  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=9/9/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS AND REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING HOW TO GET THE RUDIMENTS IN   Central Orgs Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 9 SEPTEMBER AD13 Central Orgs Franchise REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS AND REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING (Compiled from HCO Bulletins of July 2, 3 and 4, AD12) HOW TO GET THE RUDIMENTS IN Just as an E-Meter can go dead for the auditor in the presence of a monstrous ARC break, I have found it can go gradiently dull in the presence of out rudiments. If you fail to get one IN then the outness of the next one reads faintly. And if your TR1 is at all poor, you'll miss the rudiment's outness and there goes your session. To get over these difficulties, I've developed Repetitive Rudiments. The auditor at first does not consult the meter, but asks the rudiments question of the pc until the pc says there is no further answer. At this point the auditor says, "I will check that on the meter." And asks the question again. If it reads, the auditor uses the meter to steer the pc to the answer, and when the pc finds the answer, the auditor again says, "I will check that on the meter" and does so. The cycle is repeated over and over until the meter is clean of any instant read (see HCO Bulletin of May 25, 1962, for Instant Read). The cycle: 1. Run the rudiment as a repetitive process until pc has no answer. 2. Consult meter for a hidden answer. 3. If meter reads use it to steer ("that" "that" each time the meter flicks) the pc to the answer. 4. Stay with the Meter and do (2) and (3). The process is flat when there is no instant read to the question. One does not "bridge out" or use "two more commands". When the meter test of the question gets no instant read, the auditor says, "The meter is clean". The trick here is the definition of "With Session". If the pc is With Session the meter will read. If the pc is partially against session the meter will read poorly, and the rudiment will not register and the rudiment will get missed. But with the pc with session the meter will read well for the auditor. FAST CHECKING A Fast Check on the Rudiments consists only of Steps (2) and (3) of the cycle done over and over. Watching the meter the auditor asks the question, takes up only what reads and, careful not to Q and A, clears it. One does this as many times as is necessary to get a clean needle. But one still says "The meter is clean" and catches up the disagreement by getting the additional answers. When the question is seen to be clean, the question is left. In using Fast Checking NEVER SAY, "THAT STILL READS." That's a flunk. Say, "There's another read here." REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING We will still use the term "Prepchecking" and do all Prepchecking by repetitive command. 361 STEP ONE Without now looking at the Meter, the auditor asks the question repetitively until the preclear says that's all, there are no more answers. STEP TWO The auditor then says, "I will check that on the meter" and does so, watching for the Instant Read (HCO Bulletin May 25, 1962). If it reads, the auditor says, "That reads. What was it?" (and steers the pc's attention by calling each identical read that then occurs). "There ....... That ....... That ....... " until the pc spots it in his bank and gives the datum. STEP THREE The auditor then ignores the meter and repeats Step One above. Then goes to Step Two, etc. STEP FOUR When there is no read on Step Two above, the auditor says, "The meter is clean." This is all there is to Repetitive Prepchecking as a system. Anything added in the way of more auditor questions is destructive to the session. Be sure not to Q and A (HCO Bulletin of May 24, 1962). Be sure your TR4 is excellent in that you understand (really, no fake) what the pc is saying and acknowledge it (really, so the pc gets it) and return the pc to session. Nothing is quite as destructive to this type of auditing as bad TR4. END WORDS The E-Meter has two holes in it. It does not operate on an ARC broken pc and it can operate on the last word (thought minor) only of a question. Whereas the question (thought major) is actually null. A pc can be checked on the END WORDS OF RUDIMENTS QUESTIONS and the charge on those single words can be made known and the question turned around to avoid the last word's charge. Example: "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" The word "difficulties", said to the pc by itself gives an Instant Read. Remedy: Test "Difficulties". If it reads as itself then change the question to: "Concerning your difficulties, are you willing to talk to me?" This will only react when the pc is unwilling to do so. Caution: This trouble of END WORDS reading by themselves occurs mainly in the presence of weak TR1 and failure to groove in the question to a "thought major". With good TR1 the END WORDS read only when the question is asked. IN PRACTICE you only investigate this when the pc insists strongly that the question is nul. Then test the end word for lone reaction and turn the question about to make it end with another end word (question not to have words changed, only shifted in order). Then groove it in and test it for Instant Read. If it still reacts as a question (thought major) then, of course, it is not nul and should be answered. DOUBLE CLEANING "Cleaning" a rudiment that has already registered nul gives the pc a Missed Withhold of nothingness. His nothingness was not accepted. The pc has no answer. A missed no-answer then occurs. This is quite serious. Once you see a Rudiment is clean, let it go. To ask again something already nul is to leave the pc baffled -- he has a missed withhold which is a nothingness. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.bp.cden Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 362  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=22/9/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY TWO PREPCHECK BUTTONS  Type = 11 iDate=1/10/62 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  Central Orgs Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 22 SEPTEMBER AD13 (CANCELLED -- see HCO B 14 Aug 64 Volume V -- 446) Central Orgs Franchise SCIENTOLOGY TWO PREPCHECK BUTTONS (Cancels HCO Tech Ltr of Oct 1, AD12) The following order and number of Prepcheck Buttons should be used wherever "an 18 button Prepcheck" is recommended. Do not use the old order of buttons, not because of any danger, but these below are slightly more effective. The old order of buttons may still be used. The full command is usually "(Time Limiter) (on subject) has anything been _______ or is there anything you have been _______" for some of them which don't fit with "has anything been _______". The (on _______) may be omitted. The Time Limiter is seldom omitted as it leads the pc to Itsa the Whole Track. On an RRing goal found and used in R3SC the Time Limiter "In this Lifetime" can be used with good effect. All Service Fac questions or Prepchecks must have a Time Limiter. In running R4 (R3M2), pc's actual GPMs, the goal and RIs are Prepchecked without a Time Limiter as pc is on the whole track anyway. But in all lower levels of auditing, particularly when using a possible goal as a Service Fac, the Time Limiter, usually "In this Lifetime _______", must be used or pc will become Over-Restimulated. For all uses the 18 Prepcheck Buttons now are: SUPPRESSED CAREFUL OF FAILED TO REVEAL INVALIDATED SUGGESTED MISTAKE BEEN MADE PROTESTED ANXIOUS ABOUT DECIDED WITHDRAWN FROM REACHED IGNORED A FAILURE HELPED HIDDEN REVEALED ASSERTED SOLVED BIG MID RUDS It will be noted that the first 9 are the Big Mid Ruds used as "Since the Last Time I audited you has anything been _______ ?" 363 A USEFUL TIP To get the Meter clean on a list during nulling the list the easiest system is to show the pc the list and just ask, "What happened?" This saves a lot of Mid Ruds. TWO USEFUL PAIRS When trying to get an Item to read the two buttons Suppress and Invalidate are sometimes used as a pair. To get a pc easier in session the buttons Protested and Decided are sometimes used as a pair. DIRTY NEEDLE Mid Ruds (called because Middle of Session was the earliest use + Rudiments of a Session) are less employed today because of the discovery that all Dirty Needle phenomena is usually traced to the auditor having cut the pc's communication. To get rid of a Dirty Needle one usually need ask only, "Have I cut your Communication?" or do an ARC Break assessment if that doesn't work. A Dirty Needle (continuously agitated) always means the auditor has cut the pc's Itsa Line, no matter what else has happened. Chronically comm chopping auditors always have pcs with Dirty Needles. Conversely, pcs with high Tone Arms have auditors who don't control the Itsa Line and let it over-restimulate the pc by getting into lists of problems or puzzlements, but a high Tone Arm also means a heavy Service Fac, whereas a Dirty Needle seldom requires Mid Ruds or Prepchecks. It just requires an auditor who doesn't cut the pc's Itsa Line. THE OLD ORDER OF PREPCHECK BUTTONS The following buttons and order were the original buttons and may still be used, particularly if the pc is allergic to Mid Ruds: SUPPRESSED INVALIDATED BEEN CAREFUL OF SUGGESTED WITHHELD PROTESTED HIDDEN REVEALED MISTAKE (BEEN MADE) ASSERTED CHANGED (OR ALTERED) DAMAGED WITHDRAWN (FROM) CREATED DESTROYED AGREED (WITH) IGNORED DECIDED L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.bh Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 364  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=23/9/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY 0 TO V TAPE COVERAGE OF NEW TECHNOLOGY   Central Orgs  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 23 SEPTEMBER 1963 Central Orgs SCIENTOLOGY 0 TO V TAPE COVERAGE OF NEW TECHNOLOGY Due to certain pressures in the world at the end of 1962, I deemed it advisable to speed up research as a means of handling developing situations. This activity proved fruitful beyond any expectations for the period devoted to it. To increase an already burdened personal time schedule was not without repercussion. It was in the first place impossible to crowd more action into the crowded hours but somehow I did so. I cut out all social engagements, almost all appointments and even reduced time spent talking to students. I cancelled all lecture appearances abroad. I let my cars and motorcycles rust and my cameras gather dust. I kept Mary Sue up all night auditing or being audited. And somehow, through the devotion of staff, everywhere, kept the show on the road and handled the legal front also. The stepped up schedule period has not ended but the golden knowledge has been gathered in and all targets hoped for have been exceeded. This period has also been hard on staff, students and all Scientologists due to shifting technology. One of the ways of reducing research time is omitting written records. Therefore I have relied on the Saint Hill Course Lecture tapes to bear the burden of collecting the data together. On these tapes over a certain period we have a full record of the results of this stepped up period of research. What one is greeted with, in listening to these tapes, is a whole new clarification of Scientology including breaking it into progressive classes or levels of data. Hardly any HCO Bulletins mirror this period. It is all on tapes. A full progressive summary of Modern Scientology from the lowest to the highest levels is to be found on the following tapes: 24 July '63 -- ARC Breaks and the Comm Cycle. 25 July '63 -- Comm Cycles in Auditing. 6 August '63 -- Auditing Comm Cycles. 7 August '63 -- R2-H Fundamentals. 8 August '63 -- R2-H Assessment. 14 August '63 -- Auditing Tips. 15 August '63 -- The Tone Arm. 20 August '63 -- The Itsa Line. 21 August '63 -- The Itsa Line (continued). 22 August '63 -- Project 80. 27 August '63 -- Rightness and Wrongness. 28 August '63 -- The TA and the Service Facsimile. 29 August '63 -- Service Facsimile (continued). 3 September '63 -- R3SC. 365 4 September '63 -- How to Find a Service Facsimile. 5 September '63 -- Service Fac Assessment. 10 September '63 -- Destimulation of a Case. 11 September '63 -- Service Facs and GPMs. 12 September '63 -- Service Facs. 17 September '63 -- What You Are Auditing. 18 September '63 -- St Hill Service Fac Handling. 19 September '63 -- Routine 4M-TA. 24 September '63) Summary -- 25 September '63) (These three lectures not yet given at time 26 September '63) of writing this HCO Bulletin.) Additionally we have some earlier tapes that amplify the material of the pc's Actual GPMs and the theory behind them in:. 20 November '62 -- The GPM. 28 March '63 -- The GPM. 2 April '63 -- Line Plot, Items. 4 April '63 -- Anatomy of the GPM. 16 April '63 -- Top of GPM. Other tapes made up to 24 July 1963 carry the full story of Implant GPMs, their patterns and handling and the Whole Track. These have only passing importance as a pc's Actual Goals and GPMs are a thousand thousand times more aberrative and important than Implants. But one has to know the extent and nature of Implant GPMs in order not to get them confused with Actual GPMs. The road into Scientology, the road to Clear and the road to OT are all delineated on the tapes listed above between 24 July '63 and 26 September '63, a total of 25 tapes. (I anticipate 3 of these lectures for this week in order to get out this HCO Bulletin.) Thus in 25 1 1/2 hour tapes we have a summary and clarification and new data on Modern Scientology for all levels and classes. Auditing has been redefined, comm cycles have been inspected, Service Facsimiles have been unearthed and clarified. Most old auditing problems have been swept away and the road has been opened. This has been a fantastic and dramatic period in the history and development of Scientology and I'm proud that it came off. And I thank you from the bottom of my heart for the floods of congratulations that have been pouring in from everywhere as these tapes have been released. History has been made. Scientology is capable of fully freeing Man. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.cden Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 366  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=25/9/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY I to IV ADEQUATE TONE ARM ACTION   Central Orgs Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 25 SEPTEMBER 1963 Central Orgs Franchise SCIENTOLOGY I to IV ADEQUATE TONE ARM ACTION Now that it has been established fully that a pc's gain is directly and only proportional to Tone Arm Action, the question of how much Tone Arm Action is adequate must be answered. These are rough answers based on direct observation of pcs after sessions. Tone Arm action is measured by DIVISIONS DOWN PER 2 1/2 hour session or per hour of auditing. TA action is not counted by up and down, only down is used. Usually the decimal system is used. But fractions can also be employed. Needle falls are neglected in the computation, only actual motion of the Tone Arm is used. One can add up or approximate the TOTAL DOWN TONE ARM MOTION. After a session, if an auditor is keeping good reports of TA motion, one adds up all the divisions and fractions of division of Down Motion (not up) and the result is known as TOTAL TA FOR THE SESSION. A needle gives about a 10th of a Division of motion in one sweep across the dial but, as above, is not used in his computation. Needle action is neglected in the add-up. Example: As noted in the TA column of an auditor's report, 4.5, 4.2, 4.8, 4.0, 3.5 gives you .3 +.8 +.5 gives you 1.6 Divisions of TA action for that period of time. When this is done for a full 2.5 hour session the following table gives you a rough idea of what is expected and what will happen to the pc. Amount Per Session Session Rating PC Reaction 25 Divs Excellent Feels wonderful 20 Divs Good Feels good 15 Divs Acceptable Feels "Better" 10 Divs Poor Slight Change 5 Divs Unacceptable No Change 0 Divs Harmful Gets Worse Anything from 10 Divs to 0 Divs of Down Tone Arm for a 2 1/2 hour session is something to do something about. One gets very industrious in this range. For a 25 hour intensive the scale of TA divisions down for the entire intensive would be: Amount Per Intensive Session Rating PC Reaction 250 Divs Excellent Feels wonderful 200 Divs Good Feels good 150 Divs Acceptable Feels "Better" 100 Divs Poor Slight Change 50 Divs Unacceptable No Change 0 Divs Harmful Gets Worse 367 The preclear's case state can be completely predicted by the amount of TA action received in a session or an intensive. The only exception is where the pc in running R4 (old R3) processes can get into a "creak" of by-passed goals or RIs which make him uncomfortable although TA action has been good or even excellent. A case analysis will locate the by-passed charge. On any auditing where charge has been by-passed but TA action was good the pc's subjective reality on gain will not seem to compare with the TA action gotten in the auditing, but the moment the by- passed charge is located the gain attributable to TA action will be felt. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.rd Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 368  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=1/10/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY ALL HOW TO GET TONE ARM ACTION   Franchise CenOCon  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 1 OCTOBER 1963 Franchise CenOCon SCIENTOLOGY ALL HOW TO GET TONE ARM ACTION The most vital necessity of auditing at any level of Scientology is to get Tone Arm Action. Not to worry the pc about it but just to get TA action. Not to find something that will get future TA. But just to get TA NOW. Many auditors are still measuring their successes by things found or accomplished in the session. Though this is important too (mainly at Level IV), it is secondary to Tone Arm Action. 1. Get good Tone Arm Action. 2. Get things done in the session to increase Tone Arm Action. NEW DATA ON THE E-METER The most elementary error in trying to get Tone Arm action is, of course, found under the fundamentals of auditing -- reading an E-Meter. This point is so easily skipped over and seems so obvious that auditors routinely miss it. Until they understand this one point, an auditor will continue to get minimal TA and be content with 15 Divisions down per session -- which in my book isn't TA but a meter stuck most of the session. There is something to know about meter reading and getting TA. Until this is known nothing else can be known. TONE ARM ASSESSMENT The Tone Arm provides assessment actions. Like the needle reacts on list items, so does the Tone Arm react on things that will give TA. You don't usually needle assess in doing Levels I, II and III. You Tone Arm Assess. The Rule is: THAT WHICH MOVES THE TONE ARM DOWN WILL GIVE TONE ARM ACTION. Conversely, another rule: THAT WHICH MOVES ONLY THE NEEDLE SELDOM GIVES GOOD TA. So for Levels I, II and III (and not LEVEL IV) you can actually paste a paper over the needle dial, leaving only the bottom of the needle shaft visible so the TA can be set by it and do all assessments needed with the Tone Arm. If the TA moves on a subject then that subject will produce TA if the pc is permitted to talk about it (Itsa it). Almost all auditors, when the Itsa Line first came out, tried only to find FUTURE TA ACTION and never took any PRESENT TA ACTION. The result was continuous listing of problems and needle nulling in an endless search to find something that "would produce TA action". They looked frantically all around to find some subject that would produce TA action and never looked at the Tone Arm of their meter or tried to find what was moving it NOW. This seems almost a foolish thing to stress -- that what is producing TA will produce TA. But it is the first lesson to learn. And it takes a lot of learning. 369 Auditors also went frantic trying to understand what an ITSA LINE was. They thought it was a Comm Line. Or part of the CCHs or almost anything but what it is. It is too simple. There are two things of great importance in an auditing cycle. One is the Whats it, the other is the Itsa. Confuse them and you get no TA. If the auditor puts in the Itsa and the preclear the Whatsit, the result is no TA. The auditor puts in the Whatsit and the pc the Itsa, always. It is so easy to reverse the role in auditing that most auditors do it at first. The preclear is very willing to talk about his difficulties, problems and confusions. The auditor is so willing to Itsa (discover) what is troubling the preclear that an auditor, green in this, will then work, work, work to try to Itsa something "that will give the pc TA", that he causes the pc to "Whatsit Whatsit Whatsit that's wrong with me". Listing is not really good Itsa-ing; it's Whatsit-ing as the pc is in the mood "Is it this? Is it that?" even when "solutions" are being listed for assessment. The result is poor TA. TA comes from the pc saying, "It IS" not "Is it?" Examples of Whatsit and Itsa: Auditor: "What's here?" (Whatsit) Pc: "An auditor, a preclear, a meter." (Itsa) Itsa really isn't even a Comm Line. It's what travels on a Comm Line from the pc to the auditor, if that which travels is saying with certainty "It IS". I can sit down with a pc and meter, put in about three minutes "assessing" by Tone Arm Action and using only R1C get 35 Divisions of TA in 2 1/2 hours with no more work than writing down TA reads and my auditor's report. Why? Because the pc is not being stopped from Itsa-ing and because I don't lead the pc into Whatsit-ing. And also because I don't think auditing is complicated. Tone Arm Action has to have been prevented if it didn't occur. Example: An auditor, noting a Whatsit moved the TA, every time, promptly changed the Whatsit to a different Whatsit. Actually happened. Yet in being asked what he was doing in session said: "I ask the pc for a problem he has had and every time he comes up with one I ask for solutions to it." He didn't add that he frantically changed the Whatsit each time the TA started to move. Result -- 9 Divisions of TA in 2 1/2 hours, pc laden with by-passed charge. If he had only done what he said he had he would have had TA. If it didn't occur, Tone Arm Action has to have been prevented! It doesn't just "not occur". In confirmation of auditors being too anxious to get in the Itsa Line themselves and not let the pc is the fad of using the meter as a Ouija Board. The auditor asks it questions continually and never asks the pc. Up the spout go Divisions of TA. "Is this Item a terminal?" the auditor asks the meter. Why not ask the pc? If you ask the pc, you get an Itsa, "No, I think it's an oppterm because ....... " and the TA moves. Now to give you some idea of how crazy simple it is to get in an Itsa Line on the pc, try this: Start the session and just sit back and look at the pc. Don't say anything. Just sit there looking at the pc. The pc will of course start talking. And if you just nod now and then and keep your auditor's report going unobtrusively so as not to cut the Itsa, you'll have a talking pc and most of the time good TA. At the end of 2 1/2 hours, end the session. Add up the TA you've gotten and you will usually find that it was far more than in previous sessions. TA action, if absent, had to be prevented! It doesn't just fail to occur. But this is not just a stunt. It is a vital and valuable rule in getting TA. RULE: A SILENT AUDITOR INVITES ITSA. 370 This is not all good, however. In doing R4 work or R3R or R4N the silent auditor lets the pc Itsa all over the whole track and causes Over- Restimulation which locks up the TA. But in lower levels of auditing, inviting an Itsa with silence is an ordinary action. In Scientology Levels I, II and III the auditor is usually silent much longer, proportionally, in the session, than he or she is talking -- about 100 of silence to 1 of talking. As soon as you get into Level IV auditing however, on the pc's actual GPMs, the auditor has to be crisp and busy to get TA and a silent, idle auditor can mess up the pc and get very little TA. This is all under "controlling the pc's attention". Each level of auditing controls the pc's attention a little more than the last and the leap from Level III to IV is huge. Level I hardly controls at all. The rule above about the silent auditor is employed to the full. Level II takes the pc's life and livingness goals (or session goals) for the pc to Itsa and lets the pc roll, the auditor intruding only to keep the pc giving solutions, attempts, dones, decisions about his life and livingness or session goals rather than difficulties, problems and natter about them. Level III adds the rapid search (by TA assessment) for the service facsimile (maybe 20 minutes out of 2 1/2 hours) and then guides the preclear into it with R3SC processes. The rule here is that if the thing found that moved the TA wouldn't make others wrong but would make the pc wrong, then it is an oppterm lock and one Prepchecks it. (The two top RIs of the pc's PT GPM is the service facsimile. One is a terminal, the pc's, and the other is an oppterm. They each have thousands of lock RIs. Any pair of lock RIs counts as a service facsimile, giving TA.) A good slow Prepcheck but still a Prepcheck. Whether running Right-Wrong-Dominate-Survive, (R3SC) or Prepchecking (the only 2 processes used) one lets the pc really answer before acking. One question may get 50 answers! Which is one Whatsit from the auditor gets 50 Itsas from the pc. Level IV auditing finds the auditor smoothly letting the pc Itsa RIs and lists but the auditor going at it like a small steam engine finding RIs, RIs, RIs, Goals, RIs, RIs, RIs. For the total TA in an R4 session only is proportional to the number of RIs found without goofs, wrong goals or other errors which rob TA action. So the higher the level the more control of the pc's attention. But in the lower levels, as you go back down, the processes used require less and less control, less auditor action to get TA. The Level is designed to give TA at that level of control. And if the auditor actions get busier than called for in the lower levels the TA is cut down per session. OVER-RESTIMULATION As will be found in another HCO Bulletin and in the lectures of summer and autumn of 1963, the thing that seizes a TA up is Over-Restimulation. THE RULE IS: THE LESS ACTIVE THE TA THE MORE OVER-RESTIMULATION IS PRESENT. (THOUGH RESTIMULATION CAN ALSO BE ABSENT.) Therefore an auditor auditing a pc whose TA action is low (below 20 TA Divisions down for a 2 1/2 hour session) must be careful not to over- restimulate the pc (or to gently restimulate the pc). This is true of all levels. At Level IV this becomes: don't find that next goal, bleed the GPM you're working of all possible charge. And at Level III this becomes: don't find too many new Service Facs before you've bled the TA out of what you already have. And at Level II this becomes: don't fool about with a new illness until the pc feels the Lumbosis you started on is handled utterly. And at Level I this becomes: "Let the pc do the talking". Over-Restimulation is the auditor's most serious problem. Under-Restimulation is just an auditor not putting the pc's attention on anything. 371 The sources of Restimulation are: 1. Life and Livingness Environment. This is the workaday world of the pc. The auditor handles this with Itsa or "Since Big Mid Ruds" and even by regulating or changing some of the pc's life by just telling the pc to not do this or that during an intensive or even making the pc change residence for a while if that's a source. This is subdivided into Past and Present. 2. The Session and its Environment. This is handled by Itsa-ing the subject of session environments and other ways. This is subdivided into Past and Present. 3. The Subject Matter of Scientology. This is done by assessing (by TA motion) the old Scientology List One and then Itsa-ing or Prepchecking what's found. 4. The Auditor. This is handled by What would you be willing to tell me, Who would you be willing to talk to. And other such things for the pc to Itsa. This is subdivided into Past and Present. 5. This Lifetime. This is handled by slow assessments and lots of Itsa on what's found whenever it is found to be moving the TA during slow assessment. (You don't null a list or claw through ten hours of listing and nulling to find something to Itsa at Levels I to III. You see what moves the TA and bleed it of Itsa right now.) 6. Pc's Case. In Levels I to III this is only indirectly attacked as above. And in addition to the actions above, you can handle each one of these or what's found with a slow Prepcheck. LIST FOR ASSESSMENT Assess for TA motion the following list: The surroundings in which you live. The surroundings you used to live in. Our surroundings here. Past surroundings for auditing or treatment. Things connected with Scientology (Scientology List One). Myself as your auditor. Past auditors or practitioners. Your personal history in this lifetime. Goals you have set for yourself. Your case. At Level II one gets the pc to simply set Life and Livingness goals and goals for the session, or takes up these on old report forms and gets the decisions, actions, considerations, etc., on them as the Itsa, cleaning each one fairly well of TA. One usually takes the goal the pc seems most interested in (or has gone into apathy about) as it will be found to produce the most TA. Whatever you assess by Tone Arm, once you have it, get the TA out of it before you drop it. And don't cut the Itsa. 372 MEASURE OF AUDITORS The skill of an auditor is directly measured by the amount of TA he or she can get. Pcs are not more difficult one than another. Any pc can be made to produce TA. But some auditors cut TA more than others. Also, in passing, an auditor can't falsify TA. It's written all over the pc after a session. Lots of TA = Bright pc. Small TA = Dull pc. And Body Motion doesn't count. Extreme Body Motion on some pcs can produce a division of TA! Some pcs try to squirm their way to clear! A good way to cure a TA conscious body-moving pc is to say, "I can't record TA caused while you're moving." As you may suspect, the pc's case doesn't do a great deal until run on R4 processes. But destimulation of the case can produce some astonishing changes in beingness. Key-out is the principal function of Levels I to III. But charge off a case is charge off. Unless destimulated a case can't get a rocket read or present the auditor with a valid goal. Levels I to III produce a Book One clear. Level R4 produces an O.T. But case conditioning (clearing) is necessary before R4 can be run. And an auditor who can't handle Levels I to III surely won't be able to handle the one-man band processes at Level IV. So get good on Levels I to III before you even study IV. THE FIRST THING TO LEARN By slow assessment is meant letting the pc Itsa while assessing. This consists of rapid auditor action, very crisp, to get something that moves the TA and then immediate shift into letting the pc Itsa during which be quiet! The slowness is overall action. It takes hours and hours to do an old preclear assessment form this way but the TA flies. The actual auditing in Level III looks like this -- auditor going like mad over a list or form with an eye cocked on the TA. The first movement of the TA (not caused by body motion) the auditor goes a tiny bit further if that and then sits back and just looks at the pc. The pc comes out of it, sees the auditor waiting and starts talking. The auditor unobtrusively records the TA, sometimes nods. TA action dies down in a couple minutes or an hour. As soon as the TA looks like it hasn't got much more action in it the auditor sits up, lets the pc finish what he or she was saying and then gets busy busy again. But no action taken by the auditor cuts into the TA action. In Levels I to III no assessment list is continued beyond seeing a TA move until that TA motion is handled. In doing a Scientology List One assessment one goes down the list until the TA moves (not because of body motion). Then, because a TA is not very pinpointed, the auditor covers the one or two above where he first saw TA and, watching the pc for interest and the TA, circles around that area until he is sure he has what made the TA move and then bleeds that for TA by Itsa or Prepcheck. Yes, you say, but doesn't the auditor do TRs on the pc? One question -- one answer ratio? NO! Let the pc finish what the pc was saying. And let the pc be satisfied the pc has said it without a lot of chatter about it. TA NOT MOVING SIGNALS AUDITOR TO ACT. TA MOVING SIGNALS AUDITOR NOT TO ACT. Only the auditor can kill the TA motion. So when the TA starts to move, stop acting and start listening. When the TA stops moving or seems about to, stop listening and start acting again. Only act when the TA is relatively motionless. And then act just enough to start it again. 373 Now if you can learn just this, as given here, to act when there's no TA and not act when there is TA, you can make your own start on getting good TA on your preclear. With this you buy leisure to look over what's happening. With half a hundred rules and your own confusion to worry about also, you'll never get a beginning. So, to begin to get TA on your pc, first learn the trick of silent invitation. Just start the session and sit there expectantly. You'll get some TA. When you've mastered this (and what a fight it is not to act, act, act and talk ten times as hard as the pc) then move to the next step. Cover the primary sources of over-restimulation listed above by asking for solutions to them. Learn to spot TA action when it occurs and note what the pc was saying just then. Co-ordinate these two facts -- pc talking about something and TA moving. That's Assessment Levels I to III. Just that. You see the TA move and relate it to what the pc is saying just that moment. Now you know that if the pc talks about "Bugs" he gets TA action. Note that down on your report. BUT don't otherwise call it to pc's attention as pc is already getting TA on another subject. This pc also gets TA on Bugs. Store up 5 or ten of these odd bits, without doing anything to the pc but letting him talk about things. Now a few sessions later, the pc will have told all concerning the prime source of over-restimulation I hope you were covering with him or her by only getting the pc started when he or she ran down. But you will now have a list of several other things that get TA. THE HOTTEST TA PRODUCER ON THIS LIST WILL GET A PC'S GOAL AS IT IS HIS SERVICE FAC. You can now get TA on this pc at will. All you have to do is get an Itsa going on one of these things. ANY TA is the sole target of Levels I to III. It doesn't matter a continental what generates it. Only Level IV (R4 processes) are vital on what you get TA on (for if you're not accurate you will get no TA at Level IV). From Levels I to III the pc's happiness or recovery depends only on that waving TA Arm. How much does it wave? That's how much the case advances. Only at Level IV do you care what it waves on. You're as good an auditor in Levels I to III as you can get TA on the pc and that's all. And in Level IV you'll get only as much TA as you're dead on with the right goals and RIs in the right places and those you don't want lying there inert and undisturbed. Your enemy is Over-Restimulation of the pc. As soon as the pc goes into more charge than he or she can Itsa easily the TA slows down! And as soon as the pc drowns in the over-restimulation the TA stops clank! Now your problem is correcting the case. And that's harder than just getting TA in the first place. Yes, you say, but how do you start "getting in an Itsa Line?" "What is an Itsa?" All right -- small child comes in room. You say, "What's troubling you?" The child says, "I'm worried about Mummy and I can't get Daddy to talk to me and...." NO TA. This child is not saying anything is it. This child is saying, "Confusion, chaos, worry." No TA. The child is speaking in Oppterms. Small child comes in room. You say, "What's in this room?" Child says, "You and couch and rug...." That's Itsa. That's TA. Only in R4 where you're dead on the pc's GPMs and the pc is allowed to say it is or isn't can you get TA good action out of listing and nulling. And even then a failure to let the pc say it is it can cut the TA down enormously. 374 Auditor says, "You've been getting TA movement whenever you mention houses. In this lifetime what solutions have you had about houses?" And there's the next two sessions all laid out with plenty of TA and nothing to do but record it and nod now and then. THE THEORY OF TONE ARM ACTION TA motion is caused by the energy contained in confusions blowing off the case. The confusion is held in place by aberrated stable data. The aberrated (non-factual) stable datum is there to hold back a confusion but in actual fact the confusion gathered there only because of an aberrated consideration or postulate in the first place. So when you get the pc to as-is these aberrated stable data, the confusion blows off and you get TA. So long as the aberrated stable datum is in place the confusion (and its energy) won't flow. Ask for confusions (worries, problems, difficulties) and you just over- restimulate the pc because his attention is on the mass of energy, not the aberrated stable datum holding it in place. Ask for the aberrated stable datum (considerations, postulates, even attempts or actions or any button) and the pc as-ises it, the confusion starts flowing off as energy (not as confusion), and you get TA. Just restimulate old confusions without touching the actual stable data holding them back and the pc gets the mass but no release of it and so no TA. The pc has to say, "It's a _______" (some consideration or postulate) to release the pent-up energy held back by it. Thus an auditor's worst fault that prevents TA is permitting the dwelling on confusions without getting the pc to give up with certainty the considerations and postulates that hold the confusions in place. And that's "Itsa". It's letting the pc say what's there that was put there to hold back a confusion or problem. If the pc is unwilling to talk to the auditor, that's What to Itsa -- "decisions you've made about auditors" for one example. If the pc can't seem to be audited in that environment, get old environments Itsa'ed. If the pc has lots of PTPs at session start, get the pc's solutions to similar problems in the past. Or just Prepcheck, slow, the zone of upset or interest of the pc. And you'll get TA. Lots of it. Unless you stop it. There's no reason at all why a truly expert auditor can't get plenty of TA Divisions Down per 2 1/2 hour session running any old thing that crops up on a pc. But a truly expert auditor isn't trying to Itsa the pc. He's trying to get the pc to Itsa. And that's the difference. Honest, it's simpler than you think. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:gw.cden Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 375  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=2/10/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  URGENT GPMs EXPERIMENTAL PROCESS WITHDRAWN   Central Orgs Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 2 OCTOBER 1963 Central Orgs Franchise URGENT GPMs EXPERIMENTAL PROCESS WITHDRAWN The Tape of September 24, 1963, R4MTA, has been withdrawn. The process R4MTA has been cancelled. Cases having a hard time do not get Blowdowns high in the bank. Rather they get a "disintegrating RR" on the Item. Listing by Blowdown can get the pc into other GPMs and skips RIs. R3M2 is reinstated in full and exactly as R4M2. List an Item list to the 1st RR, test the Item you're listing from. If the RI you're listing from doesn't read, give the pc the new Item. If not, list to next RR. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:gl.bh Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 376  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=8/10/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY I TO III HOW TO GET TA ANALYZING AUDITING   Central Orgs Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 8 OCTOBER AD13 Central Orgs Franchise SCIENTOLOGY I TO III HOW TO GET TA ANALYZING AUDITING There are several distinct forms or styles of auditing. There was first the old finger snapping handing of engrams. Then there is Formal Auditing for which we still have TRs 0 to 4. Then there is Tone 40 Auditing, still used today in the CCHs. These are distinctively different styles and a good auditor can do one or another of them without mixing them up. Just as Tone 40 Auditing is still used, so is Formal Auditing -- in fact Scientology 4 on the GPMs must be run ONLY with Formal Auditing and the old TRs and other training are still used to develop it in the student. Now there has emerged a new Auditing style. It is Listen Style Auditing. And the first thing to learn about it is that it is a new style of Auditing and that it is distinctly different from Formal Auditing and Tone 40 Auditing. Naturally an auditor who can do this new style can also do other styles better, but the other styles are themselves and this new style is itself. Listen Style Auditing is peculiarly fitted to undercut formerly difficult cases at the lower levels of Scientology and to get the necessary TA action. Listen Style Auditing has or is developing its own TRs. It has its own technology and this leaves the technology of other Auditing Styles still valid and untouched. Some of the data of Listen Style Auditing is: 1. The definition of Auditor is one who listens. 2. The pc is always right. 3. The task of the Auditor is to get the pc to comm/and to Itsa. 4. The success of the session is measured solely by Tone Arm Action. 5. The style applies to Scientology Levels I to III. 6. As the level in which it is used is increased, the amount of Auditor direction of the pc's attention is increased. The gap becomes very wide in control between Level III and IV, so much so that only Formal Auditing is used for GPMs as this material is all sub-Itsa for the pc. The basic crimes of Listen Style Auditing are: 1. Not getting Tone Arm Action on the pc; 2. Cutting the pc's comm; 3. Cutting, evaluating or invalidating the pc's Itsa; 4. Failing to invite Itsa by the pc; 5. Itsa-ing for the pc; 6. Not getting Tone Arm Action on the pc. These are some of the major musts and crimes of Listen Style Auditing. While some of these also apply to Formal Auditing, to show you how different the new style is, if you tried to use only Listen Style Auditing on Scientology IV and failed to use Formal Auditing at that high level, the pc would soon be in a great big mess! So the style has its uses and exactions and it has its limitations. Now, realizing it is a new style, not a whole change of Scientology, the older Auditor should study it as such and the new student -- as mainly Listen Style will be taught in Academies -- should spend some earnest time in learning to do it as itself. I have had to learn every new Auditing Style and sometimes have taken weeks to do it. I can still do them all, each as itself. It took me two weeks of hard daily grind to learn Tone 40 Auditing until I could do it with no misses. It's like learning different dances. 377 And when you can polka and also waltz, if you're good you don't break from a waltz into a polka without noticing the difference -- or looking silly. So the second thing to learn well about Listen Style Auditing is that it has to be learned and practiced as itself. Listen Style Auditing is peculiarly fitted by its simplicity to analysis by an instructor or student or old-timer. The steps are: 1. Learn HCO Bulletin of October 1, 1963. 2. Muck along with what you learned a bit. 3. Tape a 1 hour session you give on a tape recorder. 4. Analyze the tape. You'll be amazed at the amount of miss until you actually hear it back. These are the points to look for: 1. Did the Auditor get a dirty needle (continual agitation, not a smooth flow up or down)? If so the Auditor cut the pc's comm. This is entirely different from cutting Itsa. Just how was the pc's comm cut? Listen to the tape. Whether the auditor got a DN or not, do this step. How many ways was the pc prevented from talking to the Auditor? Particularly how did the Auditor's actions cut the comm with Auditing or unnecessary action? How was the pc discouraged from talking? What was said that stopped the pc from talking? 2. Establish whether or not the auditor got good TA action by adding up the session's total down TA. See HCO Bulletin of September 25, 1963. If the Auditor did not get good TA action he or she either (a) Cut pc's Itsa or (b) Restimulated nothing for the pc to Itsa. Which was it? The odds are heavily on (a). Listen to the tape and find out how the auditor reduced the pc's Itsa. Note that Itsa is entirely different than comm. Was the pc given anything to Itsa? Was the pc permitted to Itsa it? How much did the Auditor Itsa for the pc? Did the Auditor attempt to change the Itsas? 3. By various ways (by direct invitation, sounding doubtful, unconfident, challenging) an auditor can make a pc Whatsit. The amount a pc is made or allowed to Whatsit reduces TA action. How many ways did the Auditor make the pc Whatsit (give problems, confusions as answers or just plain put the pc into a questioning attitude)? How doubtful or worried did the Auditor sound? How much did the Auditor make the pc worry over TA action or other things (all of which add up to making the pc Whatsit, thus reducing Tone Arm Action)? 4. How much did the Auditor invite unwanted communication about confusions, problems by silence? How much did the Auditor prevent wanted communication by various actions? 5. What errors in the session are obvious to the Auditor? What errors are not real to the Auditor? 6. Does the Auditor have another rationale or explanation for not getting TA action or for what causes TA action? Does the Auditor consider there is another explanation for getting dirty needles? 7. Does the Auditor consider TA action unnecessary for session gains? 8. Does the pc in the taped session agree with the faults discovered? (May be omitted.) Such a tape should be made periodically on an Auditor until that Auditor can get 35 Divisions of TA at any level from I to III on any pc. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dr.rd Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 378  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=16/10/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  R3SC SLOW ASSESSMENT   Central Orgs Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 16 OCTOBER AD13 Central Orgs Franchise R3SC SLOW ASSESSMENT Ian Tampion of the Melbourne Org, just completing the SHSBC, reports on Itsa and Slow Assessment. Dear Ron, Over the past couple of weeks I have had some good wins auditing pcs on R3SC Slow Assessment so I thought I'd write out what I've learned about it from your lectures, bulletins, Mary Sue's talks and D of P instructions and from my experience in Auditing. My only doubt about what I've done is that I may have been combining R1C (Itsa Line) with R3SC but anyway it worked so if I've got my data straight you may like to pass it on to other auditors. Here it is: Aim: To keep the pc talking (Itsa-ing) about his present time environment, getting as much TA action as possible, for as long as possible without finding and running a "glum area" that makes the TA rise. To do this an Auditor should be aware of, and able to use the following definitions: Pc "Itsa-ing": Pc saying what is, what is there, who is there, where it is, what it looks like, ideas about, decisions about, solutions to, things in his environment. The pc talking continuously about problems or puzzlements or wondering about things in his environment is not "Itsa-ing". Present Time Environment: The whole area covering the pc's life and livingness over a definite period. It may be the last day, the last week, the last year, depending on the pc. A Glum Area: That area which when the pc is supposedly "Itsa-ing" about it, makes him glum and the TA rise, indicating that a Service Facsimile is doing the confronting on that area and not the pc. The following diagram and the explanation below illustrate just what is taking place in a Slow Assessment and how the definitions given above apply. [GRAPHICS INSERTED] 379 While the pc is talking about football he can say Itsa game, Itsa played by two teams, Itsa played on a field, etc, etc, etc. The same applies to the areas TV, Work, Wife, Club, Garden, House and Mountains. All this will give nice TA action and good gains for the pc. Now, when he starts talking about cars he will say, "I often have punctures,' 'I wonder why my car will only do 100 mph," etc, etc. While he's talking like this there will be no TA action or a rising TA and if the auditor lets the pc continue, he will get steadily worse. So, the auditor must put in an Itsa line -- e.g. "What have you done about this?" and the TA will start moving again and the pc will get brighter as now he is "Itsa-ing", before he wasn't. Later, or earlier, the pc will start talking about Taxes, his problems, worries,, puzzlements, wonders about Taxes -- the TA will rise and the pc will become glum. Then, even though the auditor puts in an Itsa line as with the subject of cars, the TA continues to rise and the pc remains glum. This is because the pc can't Itsa this area -- he's "got it all made" -- "IGNORE THEM" and this does all his confronting for him. In other words, the Service Fac is a substitute confront and so the TA rises (Note the old rule about rising needle equals no confront!). This is a glum area so the auditor lists "In this lifetime what would be a safe solution regarding Taxes?", completes the list, nulls it, gets the Service Fac "Ignore them", runs it on R3SC and soon the pc will be able to Itsa on the subject of Taxes. This area could be found in the first 5 minutes in which case it may be possible to just note it down and get the pc on to areas he can confront and come back to this one later. The assessment should go on for hours and hours and hours with excellent TA action and the pc gaining in his ability to Itsa all the time. However it won't go that way if the auditor doesn't get the pc to really Itsa what is in his environment, e.g. the auditor shouldn't be content to have the pc say he lives "out in the suburbs", he wants the address, its distance from the city, the type of house, how many rooms, what the street looks like, the names of the houses, occupants, who the neighbors are, etc, etc, etc. Itsa! Itsa! Itsa! Also, it won't go that way if the auditor tries to list safe solutions every time the pc starts talking about his problems in an area as in the example given above with the car. Problems are not Itsa. Itsa! Itsa! Itsa! Equals TA action! TA action! TA action! Equals Pc better! Pc better! Pc better! Good gains!! I hope you find this all okay and pass it on Ron as it's sure a doll of an auditing activity. Very best, Ian Tampion P.S. I found out how most of this goes in auditing by making mistakes first so I learnt the hard way. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dw.rd Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 380  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=19/11/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  ROUTINE 3 R-3 MODEL SESSION REVISED   Central Orgs Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 19 NOVEMBER AD13 (CANCELLED -- see HCO B 20 Apr 64 Volume V -- 420) Central Orgs Franchise ROUTINE 3 R-3 MODEL SESSION REVISED (Amended from HCO B of May 21, AD13) Here is the new Routine 3 Model Session as outlined in HCO Bulletin May 13, AD13. All other Model Sessions are cancelled herewith. This form is to be used in all auditing in the future. SESSION PRELIMINARIES All auditing sessions have the following preliminaries done in this order. 1. Seat the pc and adjust his or her chair. 2. Clear the Auditing room with "Is it all right to audit in this room?" (not metered). 3. Can squeeze "Squeeze the cans, please." And note that pc registers, by the squeeze, on the meter, and note the level of the pc's havingness. (Don't run hav here.) 4. Put in R Factor by telling pc briefly what you are going to do in the session. START OF SESSION: 5. "Is it all right with you if I begin this session now?" "START OF SESSION." (Tone 40) "Has this session started for you?" If pc says, "No," say again, "START OF SESSION. Now has this session started for you?" If pc says, "No," say, "We will cover it in a moment." RUDIMENTS: 6. "What goals would you like to set for this session?" Please note that Life or Livingness goals have been omitted, as they tend to remind the pc of present time difficulties and tend to take his attention out of the session. 7. At this point in the session there are actions which could be undertaken: the running of General O/W or the running of Mid Rudiments using "Since the last time I audited you", or pull missed W/Hs as indicated. But if pc cheerful and needle smooth, just get down to work. One would run General O/W if the pc was emotionally upset at the beginning of the session or if the session did not start for the pc, the latter being simply another indication of the pc's being upset or ARC broken, but these symptoms must be present, as sometimes the session hasn't started merely because of poor Tone 40 or because the pc had something he wanted to say before the auditor started the session. 381 RUNNING O/W: "If it is all right with you, I am going to run a short, general process. The process is: 'What have you done?', 'What have you withheld?'" (The process is run very permissively until the needle looks smooth and the pc is no longer emotionally disturbed.) "Where are you now on the time track?" "If it is all right with you, I will continue this process until you are close to present time and then end this process." (After each command, ask, "When?") "That was the last command. Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this process?" "End of process." RUNNING THE MID RUDIMENTS: One would use the Middle Rudiments with, "Since the last time I audited you", if the needle was rough and if the Tone Arm was in a higher position than it was at the end of the last session. ORDER OF BUTTONS Here is the correct wording and order of use for the big Mid Ruds. "_______ has anything been suppressed?" "_______ is there anything you have been careful of?" "_______ is there anything you have failed to reveal?" "_______ has anything been invalidated?" "_______ has anything been suggested?" "_______ has any mistake been made?" "_______ is there anything you have been anxious about?" "_______ has anything been protested?" "_______ has anything been decided?" "_______ has anything been asserted?" In using the first three buttons (Suppressed, Careful of and Failed to Reveal), the rudiment question should be asked directly of the pc off the meter (repetitive). When the pc has no more answers, check the question on the meter. If the question reads, stick with it on the meter like in Fast Rud checking until it is clean. The last six buttons are cleaned directly on the meter as in Fast Ruds. PULLING MISSED WITHHOLDS: Use: "Since the last time you were audited has a withhold been missed on you?" "Since the last time you were audited is there anything someone failed to find out about you?" "Since the last time you were audited has someone nearly found out something about you?" BODY OF SESSION: 8. Now go into the body of the session. 382 END BODY OF SESSION: 9. "Is it all right with you if we end the body of the session now?" "Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I do so?" "End of the body of the session." SMOOTH OUT SESSION: 10. Smooth out any roughness in the session if there has been any, favoring Suppress, Failed to Reveal, Protest, Decide, Overts, Assert, using prefix "In this session ....... GOALS & GAINS: 11. "Have you made any of these goals for this session?" "Thank you for making these goals," or "Thank you for making some of these goals, I'm sorry you didn't make all of them," or "I'm sorry you didn't make these goals." "Have you made any other gains in this session that you would care to mention?" "Thank you for these gains," or "I'm sorry you didn't make any gains." HAVINGNESS: 12. (After adjusting the meter) "Please squeeze the cans." (If the squeeze test was not all right, the Auditor would run the pc's Havingness process until the can squeeze gives an adequate response.) ENDING SESSION: 13. "Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this session?" 14. "Is it all right with you if I end this session now?" 15. "END OF SESSION (Tone 40). Has this session ended for you?" (If the pc says, "No," repeat, "END OF SESSION." If the session still has not ended, say, "You will be getting more auditing. END OF SESSION.") "Tell me I am no longer auditing you." Please note that Havingness is run after Goals and Gains as this tends to bring the pc more into present time and to take his attention to a degree out of the session. Wording for the above follows the tradition of earlier model sessions. Adhere severely to this session form. It is nearly an irreducible minimum and is very fast, but it is all necessary. The Random Rudiment here is "What happened?" Session Mid Ruds are simply "Protest, Assert and Decide". RI rudiments are "Suppress and Invalidate". ARC Break handling is in accordance with HCO Bulletin of March 14, 1963. Don't continue a session until you find out why the ARC Break. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.rd Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 383  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=25/11/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  DIRTY NEEDLE   Central Orgs Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 25 NOVEMBER 1963 Central Orgs Franchise DIRTY NEEDLE If your pc has a dirty needle, its cause is CUT ITSA or an L1 session ARC Break. NO other source such as a wrong Item or goal or earlier engrams or service fac by-passed charge can cause a dirty needle. If it's a dirty needle its cause lies in basic auditing not in technique errors. This rule is invariable. The apparent exception is the session ARC Break that keys in by-passed technique charge. Example: PC has a wrong goal. Session ARC Break caused by cleaning a clean on the meter. This keys in wrong goal. Auditor does an L4 ARC Break Assessment over a dirty needle, finds "wrong goal". PC brightens up a bit. Auditor thinks he has found all the by-passed charge but actually continues session with a somewhat gloomy pc whose needle occasionally gets dirty. The session ARC Break was left in place. This makes the auditor think a wrong goal can cause a dirty needle. The heavy charge keyed in (and that had to be gotten fast) was the wrong goal. But the session (L1) ARC Break caused the dirty needle. An auditor whose Basic Auditing is poor (who Qs and As, cuts Itsa, invalidates or evaluates, or who misses meter reads on rudiments or prepchecks or cleans cleans or misses withholds) can be spotted by his pc's dirty needle. It's an invariable sign. If the pc has a dirty needle the Basic Auditing of the auditor is bad. That auditor ought to put one of his sessions on tape and listen to it and analyze it as per the earlier HCO Bulletin. Oddly enough, an auditor could run perfect technique on goals and yet be so poor in basic auditing that the pc is always ARC Breaking. This would be spotted by the pc's chronically dirty needle. You may see a dirty read on a pc while listing something or assessing. This means nothing as long as it is a dirty read. A dirty needle, of course, jitters all the time. By their pcs' needles you can know them. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dr.cden Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 384  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=26/11/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  ALL LEVELS STAR RATING A NEW TRIANGLE BASIC AUDITING, TECHNIQUE, CASE ANALYSIS   Central Orgs Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 26 NOVEMBER 1963 Central Orgs Franchise ALL LEVELS STAR RATING A NEW TRIANGLE BASIC AUDITING, TECHNIQUE, CASE ANALYSIS All processing can be broken down into three separate parts for any level of auditing. These three parts are: (1) BASIC AUDITING (2) TECHNIQUE and (3) CASE ANALYSIS. BASIC AUDITING The handling of the pc as a being, the auditing cycle, the meter, comprise the segment of processing known as Basic Auditing. If an auditor cannot handle this segment or any part of it well, trouble will develop in the other two segments (technique and case analysis). When technique and case analysis seem to fail "even when done by the book" the fault commonly lies in Basic Auditing. One or more of the five faults elsewhere listed will be present and these faults effectively prevent any technique or case analysis from working. Where Scientology "isn't working", the wrong first places to look are technique and case analysis. The right place to look is Basic Auditing. Until an auditor can handle a pc in session easily, handle a meter smoothly and accurately and is flawless in his auditing cycle, he or she should have no hope of making any technique work or of analyzing any case for anything. In smooth Basic Auditing lies the open sesame to all cases, for only then do technique and case analysis function. The gun barrel is Basic Auditing. Technique and Case Analysis form the Ammunition and sight. A poor basic auditor using a fine technique is firing ammunition with no gun. It doesn't go anywhere. There is a level of Basic Auditing for every level of Scientology. At the lowest level it is only the ability to sit and listen. It grows in complexity from there up to the fabulous co-ordination of pc, auditing cycle and meter so flawless that neither auditor nor pc are aware of the presence of Basic Auditing at all, but only the actions of the technique and the guidance of case analysis. And between those two practices of Basic Auditing lie many gradients. Basic Auditing is the rock on which all gains are built. TECHNIQUE The techniques of Scientology are many, spread out over 13 years of development. A technique is a process or some action that is done by auditor and pc under the auditor's direction. 385 The lowest technique is the single co-audit question given by the supervisor to let the pc Itsa. The highest is the complex listing of goals and GPMs. A technique is a patterned action, invariable and unchanging, composed of certain steps or actions calculated to bring about tone arm action and thus better or free a thetan. There have been thousands of techniques. Less than a hundred, at a guess, are in common recommended use for the various levels of auditing. Techniques have their place in various levels of auditing today rather than various differences of case. As cases may be audited only at the level in which they are trained, by modern ruling, and as several techniques exist at each level for choice out of Case Analysis, it will be found quite simple to select a technique and get results with it. Safe auditing and good sense dictate such selection and classing of techniques, and trouble only results when someone sells himself out of his level to a high fast flounder. Techniques exist in tables and texts for the various levels and it will be found that these give the best case results applied in that way. CASE ANALYSIS Case Analysis establishes two things (a) What is going on with the case and (b) What should be done with it. Case Analysis is a new subject to auditors at this time. It is commonly confused with techniques and the gravest fault is treating Case Analysis as only another assessment technique. There is a level of Case Analysis for every level or class, to compare with the Basic Auditing and Technique of that class. My first development in this new segment of processing was Programming. This is the consecutive techniques or actions a case should have to get adequate Tone Arm action and achieve a new plateau of ability. But Case Analysis itself has steps like (a) and (b) above. There is also an invariable sequence of application in a more advanced Case Analysis. These steps should be very, very well known by a trained auditor since all Case Analysis fits into them: 1. Discover what the pc is "sitting in". 2. Have the pc detail what assumptions and considerations he or she has had about it; and 3. Identify it fully and correctly. The "it" above can be as slight as a worry, as bothersome as a Present Time Problem or as overwhelming as a Goals Problem Mass. Whatever "it" is the Case Analysis steps would be the same. In the first step the survey may be very brief. It should certainly have certainty in it for the pc. It can be very general. It can be a part of a case or a geographical location. The pc could be clear or insane. The sequence or the 3 steps would be the same. The next step (2) gets the lies off, giving TA action and thus clearing away charge for a more accurate assault in (3). This second step can be very lengthy as in Level Two or very brief as in OT auditing techniques. But it must exist whether short or long. Otherwise the analysis is heavily hindered by the lies and these will read on the meter 386 and upset the analysis or they will cloud the pc's perception on which all Itsa depends. So the lies must come off in any Case Analysis. Usually this is quite permissive and gently done. But it can amount to also pulling missed withholds. It all depends on the level on which the analysis is being done and what is being analyzed. This step (2) becomes itself a technique at lower levels. It is just a spatter and promise at high level auditing. The third step can be long or short but must always be there. Here, with the charge gone in (2), the auditor and pc can now identify the thing much better and the pc can have a final certainty on it. Usually at lower levels, the certainty is only that it is gone. The familiar "How do you feel about that problem now?" "What problem?" is a lower level result of Case Analysis. At the highest level, "On checking the meter, I find that is a wrong Item" would be the auditor's final (3) statement. So Case Analysis at any level has as its action establishing what the pc is in, what it has been supposed to be and what it now is (or isn't). Anything from a habit to a headache could be analyzed in this way. At the lowest levels it could occupy an intensive, at the highest levels five minutes. ARC Break handling has been the most familiar tool of Case Analysis. Case Analysis handles the momentary or prolonged problem, determines the technique to be used, and is always done with Basic Auditing. An auditor has three hats. One is his Basic Auditor's hat. This he never takes off. The other two are his Technique hat and his Case Analysis hat and these he switches back and forth at need. These are the three segments. Put together well, they make successful auditing. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dr.rd Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 387  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=14/12/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  CASE ANALYSIS HEALTH RESEARCH   Central Orgs Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 14 DECEMBER 1963 Central Orgs Franchise CASE ANALYSIS HEALTH RESEARCH I recently indicated that I was doing some research into alleviation of physical difficulties, not because we are in healing but because the AMA should be taught a lesson for attacking us. The research took a sudden optimistic turn with the new subject of Case Analysis, HCO Bulletin of November 26, 1963. While Case Analysis is not used for healing purposes, it can be varied at very low levels to produce some astonishing results in health. The steps for Case Analysis are (1) Discover what the pc is sitting in, (2) Get the lies off, (3) Locate and indicate the charge. In (1) the pc is sitting in whatever the pc says he or she is sitting in, i.e. "I don't know" means pc is sitting in a puzzle and is used with steps (2) and (3) by finding what he has supposed and then with the Itsa handled, establishing the truth of it. The following example severely follows the (1), (2) and (3) steps of Case Analysis without seeming to and without the pc having a clue about either Case Analysis or Scientology for that matter. This was done by a DScn using the new fundamentals of Case Analysis as an independent action to help someone, and very cleverly done it was. I asked the auditor to write it up for you. "Dear Ron, "An account of an assist which I gave recently. "The pc, aged 17 years, was completely new to Scientology: he was suffering from chronic bronchitis, which was currently particularly worrying to him as he had just been given a serious warning by his doctor that this could become TB. "I used the case-analysis assist, first establishing he was 'sitting in' chest trouble, then getting him to tell me all he could about the condition, then I asked (after the TA had slowed down) what he considered was the cause of the trouble, i.e. getting the untruth off, and he said, 'Well, I think it is caused by the climate' -- this was accompanied by a big TA blowdown; no further considerations were forthcoming and no more TA action, so I then asked if this condition 'had anything to do with something that he himself had wanted to do' (i.e. an ACTUAL GPM) -- no BD, so then asked did it have any connection with 'something that someone else had tried to make him do' (i.e. IMPLANT GPM), no BD, so then asked if this was connected with someone or something he had ever known (RIs). This produced a big BD and pc spoke of his grandfather's death: a further BD when I enquired if his grandfather had died of some chest trouble. Then I asked if any other person or incident was connected to his chest trouble: big BD on 'Nearly drowned in a swimming pool just before grandfather died.' I let him ITSA on both these incidents until TA slowed down, then indicated to him that the trouble was connected to grandfather's death AND the near-drowning incident -- this gave a further BD. "In all this assist (in model session) took 34 minutes and made 7 divisions of TA BD: pc made his goal 'To get to the cause of the trouble', and the Gain: 'It's got me 388 deeply interested in the work.' Pc has virtually lost his cough and has applied for a staff appointment at HCO WW. This pc had never heard of Scientology prior to about one week before the assist. Best, (Auditor)" Note: 12 days after this auditing the coughing was still in abeyance. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:gl.rd Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 389  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=28/12/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  ROUTINE VI INDICATORS PART ONE: GOOD INDICATORS   Central Orgs Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 28 DECEMBER 1963 Central Orgs Franchise ROUTINE VI INDICATORS PART ONE: GOOD INDICATORS Note: No Auditor at this date is qualified to run actual GPMs regardless of any former training. The successful technology has not been fully released. There are no Class VI Auditors. If you were trained, run only Implant GPMs, the technology for which has been fully released. An INDICATOR is a condition or circumstance arising in an R VI Auditing Session which Indicates whether the session is running well or badly, and if badly what action the Auditor should at once take. There are good indicators and bad indicators, but all of them are indicators. The good indicators mean that the session is progressing properly and that the next routine action should be undertaken. Good indicators abound in a properly run session. Here are some GOOD INDICATORS: PC cheerful. PC cogniting on Items or Goals. PC's Items found are the ones the pc thought they were on the list. PC listing Items briefly and accurately. Early Items on list turning out to be the right ones. The right item reading on the needle with a chug as though through a resistive wall and then heavily falling with Blowdown. Items found not rocket reading. Goals found rocket reading. Short Item lists (1 to 15 or 20 items on the list). Items being found rapidly without a lot of hassle even though the right item hard to make read. Tone Arm continuing in motion. Not stuck (symptom of wrong goal or by- passed GPMs or RIs). Needle active. Not stuck (symptom of RR gone off which means wrong goal or wrongly worded goal). PC not troubled with new mass appearing when item is given. RI given pc blowing tone arm down when pc asked if it is it. Further blowdown of TA with full dial needle slash when pc told it is his or her Item. Distinct needle slash, two inches or so, when pc asked if new item solves or is solved by RI found just before. Full dial slash of needle when pc answers question as to what is the position of the newly found Item in the bank. Heat on the Item list. Heat on the goals list. Heat on the RI found. No pain on RI found. Tone Arm riding between 2.5 and 3.75 (acceptable) or 2.25 and 3. (excellent). 390 Good Tone Arm Action on finding Items (about 125 TA Divisions per GPM in fast running). (About 30 or 40 TA Divisions down per 2 1/2 hour session, minimum.) The right item reading with only some coaxing. PC with no PTP about which really went where concerning goals or RIs found in earlier session. PC with no question as to what was the right goal or item after it is found. PC not critical or ARC Breaky. PC not protesting Auditor's actions. PC looking younger by reason of R VI Auditing. PC without weariness. PC without pains or aches or illnesses developing during auditing. PC wanting more Auditing. PC's confidence in finding goals and items getting progressively better. PC's Itsa free but not so extensive as to halt session progress, giving no more than 30 seconds or a minute, usually less, to Itsaing a goal or item. Auditor seeing how goals oppose goals. Auditor seeing how RIs solve RIs or are solved by them. The goals plot making sense to the Auditor. The Line Plot looking proper, with correct gradients, to the Auditor. No vast mental effort demanded of the Auditor to follow pc's logic in why something opposes something or solves something. PC not developing heavy PTPs or somatics between sessions or in session. The good indicator tells you things look the way they ought to look and are going the way they have to go to make an OT. When these good indicators are absent then is the time to start doing searches, repairs etc. In actual practice you get so used to good indicators that you don't really think of them as indicators at all. Therefore you keep your attention alert for bad indicators and when these show up you have to act and promptly. Like many other things in this universe you don't concentrate on the smooth, you stay alert for the rough. But it is a great mistake for an Auditor to be so nervous about bad indicators that the pc is thrown into a Whatsit when nothing is wrong. Things will go wrong then for sure. The rule is: Expect good indicators and go on with routine actions as long as they are present. Observe quickly and knowingly bad indicators and rapidly act with the correct response. Every bad indicator is precise, easily observed and has an exact counter-action. The speed with which a bad indicator is observed and the certainty with which it is corrected prevents the session from producing more bad indicators. Observe the trouble sign instantly. Know what to do for that exact sign instinctively. Repair swiftly. And in these points we have the whole secret of fast progress. It is not the pc who slows the session. It is the Auditor's lack of knowledge of bad indicators and their remedies. The longer a bad indicator goes unobserved and unrepaired the longer it will take to repair it. In R VI errors consume time far, far out 391 of proportion to successes. One overlooked bad indicator can consume a month of auditing time. In that month three whole banks would have been run. But no. The month is consumed with unproductive wanderings, the pc and auditor torn to bits with stress and ARC Breaks. It's all a matter of indicators and knowing what to do. If that knowledge is poor, then -- well, no OT, that's all. The road is traveled with total correctness only. It is never traveled at all when unremedied bad indicators are present. The auditor is either totally competent or totally incompetent. There are no shades of grey. One error unremedied puts the whole project on the dump heap. So the auditor has to know his business. And so does the pc. And errors can't be let go by. This is the Routine of Perfection. Sloppy, hope it will get by, well it doesn't matter attitudes will not make OTs. Any error passed up and neglected will within minutes or sessions wreck the lot. Miss a GPM or half a dozen Items and within two banks the pc will bog completely and hopelessly and never progress further until the earlier error is remedied. It's like having a pc on rubber bands. The pc will go down the track from an error just so far and then, as though the bands tighten to drag him back, will run slower and slower and then suddenly one is faced with a pc who can't run at all! But these errors are not undetectable. The instant they occur a bad indicator shows up. The speed errors are remedied determines the speed of advance of the case. The don't care, hope-it-will-get-by, why-repair auditor just can't audit R VI and will only seriously mess up pcs. This is the condition of the final road out. I wish it were different but it isn't. It's that way. An auditor can know his business. There is a finite, specific answer for every bad indicator that shows up. Therefore an auditor, to succeed in R VI must: 1. Know Basic Auditing and meters and Itsa like an old smoothie; 2. Know the anatomy of GPMs, RIs, and the objects of the mind and all their possible combinations like a card sharp knows cards; 3. Know the techniques of R VI like a completely relaxed one-man band; 4. Know all good indicators at a glance; 5. Know every bad indicator and its response with a bang-bang, one-two certainty that never permits a moment's wonder as to what's going on or what to do. 6. Know the rules of R VI rat-a-tat-tat. Given those six things, an auditor can make an OT in under a thousand hours. A weakness on any one of them will not only not make an OT but will fiendishly mess up a case. For even if you know R VI cold you will make enough mistakes to keep you very busy. The pity of it is that one must become an expert before he or she performs on an actual case. But that must be overcome. I learned it from scratch. So can you with all the data now neat before us. LRH:dr.bh Copyright $c 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard. L. RON HUBBARD ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 392  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=21/1/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  METER LEVEL WARNING HOW TO KILL A PC IN LEVEL 5   Central Orgs Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JANUARY 1964 Central Orgs Franchise METER LEVEL WARNING HOW TO KILL A PC IN LEVEL 5 Breath and Body Motion (All levels) Body Motion, sudden expulsions of breath, emphatic gestures, shouts and foot squirmings and anger can make the TA move down and can cause surges that can be mistaken for reads, even rocket reads. Not knowing this can falsify an assessment or leave the bank undischarged. In all assessing or meter running make sure it was the Bank the meter read, not Breath or Body Motion. ********** How to Kill a Pc in Level 5 (taken from LRH instruction to students on Saint Hill Special Briefing Course) What's all the shouting on Items in "R3N"? Items won't read unless pc quietly random lists. I think you've forgotten unwritten random listing as how to make RRs appear on the Implant RIs. Get a random list of a few the pc thinks of. Then the Implant RI will read easily with no shout. This datum gets lost every few months. Keep it around. Pc's sudden expulsion of breath can cause an RR too. Maybe you're getting no charge off. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:vm.bh Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 394  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 21 iDate=24/1/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  HCO (Sthil) LTD CASE SUPERVISOR   Sthil  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 24 JANUARY 1964 Sthil HCO (Sthil) LTD CASE SUPERVISOR The post of Auditing Supervisor is abolished since all instructors are doing auditing supervision as a training measure. The missing action is that of Case Supervisor. The Auditing Supervision done by all instructors quite rightly concentrates on student skill in auditing. A Case Supervisor is needed, therefore, whose sole interest and concern is the advance of cases on the Saint Hill Briefing Course by any and various means. The Case Supervisor will be instructed and supervised by the Course Supervisor in the marking of folders and handling various cases and will take over the full handling of case folders as soon as feasible. All problems having to do with the individual cases of students, any and all auditing assignments and all individual case problems are to be routed to the Case Supervisor. In all questions of what is to be run on a student, regardless of his situation in training, the word of the Case Supervisor, under the Supervision of the Course Supervisor, is final. L. RON HUBBARD Executive Director HCO (Saint Hill) Ltd LRH:dr.rd Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [This is excerpted from HCO Policy Letter of 24 January 1964, Case Supervisor, a full copy of which can be found in OEC Volume 4, page 435.] 395  L. RON HUBBARD Executive Director HCO (Saint Hill) Ltd   Type = 11 iDate=1/3/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  METER READS, SIZE OF   CenOCon  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 1 MARCH 1964 CenOCon METER READS, SIZE OF It occasionally comes to my attention that auditors entering Classes V and VI do not believe a meter can be made to read big. They settle for ticks, tiny falls, etc, of the sort that can be found usually in getting Mid Ruds in. In all auditing up to Class V the usual meter needle read is around an eighth to a quarter of an inch long at sensitivity 16. The Mark V is designed to give good serviceable reads for the lower classes of auditing and is quite wonderful at it. But the moment you enter the wide vistas of Class V, the whole character of meter needle behavior changes, you go from tiny read to big read. In Classes V and VI tiny reads are used only for Mid Ruds as they were in lower levels. But in all work in goals, Case Analysis, plotting, finding items, checking things out, etc, reads are enormous. A new horizon of metering dawns and an auditor coming up through the lower levels, entering Class V and VI work just doesn't believe it. Most of his early mistakes in checking out goals or finding the wrongnesses are entirely based on this. He thinks a tiny read is enough and he uses it. Whereas he really must never use a small read for this work. If a goal is a real GPM it will read with great, intermittent, inconsistent slashes. If an analysis of a situation is brought to the right answer, the meter needle falls hugely. The trouble is that the auditor just doesn't press on looking for the right answer and settles for ticks -- because he can't think up the right combination. The right combination "No GPM" or "Lock on an Implant" will send the needle racing. All mistakes on goals or situations in Classes V and VI can be traced to a failure to appreciate that metering is different at these levels. The sensitivity at Class VI has to be kept around 4. You only use sensitivity 8 or 16 to get in Since Mid Ruds. On all R6 work you shut the meter down. You can't keep the needle at Set if you use a sensitivity higher than 4. Here's a Class V or VI student fiasco, based on using Class III expected meter behavior on high level work: Auditor finds goal on list that ticks (1/8"). Asks if it's the correctly worded goal. Gets a tick (1/16"). Runs it on the pc. Pc collapses. Here's the real way it should have been: Auditor finds goal on list that only ticks. Gets in Suppress and Invalidate on the list. Re-nulls. Finds another goal. Gets in Suppress on it. Gets a third of a dial instant slash (all goals and items must Instant read). Checks it out until he gets a 3" prior slash on Actual GPM. Gets a 2" slightly latent or prior slash on "correctly worded". Gives it to the pc and pc thrives. It's not asking the right question (what it really is) that gives you ticks. In fact a tick with a sharp edge at Class V or VI really means "wrong question asked"! Big reads are the only reads you buy at Class V and VI. Learn the right questions 396 to ask about the character or nature of what you're examining and you get the big falls, RRs, etc. So it's a lack of knowledge of Track Analysis that makes the auditor fall back on small reads. And he'll fail. The second stage of desperation enters at Class V and VI when the student, hammered by the instructors, still can't get big reads (through lack of knowledge of the track and what things can be). The student then abandons all he knew about body motion causing needle reaction. The quickly exhaled breath, the shuffled feet, the can fling about, the stretch, the can bang, all cause big surges. So the auditor encourages the pc to shout goals and items or fling himself about so the meter will react big. This, of course, will spin the pc, getting no charge off, running wrong goals and RIs. By the time the student auditor is trained not to take body motion, shout or breath reads, his Track Analysis has also improved and he starts to ask the right questions and gets his big reads with the pc quiet as a lamb. I never touch a TA during the pc's body movement. This loses TA, of course, since a pc is most likely to move when an RI starts to discharge. I never buy a goal unless I've seen it Instant read, bang on the last letter. I never ask the character of anything to Instant read, i.e. "Is this an Implant GPM", because it may go on anticipate or arrive latent. And do I get TA on the pc! In goals finding and plotting you don't expect much TA. Yet in six consecutive sessions I built TA a few divisions more per session, from 70 TA down divisions to I03 TA down divisions in 2 1/2 hour session, and all by never buying a tick, only big RRs or falls. Gradual build of TA shows all is well. So Classes V and VI are not only big read classes, but they are big TA classes as well. As you are handling the basic sources of charge on a case in Classes V and VI, you expect big meter behavior and you get it. Only ignorance of the track keeps the auditor in the small read, small TA departments. If you keep on trying to get what it really is until you have it, you will always see a big read on what it is. You wouldn't expect to handle high voltage wires with tiny sparks. You would expect huge arcs to crackle. Similarly with the materials of Classes V and VI. If you don't believe a meter will read big at Classes V and VI, then you haven't learned yet to find the right things and ask the right questions. And if you settle for ticks or have to make the pc yell items to get big reads you'll soon have a very messed up case on your hands. So it's a different meter behavior at the higher classes. Expect it, look for it and make it R E A D! LRH:dr.bh Copyright $c 1964 L. RON HUBBARD by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 397  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=4/3/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  CLASS II MODEL SESSION  Type = 11 iDate=23/6/63 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  Central Orgs Franchise Sthil Students  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 4 MARCH 1964 (CANCELLED -- see HCO B 19 May 64 Volume 4 -- 428) Central Orgs Franchise Sthil Students CLASS II MODEL SESSION (Amends and cancels HCO Bulletin of June 23, 1962.) The Class II Model Session has the benefit of requiring no other Rudiments process (except in the Havingness Questions) than the question itself. There are, therefore, no additional processes except Havingness. Beware of any Q and A in using this script (HCO Bulletin May 24, 1962 [1]). Don't stray off Model Session into unusual questions or processes. Use Model Session as the surround for processes to be run on the pc. Don't use it as a process. Questions are asked of the pc and not checked on the needle. Auditor watches meter and records TA. SESSION PRELIMINARIES All auditing sessions have the following preliminaries done in this order. 1. Seat the pc and adjust his or her chair. 2. Clear the Auditing room with "Is it all right to audit in this room?" (not metered). 3. Can squeeze "Put your hands in your lap." "Squeeze the cans, please." And note that pc registers on the meter by the squeeze read on the meter, and note the level of the pc's havingness. (Don't run hav here.) 4. Put in R Factor by telling pc briefly what you are going to do in the session. (What you intend to run.) START OF SESSION: Is it all right with you if I begin this session now? START OF SESSION. Has this session started for you? (If pc says, No, say again, START OF SESSION. Now has this session started for you? If pc says, No, say, We will cover it in the rudiments.) BEGINNING RUDIMENTS: GLL: What goals would you like to set for this session? O/W: One would run General O/W if the pc was emotionally upset at the beginning of the session or if the session did not start for the pc, the latter being simply another indication of the pc's being upset or ARC broken, but these symptoms must be present, as sometimes the session hasn't started merely because of poor Tone 40 or because the pc had something he wanted to say before the auditor started the session. RUNNING O/W: If it is all right with you, I am going to run a short, general process. The process is: "What have you done?", "What have you withheld?" (The process is run very permissively until the needle looks smooth and the pc is no longer emotionally disturbed.) Where are you now on the time track? If it is all right with you, I will continue this process until you are close to present time and then end this process. (After each command, ask, "When?") That was the last command. Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this process? End of process. Aud: Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties? What difficulty aren't you willing to talk to me about? W/h: Since the last time I audited you, have you done anything you are withholding? (If pc says, Yes) What was it? PTP: Do you have a present time problem? What is the problem? 398 START OF PROCESS: Now I would like to run this process on you (name it). What would you say to that? (Get pc's agreement, if not obtainable, choose another process unless old process is not complete.) MIDDLE RUDIMENTS: In this session is there anything you have suppressed, invalidated, failed to reveal, or been careful of? What was it? END RUDIMENTS: 1/2-UnT: In this session, have you told me any half-truth, untruth, or said something only to impress me, or tried to damage anyone? What was it? ? or C: In this session, have you failed to answer any question or command? What question or command did you fail to answer? Dec: In this session, is there anything you have decided? What was it? W/h: In this session, have you thought, said, or done anything I have failed to find out? What was it? Aud: In this session, has anything been misunderstood? What was it? GOALS & GAINS: Have you made any of these goals for this session? "Thank you for making these goals" or "Thank you for making some of these goals, I'm sorry you didn't make all of them" or "I'm sorry you didn't make these goals." Have you made any other gains in this session that you would care to mention? "Thank you for these gains" or "I'm sorry you didn't make any gains." Env: In this session, was the room all right? (If question reacts or can squeeze denotes down havingness, run hav.) END OF SESSION: Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this session? Is it all right with you if I end this session now? END OF SESSION. Has this session ended for you? (If pc says, No, repeat, END OF SESSION. If session still not ended, say, "The session has been ended.") END OF PROCESS NON-CYCLICAL: If it is all right with you, I will give this command two more times and then end this process. (Gives command two more times.) Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this process? End of process. END OF PROCESS CYCLICAL: Where are you now on the time track? If it is all right with you, I will continue this process until you are close to present time and then end this process. (After each command ask, "When?") That was the last command. Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this process? End of process. Most flagrant errors that can be made: 1. Fumbling with script, not knowing Model Session. 2. Failing to get in the R Factor by telling pc what you are going to do at each new step. 3. Doing only what the pc suggests. 4. Adding unusual questions or remarks or making sudden irrelevant statements. 5. Using parts of Model Session as repetitive processes which deter the completion of auditing cycles already begun. 6. Failure to complete the Auditing Comm Cycle on any part of Model Session. LRH:jw.bh Copyright $c 1964 L. RON HUBBARD by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 399  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=15/3/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY VI OVERWHELMING THE PC   Class VI Central Orgs  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 15 MARCH 1964 Class VI Central Orgs SCIENTOLOGY VI OVERWHELMING THE PC Since there is so much charge available in actual GPMs (several thousand times the charge in any other process) the auditor must be very smooth. He or she must not overwhelm the pc. If the pc is overwhelmed, these immediate consequences occur: 1. Pc will not cognite; 2. Pc's judgment will vanish; 3. Meter will read on anything with long protest surges; 4. Charge will transfer to other goals or items, making them read; 5. Pc may ARC Break; 6. Pc may go into Sad Effect; 7. Pc may go below ARC Break into propitiation with consequent no co-operation but apparently OK. EXAMPLES OF OVERWHELM Violations of the auditing cycle can bring about overwhelm: Auditor: Is that your item? (Pc comm lags, auditor doesn't wait it out.) Well, is it your item? (Pc still comm lags. Auditor gets very impatient.) Well, that's your item! Any part of this can overwhelm the pc. Always wait out the comm lag. The pc is under the pressure of charge. He is slow. The auditor not in that charge can think faster. Therefore the auditor fails to see why the pc is taking time. Auditing sessions look like just two people are sitting there. An unschooled auditor fails to realize he is looking at a pc who is miles away and deep in. The pc is in the room isn't he? Therefore the auditor assumes, as in any social conversation, the pc is there. Well, the pc isn't. The pc is buried under charge. Charge slows down responses. When you pile charge up on the pc (a slightly misworded item or two) the pc ceases to be capable of clear thought and will reject even right items. The auditor sees this, gets impatient, starts to overwhelm by informing the pc. The correct step is to do some Case Analysis and get the charge lessened. Then the pc can think. Example: Auditor sees clearly how blah brings about blah. Pc doesn't. Auditor's wrong action is to explain it. Correct action is for auditor to get charge on pc lessened by Case Analysis. The pc's judgment is the finest asset the auditor has in a session. By overwhelm, contradiction, small breaks of the auditing comm cycle, echo metering, charge is added to pc's case. Charge becomes no cognite. No cognite adds more charge by failing to as-is by pc understanding. 400 No cognite soon becomes overwhelm. The less a pc cognites the more charge is accumulated. It is the charge that overwhelms. Auditor errors add charge. Pc then is overwhelmed. Example: Pc originates he thinks item is Woof. Auditor checks Garf. Now pc eventually given Woof (even when he said it was his in the first place) fails to understand it. You can get a pc protesting silently and have everything on a list start to read. Then you can't find the item or goal. Everything reads. Rough auditing, auditor contradictions and comm cycle failures bring this about. Example: Pc says "I think my Item is Woof." (It isn't but pc thinks so.) Auditor: (Not even bothering to check Woof) "I'm sorry, it didn't read when I called it a while ago." There goes the list. Everything may start to read. And it wasn't even pc's item. But the auditor overwhelmed the pc by a direct refusal of the pc's idea. So the list went wild on the pc's unspoken protest. The right action, the very least the auditor could have done was recheck the item. That action at least acknowledged the pc. Then the auditor can say "I'm sorry. It doesn't read, and suppress on it doesn't read either." Now the pc is happy and the auditor can go on nulling. In Class VI the pc is right a lot more times than at lower levels. You start arguing with the pc's heat-on-items (or goals) and you'll soon have a messed up meter and an overwhelmed pc. Of course, you must never give a pc goals or items that don't read. That's simply criminal. But you must do everything you can to get what the pc thinks is right to read. If you can't, then tell the pc you can't and all will be well, even so. A whole list or several parts of it will go alive on overwhelm. By overwhelming the pc you can get wrong goals and items galore. And you get a no-cognite pc and after that you've had it. No auditor can find anything without the pc's co-operation. Preserve it. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:gl.rd Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 401  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=15/3/64 Volnum=0 Issue=2 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY VI METER EVERYTHING READING   Class VI Central Orgs  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 15 MARCH 1964 Issue II Class VI Central Orgs SCIENTOLOGY VI METER EVERYTHING READING There are only a few things which cause "everything to read" on a list of goals or items. (1) METER ABILITY First amongst these (as in any level) is the inability of the auditor to read a meter. In Class VI work the inability to read a meter is very subtle. It is usually that the auditor has not learned the difference between a surge and a real goal read or item read. On a live Item list everything has some charge on it. Only the right item reads in its own peculiar way. A right read is definitely itself and the auditor must learn it. An actual goal chugs. It is no clean read. It may not even blow down. It is sporadic. But it is definitely a highly charged read. Most Implant GPMs read with a long clean enthusiastic RR. Lovely. But it isn't an actual GPM. The actual GPM chugs. It's no clean sweep of needle. And it's no mere Tick. An Actual RI reads with a blowdown of the TA and heavy needle action. The action is so heavy that the sensitivity must not be higher than 4 in Class VI work. A surge looks like an RI if you run sensitivity at 16 or 32. The auditor new to Class VI work is cocky about his metering. Yet he or she has to learn to recognize the character of a thing by its meter action. An auditor who can't tell an actual RI from a lock RI on an Items list with a glance at the meter response will give the pc a lot of bum items. An auditor who can't tell an Actual GPM from an Implant GPM or a no GPM merely by meter behavior and no further questions will make a lot of mistakes. In addition to how it read on the meter you do a full check-out, of course. And in check-outs you must know, as well, by meter behavior during check -out, what you are checking out even before you get the final answer by the check-out patter. There are two ways then of recognizing the character of what you're checking. One is by the reads you get from questions about it. The other is its character of read on the meter. Both are needed to get accuracy. An auditor new to Class VI will buy a Tick. The only ticks in Class VI are on mid ruds and dogs. (Joke.) 402 If you can't get a long fall in response to one of your offered identities "Implant RI, lock on an Implant" and so on down the whole list of questions, then you'll still get one on "It Isn't". No ticks need apply. The auditor who buys an actual GPM because of a tick on "It's an Actual GPM" and no better read, would praise psychiatry. Class VI is all big read stuff. If there are no big reads on anything, including buttons, then whatever it is just "isn't". It must read big if only on "Suppress" or "Wronged" if it's anything at all. If "everything on a list is reading" it may just be that the auditor doesn't know a read when he or she sees one. An Item list should give a 1" or 2" surge on every item the first time through. Only the Actual RI on it reads its head off. And blows down. And keeps reading a while. Those other items surges just die out. On a goals list the list ought to be complete enough that no goal on it except actual goals moves the needle. The actual goal when read gives a chug. A goals list is very easily suppressed. The Actual GPM may be dug off it only by asking on each goal "Has (goal being tested) been suppressed or wronged?" The same thing can occur with an Items list. It's been flattened out of existence. But the right item will still read on "suppressed or wronged" with a long fall and so can be found again. But all such actions are made infrequent by an auditor's knowing how the real thing looks and spotting it the first time. Locks and actual RIs read quite differently. Lock goals and implant goals and actual goals all read very differently. And all at a glance. Check-out on Items becomes unnecessary when the auditor knows how they should look and can see what happened on the meter. One of the funniest auditor flubs, but not to the pc, is the auditor who, not being able to get anything to read while trying to learn the character of an Item or goal, merely keeps repeating the same question, trying by will power to make it read. An Item or goal is what it is and dozens of repeats of the same question will not make it into something it is not. All things are something. The trick is to ask if it is what it really is. Only then does one get a proper long fall on assessing. Identifying what things are is a game of charades. And if one doesn't guess the right answer one doesn't get the nod from the meter. The nod is a big read always if the thing being identified is anything at all. And the nod also says, by the way the needle nods, if the guess is true. (2) THE ABANDONED ITEM OR GOAL ANOTHER WAY EVERYTHING READS Given an auditor who knows the different reads on the meter, there is just one other way one can be fooled. If the right Item or Goal on a list has been read and abandoned, all its locks will begin to read like real items or goals. 403 This is a fabulously important datum. The too cautious auditor can wreck everything by reading the right item, getting the right read, and then abandoning it to try to see if anything else is it. Example: On an Item (or Goals) list the auditor has found "Bark". It has read well when called. The auditor feels insecure, so he or she then goes on to check "Woof". "Woof" now reads well. Pc is restive. So auditor tries another Item on the list, "Growl". This too reads well but won't "bring about". Auditor now tests "Arf". This reads fine too. But everything is now up the spout. Pc is miserable and ARC Breaking. Auditor is frantic. An ARC Break Assessment would show "Item abandoned". But what Item was abandoned? There has been "Woof" "Growl" "Bark" and "Arf". Which is right? They have all read!. Now you must get the exactly worded item or goal. No near misses will do. The exact wording. The right "up" or "upon". Exact. If the wording is not EXACTLY RIGHT, the mass of the Item (or GPM) will not as-is. The pc will be left in heavy charge. So almost right is WRONG. Always. The goal "To Catch" is going to cause ARC Breaks and somatics if called "To Grab". The goal "To Be Creative" will give you a sick pc if found as "To Be Artistic". And worse, if an Item has one "s" missing, it's wrong. "Moaning" is wrong as "Moanings". The bank is a demon for exactness. The mind is not a confusion. It's a martinet of too much order. So "almost finding it" is not finding it at all. Nothing is ever almost right in Class VI. The meter does not almost read. So you have to find the exact goal wording or Item wording. Now back to "Bark". This was the first one read. It was then abandoned. This charged up its locks. So now "Woof" "Arf" and "Growl" are all capable of making "Bark" read. It is "Bark" that is still reading even when you call "Woof" and "Growl" and "Arf". You have broken down the divisions amongst them. Now what to do? How to find what is really reading? Ask "Has Growl been Suppressed or Wronged?" Small read. "Has Woof been Suppressed or Wronged?" Small read. "Has Bark been Suppressed or Wronged?" Big reads. Clean up "Bark" by getting pc to get off the Suppress etc, and "Bark" now reads and "Woof" "Growl" and "Arf" do not. So "Bark" is the Item. Moral: When nulling, if you see a real big read mark it as "First read" or "1st Rd" and be safe. It's all right to null onward but you may now find everything reading. Pc announcing "Bark is my Item" if ignored without immediate check-out gives the same effect, since if "Bark" was the pc's Item and was abandoned, all else can start to read, as the charge will transfer. Hence the rule "An actual RI or actual goal abandoned on a list can now cause other lock items or goals to read well." The nervous auditor gets into this trap endlessly and so never learns that an Actual goal or Actual RI has its own peculiar read. Such an auditor loses all confidence in nulling accuracy and the pc goes wild. (3) WRONG GOALS If you ever run a wrong goal on a pc, again everything tends to read. As we now have the pattern, the RR probably won't go all the way off, but the needle will get tight and good indicators will flee. The pattern is close enough to keep the RR on somewhat. 404 But anything the pc gave you by way of Items would read. Wrong goals are harder to detect than they were. The pattern is too good a guide. Almost any goal will run on it. But black mass and pressure will appear, good indicators will vanish. Bad indicators will appear. And no mass as-ises. Any actual RI has enough power to make lock or wrong goals based on it read. For instance, an Actual RI "Speeding" will cause the goal "To Speed" to check out as an Actual GPM! So beware of wrong goals. And do careful check- outs and buy only good forceful reads in answer to your assessment questions. Implant RIs are incapable of giving a lock goal charge enough to check out. But an Actual RI has enough charge to do so. I've had four different goals check out for the same position. But only one gave good indicators and consistent responses. Abandoning a right goal can make a pc very very sick. So there's a limit on banging a goal around. Experience tells one at length what a right goal or Item reads like, how it checks out and when one is going up the garden path. But experience is based on sound beginnings. So know the above well. And then you can build up to good certainty on how it's done. The first thing to know, of course, is that there is a right way to do it. If you don't realize that and try for it, then you'll never learn and Class VI will remain a closed mystery to you. But it need not, for we do know. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:dr.rd Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 405  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 21 iDate=18/3/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES   CenOCon  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 18 MARCH 1964 CenOCon HGC ALLOWED PROCESSES (Cancels previous issues on same subject) Effective immediately, the following processes are allowed in the HGC on any preclear, on the judgment of the Case Supervisor. For psychosomatics: ARC '63. For clearing: Recall a Terminal and Problems Intensive, alternated with R-2H. 8-C and any older processes the auditor has confidence in are allowed. Study and use the materials of the last six tapes of the Saint Hill Briefing Course, but do not run or list any Goals or Items on any preclear. Refresh the Case Supervisor on ARC Break assessments and have ARC Breaks handled by the Case Supervisor. Clean up all the ARC Breaks in the area. Train your auditing staff on the above and on the new "Auditing by Lists" process, when issued. Campaign to the public: "Clean up your ARC Breaks with life." The above, with clarifications, will remain standard HGC fare for years, as it contains the cream of all processes for the last fourteen years, and actual clearing. Avoid advertising Itsa. Relegate it to Co-audits. Avoid R-2-12, R-3 and R- 4 type processes. Advertise and deliver clearing as above. Flatten, flatten all processes begun in the HGC. Preclear Log Books will conform to this rundown. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:gl.rd Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 406  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 13 iDate=2/4/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  TWO TYPES OF PEOPLE   Magazine Article BPI  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO INFORMATION LETTER OF 2 APRIL AD14 Magazine Article BPI TWO TYPES OF PEOPLE Completing research on the highest levels of clearing now being taught as the upper course at Saint Hill, Class VI, OT, I made a very fundamental discovery about Man and Life that I'd like you to know about. You probably have speculated on this many times -- are there two kinds of people: good people and bad people? Society is more or less organized on the basis that there are. And certainly one sees that some are successful and some aren't, some are good to know and some aren't. Even in modern TV fiction one has the cowboys in the white hats and the cowboys in the black hats; indeed one probably couldn't have stories at all to Man's way of thinking unless there were heroes and ogres. And even fiction is rigged as a moral lesson in good and bad people. Philosophers long before Greece pondered moral conduct in terms of good and bad. And Diogenes was looking for an honest man, implying some weren't. More recent speculation in the 19th Century termed all men evil unless forced to be good. Some schools of thought tried to avoid the point by saying early childhood formed character. Yet other schools maintained Man would always be evil unless personally threatened, which gives us the presence of police in the society. But even police sometimes work on the idea that there are good and bad people. From all this one could judge that Man had a problem about whether people are good or bad. Probably at this minute you could think of some examples of good people and bad people. You know those who rave and gnaw the rug at the very thought of Scientology helping anyone, so therefore there must be people of evil intention toward their fellows. And there are. The research results you would be interested in show clearly that there are two types of behavior -- that calculated to be constructive and that calculated to be disastrous. These are the two dominant behavior patterns. There are people then who are trying to build things up and others who are trying to tear things down. And there are no other types. Actually there aren't even shades of grey. The disaster type can be repressed into inactivity (and illness) and the constructive type can also be repressed (and made ill). Thus there are two basic actions, each with many other subsidiary actions. There is also a cyclic or combined type who is alternately constructive and disastrous. 407 So there are cowboys in white hats and cowboys in black hats. And the cowboys in the grey hats are too sick to be in the game. One scholarly chap (a very sick fellow) hopefully told me once that there were no true villains, no purely evil people. He was whistling past the graveyard. There may not be evil people, but there are people currently devoted to doing evil actions. All such conduct is apparent and dominant. We see such people all the time. We just don't want to see them. The underlying reasons for this are, in the absence of processing, fixed and unchangeable in any one lifetime. As Man knows a man only in one lifetime, the basic cause or changes have not been observed. Thus to all practical purposes for Man, some are good and some are evil. And if we didn't have Scientology it would not only not be observed but couldn't ever be changed. That this condition exists -- that half are good and half are bad according to their personalities -- oddly enough does not alter basic Scientology concepts. It explains why certain persons appear to be evil and some appear to be good. Examining the actual goals of an individual shows us why. About half the goals of any one individual are constructive, the remainder are destructive. It takes a being a very long time to live completely through the cycle of one goal, much less a series of goals. Therefore any one individual at any given long period of his existence is only fixated on disaster and at a subsequent long period is fixated only on being constructive. So the same being at different lifetimes is good and evil. Given a sudden overwhelming experience a "good person" may be shifted violently in his own goals pattern and become evil. And a "bad person", acted upon powerfully by life, will become good. But they also become sick. Their illness stems from being moved out of present time into past heavy energy patterns. It is no cure to so move them despite the assertions of 19th Century mentalists and their shock "treatment". This shows why shock sometimes works and why changes of character come about. And it also shows why such changes are accompanied by severe illness and early death. The person is thrown violently out of present time into a painful past. The problem is not a problem of sanity and insanity. It is a problem of disastrous motives and constructive motives and the degree to which either is suppressed. By suppressing the damaging motives of a being who is currently inclined to disaster, one can make that being "behave". But by suppressing the constructive motives of a being currently inclined to constructiveness (as in the military), one can make that being "behave" also. But both will become physically ill, neurotic or insane in the absence of processing. So the same being in one long period is constructive and in the next long period disastrous. As Man measures time in small bits such as youth, old age or a lifetime, he could conceive of a being as either only constructive or only disastrous. Fortunately for us, this also solves the ancient riddle that one cannot be granted power without also having good intentions. The only way final and powerful abilities 408 can be returned to an individual is by ridding him of all these hidden compulsions, a task now accomplished at Level VI. This gives the Scientologist a useful insight into character. A sick being is one who has been bent upon violence and was suppressed, or one who was bent upon constructiveness and was suppressed. It also gives us a whole span of new processes for Level III called "Auditing by Lists", available in HGCs or from informed field auditors. This is quite in addition to what it does at Level VI. And it also tells us that no one with obsessive intentions will ever make it to the highest and most powerful levels with disastrous inclinations. But at the street level, with no processing involved, we have these two basic types -- good and evil. And these subdivide into the good who couldn't be good and became sick, and the evil who couldn't be evil and became sick. But these facts are more than philosophic observations. They deliver to us understanding and more chance to be right about people. And they give us as well the wide open door to making people well at Level III. One cannot push research as I have done in the past year into the stratosphere without learning more at sea level also. And this is what has happened here. The basic travail of Man is that he is divided into those who build and those who demolish, and in this conflict of intentions his fight, whichever side he is on, is always lost. Or was lost until the Scientologist came along. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:gl.rd Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 409  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=7/4/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  ALL LEVELS Q AND A   CenOCon  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 7 APRIL 1964 CenOCon ALL LEVELS Q AND A A great number of auditors Q and A. This is because they have not understood what it is. Nearly all their auditing failures stem not from using wrong processes but from Q and A. Accordingly I have looked the matter over and re-defined Q and A. The origin of the term comes from "changing when the pc changes". The basic answer to a question is, obviously, a question if one follows the duplication of the Comm formula completely. See Philadelphia Congress 1953 tapes where this was covered very fully. A later definition was "Questioning the pc's Answer". Another effort to overcome it and explain Q & A was the Anti- Q and A drill. But none of these reached home. The new definition is this: Q AND A IS A FAILURE TO COMPLETE A CYCLE OF ACTION ON A PRECLEAR. A CYCLE OF ACTION IS REDEFINED AS START -- CONTINUE -- COMPLETE. Thus an auditing comm cycle is a cycle of action. It starts with the auditor asking a question the preclear can understand, getting the preclear to answer it and acknowledging that answer. A process cycle is selecting a process to be run on the preclear, running the Tone Arm action into it (if necessary) and running the Tone Arm action out of it. A program cycle is selecting an action to be performed, performing that action and completing it. Thus you can see that an auditor who interrupts or changes an auditing comm cycle before it is complete is "Q and A-ing". This could be done by violating or preventing or not doing any part of the auditing cycle, i.e., ask the pc a question, get an answer to a different idea, ask the different idea, thus abandoning the original question. An auditor who starts a process, just gets it going, gets a new idea because of pc cognition, takes up the cognition and abandons the original process is Q and A-ing. A program such as "Prepcheck this pc's family" is begun, and for any reason left incomplete to go chasing some new idea to Prepcheck, is a Q and A. Unfinished cycles of action are all that louse up cases. Since Time is a continuum, a failure to carry out a cycle of action (a continuum) hangs the pc up at that exact point. If you don't believe it, prepcheck "Incomplete actions" on a pc! What Incomplete action has been suppressed? etc, cleaning the meter for real on every button. And you'd have a clear -- or a pc that would behave that way on a meter. Understand this and you'll be about ninety times as effective as an auditor. "Don't Q and A!" means "Don't leave cycles of action incomplete on a pc." The gains you hope to achieve on a pc are lost when you Q and A. LRH:dr.rd.cden L. RON HUBBARD Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 410  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=10/4/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  ALL LEVELS AUDITING SKILLS (Forming the technical basis of preclear, co-audit and auditor classification.)   Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 10 APRIL 1964 Franchise ALL LEVELS AUDITING SKILLS (Forming the technical basis of preclear, co-audit and auditor classification.) The following list of skills is a totality of processes in use in modern Scientology. Aside from the purely philosophical side of Scientology, this represents the auditor's technology. All modern training should be built on these lines. These processes handle all cases and take the pc from humanoid, through clear, to OT. The auditor who has been through all these levels finds the skills under a Class VI auditor a culmination of earlier studies with some additions as to what is being handled. This is a rapid forecast survey. It does not invalidate HGC allowed processes of current date. Several old familiar processes not mentioned, and all processes that get a pc to do a comm cycle, come under "Repetitive Processes" since they vary only in having different commands, not in technique of administration. SCIENTOLOGY LEVELS LEVEL 0: Dangerous environment, ARC, education in basics of life. Case Improvement by education in Scientology and orientation in environment. LEVEL I: R1C for PTPs, R1CM (fishing with TA), Assists, R2C (discussion by lists), Listen Style and Itsa. Case Improvement by communication on closely interested subjects and problems, using TA Blowdowns. LEVEL II: Repetitive processes, Model Session, Op-Pro-By-Dup, 8-C, CCHs, Havingness, General O/W, ARC '63, Auditing Cycle. Case Improvement by disciplined comm cycle, awareness of mind and environment, using TA of meter and cumulative TA divisions. LEVEL III: Auditing by List, Sec Checking by List, Prepchecking, Problems Intensive, Mid Ruds, and Model Session. (Auditing by List is SOM- 3L.) Case Improvement by removing psychosomatics, cleaning needle of all reads on given questions, any assessments done by upper level auditor. LEVEL IV: R4SC, ARC Break Assessments, R4H (R2H), and Case Analysis. Case Improvement by Service Facsimile, life ARC Breaks and Case Analysis, using the listing and assessment potentials of the meter, which is not done in lower levels. (Clearing this lifetime.) LEVEL V: Omitted. LEVEL VI: Locating the truncation, checking goals, running the Line Plot and Track Analysis. Case Improvement by running pc's own goals all the way to operating thetan. 411 THINGS A CLASS VI AUDITOR SHOULD KNOW 1. Case Analysis 2. PTP 3. Psychosomatic 4. ARC Break 5. Session 6. Class VI ARC Breaks 7. Listing 8. Nulling a list 9. Auditing by list 10. Auditor's Code 11. Completing a cycle of action 12. Havingness 13. Theory of restimulation and destimulation 14. Observation of preclear 15. Reading a meter 16. Executing an auditing cycle 17. Knowing not to Q & A 18. Knowing about NO auditing 19. Symptoms of an ARC Break 20. Good indicators 21. Bad indicators 22. Not to mess up a good running preclear 23. Not to continue the preclear who isn't running 24. Knowing when to stop auditing and ending up the session 25. How to handle pc's PTPs at Level VI when they show up 26. Track analysis 27. Getting the preclear to follow a Line Plot 28. Guiding a preclear down a Goals Plot 29. Finding out where a series is truncated 30. Finding out which type of goals series the preclear is in 31. Looking good, crisp and business-like as an Auditor The above gives the basis of three classifications. Preclear: Has achieved the gains, knows the why and parts of the processes, and the underlying basics. No auditor performance or ability required. Co-auditor: Can perform the process under supervision and has passed a non-professional examination on it. Auditor: Professionally qualified in all respects in theory, practical and auditing at that level. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:gl.rd Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 412  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=13/4/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY VI. PART ONE TONE ARM ACTION (Summary of previous HCO Bulletins)   Sthil Class VI  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 13 APRIL 1964 Sthil Class VI SCIENTOLOGY VI. PART ONE TONE ARM ACTION (Summary of previous HCO Bulletins) The state of case of the pc has nothing to do with getting Tone Arm Action. An auditor is in absolute control of the bank -- it always does what you tell it to do. A case must not be run without TA action or with minimal TA action. If it didn't occur, Tone Arm Action has to have been prevented! It doesn't just "not occur". The skill of an auditor is directly measured by the amount of TA he or she can get. Pcs are not more difficult one than another. Any pc can be made to produce TA. But some auditors cut TA more than others. The most vital necessity of auditing at any level of Scientology is to get Tone Arm Action. Not to worry the pc about it but just to get TA action. Not to find something that will get future TA. But just to get TA NOW. Many auditors are still measuring their successes by things found or accomplished in the session. Though this is important too (mainly at Level IV), it is secondary to Tone Arm Action. 1. Get good Tone Arm Action. 2. Get things done in the session to increase Tone Arm Action. And Body Motion doesn't count, as TA. Without Tone Arm Motion no charge is being released and no actual case betterment is observed beyond a few somatics removed. The pc's session goals stay the same. The pc's life doesn't change. THE MOST CORRECT TRACK SIGNIFICANCES RUN BUT WITHOUT TA ACTION WILL NOT CHANGE BUT CAN DETERIORATE A CASE. It takes the right process correctly run to get TA action. So don't underrate processes or the action of the auditor. TA MOVING SIGNALS AUDITOR NOT TO ACT. TA NOT MOVING SIGNALS AUDITOR TO ACT. Your enemy is Over-Restimulation of the pc. As soon as the pc goes into more charge than he or she can Itsa easily the TA slows down! And as soon as the pc drowns in the over-restimulation the TA stops clank! Unless destimulated a case can't get a rocket read or present the auditor with a valid goal. In doing R6 the silent auditor lets the pc Itsa all over the whole track and causes Over-Restimulation which locks up the TA. But in lower levels of auditing, inviting an Itsa with silence is an ordinary action. As soon as you get into Level VI auditing however, on the pc's actual GPMs, the auditor has to be crisp and busy to get TA and a silent, idle auditor can mess up the pc and get very little TA. Level VI auditing finds the auditor smoothly letting the pc Itsa RIs and lists but the auditor going at it like a small steam engine finding RIs, RIs, RIs, Goals, RIs, RIs, 413 RIs. For the total TA in an R6 session only is proportional to the number of RIs found without goofs, wrong goals or other errors which rob TA action. So the higher the level the more control of the pc's attention. Only in R6 where you're dead on the pc's GPMs and the pc is allowed to say it is or isn't can you get TA good action out of listing and nulling. And even then a failure to let the pc say it is it can cut the TA down enormously. In confirmation of auditors being too anxious to get in the Itsa line themselves and not let the pc is the fad of using the meter as a Ouija Board. The auditor asks it questions continually and never asks the pc. Up the spout go divisions of TA. "Is this Item a terminal?" the auditor asks the meter. Why not ask the pc? If you ask the pc, you get an Itsa, "No, I think it's an oppterm because _______" and the TA moves. AUDITOR FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND If a pc says something and the auditor fails to understand what the pc said or meant, the correct response is: "I did not (hear you) (understand what was said) (get that last)." To do anything else is not only bad form, it can amount to a heavy ARC Break. INVALIDATION To say "You did not speak loud enough _______" or any other use of "you" is an invalidation. The pc is also thrown out of session by having responsibility hung on him or her. The auditor is responsible for the session. Therefore the auditor has to assume responsibility for all comm breakdowns in it. EVALUATION Far more serious than Invalidation above, is the accidental evaluation which may occur when the auditor repeats what the pc said. NEVER repeat anything a pc says after him, no matter why. Repeating not only does not show the pc you heard but makes him feel you're a circuit. But that isn't the main reason you do not repeat what the pc said after the pc. If you say it wrong the pc is thrown into heavy protest. The pc must correct the wrongness and hangs up right there. It may take an hour to dig the pc out of it. DIRTY NEEDLES If your pc has a dirty needle, its cause is CUT ITSA or an L1 session ARC Break. NO other source such as a wrong Item or goal or earlier engrams or service fac by-passed charge can cause a dirty needle. If it's a dirty needle its cause lies in basic auditing not in technique errors. This rule is invariable. The apparent exception is the session ARC Break that keys in by-passed technique charge. All dirty needles are caused by the auditor failing to hear all the pc had to say in answering a question or volunteering data. Charge is removed from a case only by the Comm Cycle Pc to Auditor. 414 The auditor's command restimulates a charge in the pc. The only way this charge can be blown is by the pc telling the auditor. CLEANING CLEANS The auditor who cleans a clean meter is asking for trouble. This is the same as asking a pc for something that isn't there and develops a "withhold of nothing". ECHO METERING The pc says, "You missed a suppress. It's _______" and the auditor re- consults the meter asking for a suppress. That leaves the pc's offering an undischarged charge. NEVER ASK THE METER AFTER A PC VOLUNTEERS A BUTTON. Example: You've declared suppress clean, pc gives you another suppress. Take it and don't ask suppress again. That's Echo Metering. If a pc puts his own ruds in, don't at once jump to the meter to put his ruds in. That makes all his offerings missed charge. Echo Metering is miserable auditing. DON'T ECHO INVALIDATE Echo Invalidation: The pc gives an Item. The auditor calls it back to the pc and says it doesn't RR. If this is kept up the pc will be put into a state of sen that is appalling. The right way to do this is as follows: Pc gives Item. Auditor writes it down. All Items are written down that the pc gives. An auditor never repeats Items to the pc after the pc says them. If the auditor doesn't understand he asks pc to spell it or if it is singular or plural. Don't fake an understanding. The list must be accurate. Echo Invalidation, in which pc names an Item and auditor says "That isn't it" is not just bad form but a very vicious practice that leads to a games condition. The Invalidation of each Item makes the pc very dizzy and very desperate. The pc, sick and confused, starts plunging in desperation for the right Item and goes swiftly down tone and out of session. High pc morale is vital to blowing charge and finding RIs. Uphold the pc's morale. Don't begin Echo Invalidation. METER INVALIDATION An auditor who just sits and shakes his head, "Didn't Rocket Read" can give a pc too many loses and deteriorate the pc's ability to run GPMs. In a conflict between pc and meter, take the pc's data. Why? Because Protest and Assert and Mistake will also read on a meter. You can get these off, but why create them? Your data comes from the pc and the meter always for anything. And if the pc's data is invalidated you won't get a meter's data. If the pc says he has a PTP and the meter says he doesn't, you take the pc's data that he does. You take the pc's data. Never take his orders. Also, minimize a pc's dependency on a meter. Don't keep confirming a pc's data by meter read with, "That reads. Yes, that's there. Yes, there's a rocket read...." 415 The meter is not there to invalidate the pc. The E-Meter registers charge. A very high or low tone arm, a sticky or dirty needle all are registrations of this charge. The "chronic meter of a case" is an index of chronic charge. The fluctuations of a meter during a session are registering relative charge in different portions of the pc's Time Track. More valuably the meter registers released charge. You can see it blowing on the meter. The disintegrating RR, the blowing down of the TA, the heavy falls, the loosening needle all show charge being released. The meter registers charge found and then charge released. It registers charge found but not yet released by the needle getting tight, by DN, by a climbing TA or a TA going far below the clear read. Then as this cleans up, the charge is seen to "blow". Charge that is restimulated but not released causes the case to "charge up", in that charge already on the Time Track is triggered but is not yet viewed by the pc. The whole cycle of restimulated charge that is then blown gives us the action of auditing. When prior charge is restimulated but not located so that it can be blown, we get "ARC Breaks". Auditing selectively restimulates, locates the charge and discharges it (as seen on the action of a moving Tone Arm). The meter in actual fact does nothing but locate charged areas below the awareness of the pc and verify that the charge has been removed. The meter cures nothing and does not treat. It only assists the auditor in assisting the preclear to look and verify having looked. METER DEPENDENCE A pc can be made more dependent upon the meter or can be made more independent of the meter, all in the way a meter is used by the auditor. Meter dependence is created by invalidation by or poor acknowledgement of the auditor. If the auditor seems not to accept the pc's data, then the pc may insist that the auditor "see it read on the meter". This can grow up into a formidable meter dependence on the part of the pc. A pc must be carefully weaned of meter dependence, not abruptly chopped off. If a pc's case is improving the pc becomes more independent of the meter. This is the proper direction. Build up the pc's confidence in his own knowingness and continuously and progressively reduce the pc's dependence on a meter. As the pc gets along in running Time Track and GPMs with their goals and Reliable Items he or she often becomes better than the meter as to what is right or wrong, what is the goal, what RI still reads. CHARGE Charge, the stored quantities of energy in the Time Track, is the sole thing that is being relieved or removed by the auditor from the Time Track. When this charge is present in huge amounts the Time Track overwhelms the pc and the pc is thrust below observation of the actual track. The mechanism of permanent restimulation consists of opposing forces of comparable magnitude which cause a balance which does not respond to current time and remains "timeless". Such phenomena as the overt act-motivator sequence, the problem (postulate counter-postulate), tend to hold certain portions of the Time Track in "permanent 416 creation" and cause them to continue to exist in present time as unresolved masses, energies, spaces, times and significances. The intention of the physical universe (and those who have become degraded enough to further only its ends) is to make a thetan solid, immobile and decisionless. The fight of the thetan is to remain unsolid, mobile or immobile at will, and capable of decision. This in itself is the principal unresolved problem and it itself creates timeless mass which accomplishes the basic purpose of a trap. BY-PASSED CHARGE By-passed Charge does not always = ARC Break. But ARC Break always = By-passed Charge. By-passed Charge always exists in a session -- it isn't until it is keyed in by some communication failure in session that it causes an ARC Break. The source of all ARC Breaks is By-passed Charge. There is no other source of ARC Breaks. People do not ARC Break on known charge. It is always the hidden or the earlier charge that causes the ARC Break. The pc never knows why the ARC Break. He may think he does and disclaim about it. But the moment the actual reason is spotted (the real missed area) the ARC Break ceases. All by-passed charge is in some degree a missed withhold, missed by both auditor and pc. In a session or handling the living lightning we handle, people can be hit by a forceful charge of which they are only minutely aware but which swamps them. Their affinity, reality and communication (life force) is retarded or cut by this hidden charge and they react with what we call an ARC Break or have an ARC Broken aspect. Everything on the whole Know to Mystery Scale that still lies above the pc finds the pc at effect. These are all on Automatic. Therefore the pc in an ARC Break is in the grip of the reaction which was in the incident, now fully on automatic. The pc's anger in the incident is not even seen or felt by the pc. But the moment something slips the pc is in the grip of that emotion as an automaticity and becomes furious or apathetic or whatever toward the auditor. As soon as the actual by-passed charge is found and recognized as the charge by the person, up goes Affinity and Reality and Communication and life can be lived. THE ARC BREAK THE CYCLE OF THE ARC BREAK STAGE ONE: The ARC Break starts always in the same way. The pc finds something wrong with the auditor, the subject, or tools of auditing or the auditing room. He does this in varying intensity, ARC Break to ARC Break. STAGE TWO: This is followed by misemotion, also directed at the auditor, subject, tools or room. 417 STAGE THREE: If the auditor continues on with auditing the pc will drop into grief, sadness or apathy. This is an inevitable cycle and may be followed by the pc with greater or lesser intensity of emotion, or loudness or lack of response. IN R6 WHEN THE PC CRITICIZES OR ATTACKS THE AUDITOR OR GOES INTO GRIEF OR APATHY, AN R6 ERROR HAS JUST OCCURRED. THE AUDITOR MUST IGNORE THE PC'S STATEMENTS AS TO THE CAUSE OF THE ARC BREAK AND QUICKLY REMEDY THE R6 AND DO NOTHING ELSE. THE COMMON DENOMINATOR OF ALL R6 ARC BREAKS CONSISTS OF A MISSED OR WRONGLY DESIGNATED GPM, GOAL OR RELIABLE ITEM. THERE ARE NO OTHER SOURCES OF R6 ARC BREAKS. Bad sessioning, poor auditing, ordinary life missed withholds are only contributive to R6 ARC Breaks and are incapable of doing more than keying in and intensifying the magnitude of the ARC Break which has already been caused by errors in R6. ARC BREAK RULE 1: IF THE PC ARC BREAKS, ISSUE NO FURTHER AUDITING COMMANDS UNTIL BOTH PC AND AUDITOR ARE SATISFIED THAT THE CAUSE OF THE ARC BREAK HAS BEEN LOCATED AND INDICATED. Do not issue more orders, do not run a process, do not offer to run a process, do not sit idly letting the pc ARC Break. Follow this rule: ARC BREAK RULE 2: WHEN A PC ARC BREAKS OR CAN'T GO ON FOR ANY REASON, DO AN ARC BREAK ASSESSMENT AND LOCATE AND INDICATE TO THE PC THE BY-PASSED CHARGE. If you know you've missed a goal or RI, just saying so prevents any ARC Break. DON'T BY-PASS CHARGE UNKNOWN TO THE PC. ARC BREAK ASSESSMENT The meter is invaluable in locating by-passed charge and curing an ARC Break. The trick is TO FIND AND INDICATE the RIGHT By-passed Charge to the pc and to handle it when possible but never fail to indicate it. It is then up to the auditor to locate it more precisely as to character and time and indicate it to the pc. The pc will feel better the moment the right type of by-passed charge is identified by assessment and indicated by the auditor. If the pc does not feel better but further ARC Breaks then the assessment is either incomplete or incorrect. If the pc blows up in your face on being given a type of charge, keep going, as you have not yet found the charge. You can, however, undo a session ARC Break Assessment by continuing beyond the pc's cognition of what it is. Continuing an assessment after the pc has cognited, invalidates the pc's cognition and cuts the Itsa Line and may cause a new ARC Break. Several by-passed charges can exist and be found on one list. Sometimes in trying to locate the by-passed charge causing an ARC Break, the pc's needle is so dirty that it almost can't be read. However there is a way to read it. When the correct by-passed charge is located and indicated the needle will go beautifully clean. But it can be done without a meter, just by letting the pc think over each line read to him or her from the ARC Break Assessment and say whether it is or isn't and if it is, spotting the thing by-passed. 418 Don't ever be "reasonable" about an ARC Break and think the pc is perfectly right to be having one "because _______". If that ARC Break exists, the pc doesn't know what's causing it and neither do you until you and the pc find it! If you and the pc knew what was causing it, there would be no further ARC Break. ARC Breaks are inevitable. They will happen. Q AND A ARC BREAKS Q and A causes ARC Breaks by BY-PASSING CHARGE. How? The pc says something. The auditor does not understand or acknowledge. Therefore the pc's utterance becomes a By-passed Charge generated by whatever he or she is trying to release. As the auditor ignores it and the pc reasserts it, the original utterance's charge is built up and up. Finally the pc will start issuing orders in a frantic effort to get rid of the missed charge. This is the source of pc orders to the auditor. Understand and Acknowledge the pc. Take the pc's data. Don't pester the pc for more data when the pc is offering data. Learn to see if the pc has said everything he or she wants to say before the next auditor action, never do a new auditor action while or if the pc wants to speak and you'll get superior TA action. Cut the pc off, get in more actions than the pc is allowed to answer and you'll have a Dirty Needle, then a stuck TA and then an ARC Break. Realize that the answering of the process question is senior to the asking of another process question. Watch the pc's eyes. Don't take auditing actions if the pc is not looking at you. Don't give acknowledgements that aren't needed. Over-acknowledgement means acknowledging before the pc has said all. PC TONE The pc rises in tone up to the lower levels of the tone scale. He or she comes up to degradation, up to apathy. And it often feels horrible and, unlike an ARC Break and the Sad Effect, is not cured except by more of the same processing. Then suddenly they realize that they have come up to being able to feel bad. They even come up to feeling pain. And all that is a gain. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:-.rd Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 419  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=20/4/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  MODEL SESSION LEVELS III TO VI SESSION PRELIMINARIES   Central Orgs Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 20 APRIL AD14 (CANCELLED -- see HCO B 14 Aug 64 Volume V -- 448) Central Orgs Franchise MODEL SESSION LEVELS III TO VI (Cancels previous issues) SESSION PRELIMINARIES All auditing sessions have the following preliminaries done in this order. 1. Seat the pc and adjust his or her chair. 2. Clear the Auditing room with "Is it all right to audit in this room?" (not metered) 3. Can squeeze "Put your hands in your lap." "Squeeze the cans, please." And note that pc registers, by the squeeze on the meter, and note the level of the pc's havingness. (Don't run hav here.) 4. Put in R Factor by telling pc briefly what you are going to do in the session. START OF SESSION: 5. "Is it all right with you if I begin this session now?" "START OF SESSION." (Tone 40) "Has this session started for you?" If pc says, "No", say again, "START OF SESSION. Now has this session started for you?" If pc says, "No", say, "We will cover it in a moment." RUDIMENTS: 6. "What goals would you like to set for this session?" Please note that Life or Livingness goals have been omitted, as they tend to remind the pc of present time difficulties and tend to take his attention out of the session. 7. At this point in the session there are actions which could be undertaken: the running of General O/W or the running of Mid Rudiments using "Since the last time I audited you", or pull missed W/Hs as indicated. But if pc cheerful and needle smooth, just get down to work. One would run General O/W if the pc was emotionally upset at the beginning of the session or if the session did not start for the pc, the latter being simply another indication of the pc's being upset or ARC broken, but these symptoms must be present, as sometimes the session hasn't started merely because of poor Tone 40 or because the pc had something he wanted to say before the auditor started the session. RUNNING O/W: "If it is all right with you, I am going to run a short, general process." "The process is: 'What have you done?', 'What have you withheld?'" (The process is run very permissively until the needle looks smooth and the pc is no longer emotionally disturbed.) 420 "Where are you now on the time track?" "If it is all right with you, I will continue this process until you are close to present time and then end this process." (After each command, ask, "When?") "That was the last command. Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this process?" "End of process." RUNNING THE MID RUDIMENTS: One would use the Middle Rudiments with, "Since the last time I audited you", if the needle was rough and if the Tone Arm was in a higher position than it was at the end of the last session. ORDER OF BUTTONS Here is the correct wording and order of use for the big Mid Ruds. "_______ has anything been suppressed?" "_______ is there anything you have been careful of?" "_______ is there anything you have failed to reveal?" "_______ has anything been invalidated?" "_______ has anything been suggested?" "_______ has any mistake been made?" "_______ has anything been protested?" "_______ is there anything you have been anxious about?" "_______ has anything been decided?" In using the first three buttons (Suppressed, Careful of and Failed to Reveal), the rudiment question should be asked directly of the pc off the meter (repetitive). When the pc has no more answers, check the question on the meter. If the question reads, stick with it on the meter like in Fast Rud checking until it is clean. The last six buttons are cleaned directly on the meter as in Fast Ruds. PULLING MISSED WITHHOLDS: Use: "Since the last time you were audited has a withhold been missed on you?" "Since the last time you were audited is there anything someone failed to find out about you?" "Since the last time you were audited has someone nearly found out something about you?" BODY OF SESSION: 8. Now go into the body of the session. END BODY OF SESSION: 9. "Is it all right with you if we end the body of the session now?" "Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I do?" "End of the body of the session." 421 SMOOTH OUT SESSION: 10. Smooth out any roughness in the session if there has been any favoring Suppress Failed to Reveal Protest Decide Overts Assert using prefix "In this session _______?" GOALS & GAINS: 11. "Have you made any of these goals for this session?" "Thank you for making these goals for this session" or "Thank you for making some of these goals for this session. I'm sorry you didn't make all of them" or "I'm sorry you didn't make these goals for this session." "Have you made any gains in this session that you would care to mention?" "Thank you for making these gains for this session" or "I'm sorry you didn't make any gains for this session." HAVINGNESS: 12. (After adjusting the meter) "Put your hands in your lap." "Please squeeze the cans." (If the squeeze test was not all right, the Auditor would run the pc's Havingness process until the can squeeze gives an adequate response.) ENDING SESSION: 13. "Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this session?" 14. "Is it all right with you if I end this session now?" 15. "END OF SESSION." (Tone 40) "Has this session ended for you?" (If the pc says, "No", repeat, "END OF SESSION." If the session still has not ended, say, You will be getting more auditing. END OF SESSION.) Tell me I am no longer auditing you." Please note that Havingness is run after Goals and Gains as this tends to bring the pc more into present time and to take his attention to a degree out of the session. Wording for the above follows the tradition of earlier model sessions. Adhere severely to this session form. It is nearly an irreducible minimum and is very fast, but it is all necessary. The Random Rudiment here is "What happened?" Session Mid Ruds are simply "Protest, Assert and Decide". RI rudiments are "Suppress and Invalidate". ARC Break handling is in accordance with HCO Bulletin of March 14, 1963. Don't continue a session until you find out why the ARC Break. LRH:dr.bh L. RON HUBBARD Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 422  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=23/4/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY III AUDITING BY LISTS   Central Orgs Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 23 APRIL 1964 (REPLACED -- see footnote) Central Orgs Franchise SCIENTOLOGY III AUDITING BY LISTS The earlier genus of this process was Sec Checking on the Joburg. With no reference to these, I recently developed for Level III a process called Auditing by Lists. Any list can be used. As a preview to the process I asked staff member Roger Biddell to use List One and List Four, normally used for ARC Breaks at Level IV. Their questions were generalized. Instead of "Have I ....... ", "Has there been ....... " was used. Otherwise the question remained the same as given in the HCO Bulletin for L.1 and L.4. He ran the process for some hours on a -- preclear with excellent results and summarized my verbal and written instructions as applied. AUDITING BY LISTS L.1 AND L.4 Use meter at sensitivity 16. Use ARC Break assessment Lists 1 and 4. The questions asked are generalized and without time limiters. i.e. Has a withhold been missed? Have you been given a wrong goal? etc. Begin with List 1. Ask the first line of this list while watching the meter for an instant read. If the line does not read. say "That's clean" and move on to the next line of the list and do the same action with this new line. If the pc has something to say about a line that is clean, let him say it, acknowledge it and then you ask the next line. Don't Q and A. If the line when asked has an instant read say "That reads" then "What do you consider this could be?" or "What considerations do you have about this?" Let the pc answer all he wants to. While he is giving his considerations, mark down any blowdowns of the TA and what he was talking of at the moment of the blowdown. When the pc has given all his considerations say "Thank you. I'll check the line on the meter" and call the line again. If it instant reads say "There's another read here" then again ask for considerations, etc. Continue these actions until the line goes clean. When clean say "That's clean" then -- "Of what you have told me on this line, what do you consider the main thing to be here?" (A) When pc has answered say "Thank you." 423 Then, "I want to indicate that the meter gave us our biggest blowdown on ....... and that charge had been bypassed on this." And in the blank, state the subject that gave the biggest blowdown when the pc talked about it. If no blowdown then "It seems that the main thing here is ....... " and give what pc stated in answer to (A). Then move on to the next line. When List 1 is completed, do List 4, then List 1, then List 4 and so on. If running correctly, the TA total should increase from session to session. The pc should get more and more blowdowns on his considerations. Then he should get blowdowns on what he considers the main thing is and finally get blowdowns on your indication of the bypassed charge. Don't Q and A. Don't take up or do anything with the pc's considerations. Don't ever say "That still reads." It's always "Another read" as "It still reads" makes the pc feel he has not answered the question. This process gets charge off the case. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:gl.rd Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [This HCO B was replaced by HCO B 22 May 1965, Auditing by Lists, Volume VI -- 41, which was in turn replaced by HCO B 27 July 1965, same title, Volume VI -- 64. HCO B 3 July 1971, Auditing by Lists, Volume VII -- 316, replaced this and 22 May 1965 issues, and cancelled the 27 July 1965 issue.] 424  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 0 iDate=0/5/64 Volnum=0 Issue=1 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  THE AUDITOR THE SAINT HILL JOURNAL OF THE AUDITORS DIVISION The Workability of Scientology    THE AUDITOR THE SAINT HILL JOURNAL OF THE AUDITORS DIVISION Issue 1 May 1964 The Workability of Scientology by L. Ron Hubbard IT'S THE LITTLE THINGS THAT MAKE SCIENTOLOGY WORK, not the big crashing reasons why the preclear's mind isn't perfect. It isn't finding what's wrong with the preclear that really counts, it's the auditor's craftsmanlike attention to the little points of auditing that makes for big gains. Just one effective, received acknowledgment that makes the preclear know he's been acknowledged may be worth a dozen processes! An auditor becomes an auditor when he or she finds out that it's the basics that count. And this can be very hard to teach. The auditor who is so sure that all the errors are explained by the condition of the preclear seldom gets results. And it's results that count. You can get results with Scientology and get them rather easily, too, so long as you know that the way the auditing is administered to the preclear is more important than the process run. An auditor who consistently fails to get results is always the auditor who is most sure that all the errors for failure lay with the preclear or Scientology, and never with the auditor's own basics. How difficult it is to see oneself! How easy it is to blame the other fellow. When I first started to teach by self-appreciation of one's own auditing here on the Saint Hill Course, even the most veteran auditors were completely balked. They have surmounted this now, but it was a mighty high hurdle for a while. The saga of it was quite funny. I had the auditor give a session which was recorded on tape. Then I had the auditor listen to his own session to find out his or her errors in basics. Well! You should have seen some of the early reports I got! I even did an HCO Bulletin to show what to look for, but to no avail! Some reports gave the session command by command. Some gave all the preclear's errors. Some went Russianesque in "How horrible I am." But at first nobody, just nobody, caught on. Let me give you the example of the first test made to show what I mean. I taped a session noting needle action and condition of the preclear during session. Then I listened to the tape. And I found that every time the auditor had gotten a dirty needle or a bad reaction from the preclear, the auditor some minutes or seconds before had slipped up on his basics. In other words I found that these basic errors were causing all the bad preclear reactions. I found that the auditor made the session always and the preclear never. The preclear got better because the auditor audited with smooth basics or got roughed up 425 because the basics skidded a bit -- a slip-up on an acknowledgment, an over- hasty command, a failure to let the preclear fully answer the question. Seconds or minutes later, a bad reaction appeared in the preclear. As a result of such studies of taped sessions, my complete conclusion is that it is only the auditor's handling of the session that makes the session. There is nobody and nothing else to blame. Because the preclear's bad reaction comes later than the auditor's skid in the basics, the auditor often does not connect his error with the preclear's reaction and thinks it is just the way the preclear is. You'd think this would be easy to learn; but no, student reports continued to come in about their taped sessions that completely avoided the point. These reports described anything and everything except the Auditor as Cause. Examples: "The session went badly because the preclear had had no sleep." "The session was slow because the preclear had a present time problem." "It was late in the evening, and the preclear always has a high tone arm after 9:00 p.m." "The Instructor had given me another process, so when I tried to change the preclear got upset." "This preclear is always critical of auditors." "I had to end off because the preclear was upset." Horrible. In no case was the auditor making the session. The session always depended on outer influences. Next thing I'd have heard, "We didn't have a good session because the stars were not in the preclear's favor." Then some light began to dawn here and there and they started to make it. The students began to see that the failure of the preclear to progress was due to auditor errors, not preclear meanness. And these are the things the students learned: The preclear's upset is traced back to a failure to acknowledge well, to chopping the preclear's communication, to a failure to give the preclear something to answer, to evaluation, to invalidation -- not to the late hour or the position of Saturn. An auditing session is made. It doesn't just happen. ARC Breaks are constructed out of bad basics. Failures to improve a preclear begin with failures to do good TRs. An auditing session gets wins only when the auditor is right there running it and running it smoothly. The whole essence of auditing is not finding what is wrong with the preclear and hammering at it. That's a medical-surgical approach, not a way to betterment. The essence of auditing is ARC handled and controlled by the auditor. The auditor gives the preclear something to answer. The preclear answers it and when the preclear has answered it to his or her satisfaction, the auditor acknowledges it. That's auditing. That's why auditing works. That's why the tone arm moves. That's why the preclear gets better. But that simple cycle can have a thousand ways to go wrong. The auditor gives the preclear something the preclear doesn't understand and can't answer. The preclear isn't permitted to complete his or her answer. The preclear answers fully and then never gets acknowledged for it and rambles on. Those are the things self-appreciation of one's auditing should reveal. Scientology has been getting fine results for a dozen years. In the hands of a good auditor, there are no big case failures. So it isn't the techniques. It's this: What is a good auditor? A good auditor is one who knows Scientology and its techniques and who audits with all basics in. That's a primary thing we stress in training here at Saint Hill. 426 A good auditor gives the preclear something to do that the preclear can do, lets the preclear do it, and, when the preclear has, acknowledges well that the preclear has done it and promptly gives the preclear something to do. A good auditor never evaluates or invalidates. A good auditor understands what the preclear has said and never goes on until he or she has understood what the preclear said. A technically skilled auditor can choose the very best processes, but unless these are run with all basics in, the wins are few. That's why I started the Saint Hill Course -- to make good auditors become good auditors who could also make good auditors. It's been successful in the extreme here at Saint Hill. But it's still a battle with basics. For whatever else an auditor must know about the mind, however valid the technology, it takes plain down-to-earth good auditing to pull preclears through. For the only reason any process works is the auditor's handling of the session and the basics of the auditing cycle. Record some of a session you give, on tape. Note the rough spots for the preclear in the session while you give it. Play back the tape in private and spot exactly where and how each subsequent rough spot was caused by the failure of the auditor to observe basics. Suddenly it shows up like a crashed airplane at a picnic. The auditor caused those rough bits the preclear went through -- and the auditor caused them by failing to observe the simple basics. There may be lots of other reasons, too, but these don't give the preclear a rough time. They only make the pc's progress fast or slow. Preclears don't fail because Scientology doesn't work. Preclears fail only when Scientology isn't administered with all basics in. $bx 427  L. Ron Hubbard   Type = 11 iDate=19/5/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  CLASS II MODEL SESSION  Type = 11 iDate=4/3/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  Central Orgs Franchise Sthil Students  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 19 MAY 1964 (CANCELLED -- see HCO B 4 June 65 Volume VI -- 44) Central Orgs Franchise Sthil Students CLASS II MODEL SESSION (Amends and cancels HCO Bulletin of 4 March 1964.) The Class II Model Session has the benefit of requiring no other Rudiments process (except in the Havingness Questions) than the question itself. There are, therefore, no additional processes except Havingness. Beware of any Q and A in using this script (HCO Bulletin 24 May 1962 [1]). Don't stray off Model Session into unusual questions or processes. Use Model Session as the surround for processes to be run on the pc. Don't use it as a process. Questions are asked of the pc and not checked on the needle. Auditor watches meter and records TA. SESSION PRELIMINARIES All auditing sessions have the following preliminaries done in this order. 1. Seat the pc and adjust his or her chair. 2. Clear the Auditing room with "Is it all right to audit in this room?" (not metered). 3. Can squeeze, "Put your hands in your lap." "Squeeze the cans, please." And note that pc registers on the meter by the squeeze read on the meter, and note the level of the pc's havingness. (Don't run hav here.) 4. Put in R Factor by telling pc briefly what you are going to do in the session. (What you intend to run.) START OF SESSION: Is it all right with you if I begin this session now? START OF SESSION. Has this session started for you? (If pc says, No, say again, START OF SESSION. Now has this session started for you?) BEGINNING RUDIMENTS: GLL: What goals would you like to set for this session? O/W: One would run General O/W if the pc was emotionally upset at the beginning of the session or if the session did not start for the pc, the latter being simply another indication of the pc's being upset or ARC broken, but these symptoms must be present, as sometimes the session hasn't started merely because of poor Tone 40 or because the pc had something he wanted to say before the auditor started the session. RUNNING O/W: If it is all right with you, I am going to run a short, general process. The process is: "What have you done?", "What have you withheld?" (The process is run very 428 permissively until the needle looks smooth and the pc is no longer emotionally disturbed.) Where are you now on the time track? If it is all right with you, I will continue this process until you are close to present time and then end this process. (After each command, ask, "When?") That was the last command. Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this process? End of process. Aud: Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties? What difficulty aren't you willing to talk to me about? W/h: Since the last time I audited you, have you done anything you are withholding? (If pc says, Yes) What was it? PTP: Do you have a present time problem? What is the problem? START OF PROCESS: Now I would like to run this process on you (name it). What would you say to that? (Get pc's agreement; if not obtainable, choose another process unless old process is not complete.) MIDDLE RUDIMENTS: In this session is there anything you have suppressed, invalidated, failed to reveal, or been careful of? What was it? END OF PROCESS NON-CYCLICAL: If it is all right with you, I will give this command two more times and then end this process. (Gives command two more times.) Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this process? End of process. END OF PROCESS CYCLICAL: Where are you now on the time track? If it is all right with you, I will continue this process until you are close to present time and then end this process. (After each command, ask, "When?") That was the last command. Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this process? End of process. END RUDIMENTS: 1/2-UnT: In this session, have you told me any half-truth, untruth, or said something only to impress me, or tried to damage anyone? What was it? ? or C: In this session, have you failed to answer any question or command? What question or command did you fail to answer? Dec: In this session, is there anything you have decided? What was it? W/h: In this session, have you thought, said, or done anything I have failed to find out? What was it? Aud: In this session, has anything been misunderstood? What was it? GOALS & GAINS: Have you made any of these goals for this session? "Thank you for making these goals for this session," or "Thank you for making some of these goals for this 429 session. I'm sorry you didn't make all of them," or "I'm sorry you didn't make these goals for this session." Have you made any gains in this session that you would care to mention? "Thank you for making these gains for this session," or "I'm sorry you didn't make any gains for this session." Env: In this session, was the room all right? (If can squeeze denotes down havingness, run hav.) END OF SESSION: Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this session? Is it all right with you if I end this session now? END OF SESSION. Has this session ended for you? (If pc says, No, repeat, END OF SESSION. If session still not ended, say, "The session has been ended.") Most flagrant errors that can be made: 1. Fumbling with script, not knowing Model Session. 2. Failing to get in the R Factor by telling pc what you are going to do at each new step. 3. Doing only what the pc suggests. 4. Adding unusual questions or remarks or making sudden irrelevant statements. 5. Using parts of Model Session as repetitive processes which deter the completion of auditing cycles already begun. 6. Failure to complete the Auditing Comm Cycle on any part of Model Session. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.rd Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 430  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=27/5/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  AUDITING ASSIGNMENTS   Sthil Course  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 27 MAY 1964 Sthil Course AUDITING ASSIGNMENTS (If this bulletin contradicts any existing practice, this bulletin is the correct practice to follow.) Student auditing assignments are outlined by Auditing Supervisors and checked off by the Case Supervisor on the Auditing Check Sheet. In general, any student on arrival progresses rapidly up from Level I to Level IV auditing in the general auditing periods, remaining in a level only long enough to demonstrate ability to get TA at that level and perform it beneficially on the pc and get a check out. Difficult pcs are given special examination and reorientation on O/Ws and the workability of "treatment" or "processing". The student then passes into the comm cycle processes of the Level VI check sheet and all further auditing prior to Classification examination (before entering Level VI Co-Audit) is devoted to the skills and drills required of a Level VI Auditor. After Classification examination, upon passing, the student enters into the Level VI Co-Audit. The first action in the Level VI Co-Audit is to find parts of existence the pc may be hung up in and somewhat release the pc from them by this lifetime considerations of the part of existence found. It does not matter if these parts found are in the GPMs or not. The action here is destimulative in intent not restimulative. The student is then entered upon Actual GPMs and auditing progresses on these exactly as directed and in no other way until the completion of the case. SUMMARY It is no part of instruction to hang the student auditor up at Levels I to IV or to unnecessarily prolong stays in "Level Units". The entire matter is one of demonstrated skill not time spent. Students on course, by the general one-upmanship, may knock about lower level students with high-powered material for which the lower student is not ready. This sometimes causes restim at lower levels. This restim is not to be handled in any other way than getting BMRs in upon the week or by considerations during a certain specified time such as "This week, what considerations have you had about _______" whatever the restim was. Students trying to do Track Analysis during sessions in lower units than the Level VI Co-Audit or generally prepchecking any of the materials of Level VI should be given heavy technical infractions. Lower level materials, Itsa, repetitive processes, and particularly General O/W are quite adequate to handle any student case difficulty. Dabbling with goals or Items or GPMs at these levels is expressly forbidden. The only exception is a prepcheck at Level IV on known wrong goals previously found on the pc, and this is done only when ordered by an Auditing Supervisor. It is to be particularly noted by the Case Supervisor that students trying to "blow" do so only after the matter has not been confronted and handled in routine supervision. Left unhandled, situations become blows. Rapidity of course progress depends in large measure on rigid adherence to the Auditing levels as above. LRH:dr.rd L. RON HUBBARD Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 431  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=29/6/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY II TO IV STAR RATED IN ALL ACADEMIES & SAINT HILL CENTRAL ORG AND FIELD AUDITOR TARGETS   CenOCon Not MA HCO Secs: Check out on all staff  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex CenOCon Not MA HCO BULLETIN OF 29 JUNE 1964 HCO Secs: Check out on all staff SCIENTOLOGY II TO IV STAR RATED IN ALL ACADEMIES & SAINT HILL CENTRAL ORG AND FIELD AUDITOR TARGETS It has been quite dicey keeping an organization or a practice running with all this talk of OTs at Saint Hill and nobody to make OTs in orgs or field. I have been giving a lot of thought to this matter and have resolved it. However, when all the publicity is "Go OT" and nobody in orgs or field at this writing has the data or classification to process to OT, the public loses its target and it becomes pretty hard to sell auditing or training at lower levels. Part of the fault is that the public desires to "go all the way instantly" and cannot see gradient progress. They "go for broke" always. But part of the fault, if there is any, lies in the org or field activity that permits this to happen and even forwards it. There's an awful lot of technology south of Six. I could take almost any chunk of it and be entirely successful in running an org or a field practice. Shucks, I had no shadow of what we have now below IV when I was running a howling success of a practice in Hollywood. I didn't even have a name, was indeed anonymous. So I know it isn't quantity of knowledge or even fame that makes success. It's using AND PLUGGING what you've got. You sell what you can do. And as that's more, in Dianetics and Scientology, than anyone else could ever do, you can't help but succeed. It isn't using a lot of things indifferently that counts. It's using something you know well very well indeed. And it isn't putting people's attention on 40 dozen targets that gets them to be trained or processed, it's getting their attention on one thing that can become real to them soon. So any reason beyond pure admin goofs that anybody in the field or an org would do poorly lies in just two things: 1. Not doing one technical thing well and 2. Not keeping people's attention directed at it and nothing else. When an auditor knows seventy processes indifferently he knows none. When one directs people's attention at 40 dozen targets one disperses them and they don't want training or processing as they don't know what to have, since they can't tell what's there. You have to be skilled on one process at least and know all about it before you can do two. If anyone were to make a good study of 8C and do it well, and do nothing else for any case, a high percentage of pc wins would occur. If one told his pcs or public that "the reason they were unable to cope was that they were flinching from their environment" and then did only 8C one would get a heavy flow of traffic. By pounding the same drum and doing the same thing one is finally heard. There's an old rule "What I tell you three times is true." If people don't hear the same thing being said at least three times, they believe it is impermanent. One can easily become possessed of an urge for "newness". That way one need not finish any action cycles or go through the same motions twice. But this is actually a deadly disease, the disease of "the latest". It is non- duplication extremis. When one 432 does only the latest one never gets a chance to understand or become skilled in anything. So we suffer, where we do, in orgs and field by a failure to master one action and center people's attention upon it as a desirable result. So if we can get this one point well agreed upon and utilized we will be able to: 1. Master a beneficial skill in Scientology and 2. Center people's attention on one definite result. Now, of course, I am talking from strength since Level VI is as wrapped up as a Christmas present. All the patterns and ways to run and the discipline of auditing it are all there. Pcs here change before your very eyes. Man G, Man K. Girl G on Monday becomes super girl K on Friday. The drawbacks of this Level are: 1. The ardours of training even a skilled auditor up to it 2. The vast quantity of material to be run 3. The dazzling aspect of it, often too great for belief until one experiences it, and 4. The impatience of people to attain it before they're ready for it. It will take 2 or 3 years before orgs can deliver it routinely. Meanwhile their public is all distracted by it. And in the very grasp of success the hamburger vanishes from view for the Central Org and the field auditor, "Beside the fountain's brink they die of thirst." Two things must be done: 1. Close the delivery gap fast. Get auditors to Saint Hill and get them trained. (Your best, please, not those that can be spared. For the poor ones can't reach the bottom rung in under a year of below VI training, so it's uneconomical not to send the whizzes.) 2. Brighten up a skill that can be locally done on purely local training, and 3. Center the public's interest on a target that can be locally delivered. This is the proposed program, then, just 1, 2 and 3 above. It would be an error to pound "OT the only target" into people's skulls. Announce it with a hurrah, yes. But pound in another shorter target they already have and can attain reality on. Now fortunately for the org and field auditor there is a vital preparation necessary for Level VI. It is a real, true technical preparation. EVEN WHEN YOU ARE DELIVERING R6 TO THE PUBLIC ROUTINELY YOU WILL BE RUNNING PCs ON THIS FIRST FOR HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF HOURS. You had better learn to profit by it. The preparation is this: Those preclears who are insufficiently Cause in their daily lives cannot as-is the bank. You could throw them in to GPMs but nothing would happen to the GPMs -- only to the pc. We have a true tiger by the tail. Take Man X off Times Square, pitch him into GPMs and he wouldn't go OT, he'd go rheumatic. Why? He can't as-is the significances and masses. This will be found exclamatorily true of some 99 percent of the pcs. 433 Auditors are different. They can confront more. But nine out of twenty- five auditors break a leg over commas in GPMs when they are pc-ing. One sneeze and the meter locks up. One error in sequence and it's a ten auditing hour battle to find and get the charge off that error. In carefully studying this I found there were pcs Type A and Type B. Type A runs easily even across errors. Type B packs up the meter on a cough. NINETY- NINE PERCENT OF YOUR PRECLEARS ARE OR WERE ORIGINALLY TYPE B. There are special differences in these two types. Type A: Has few personal problems. Even when they occur isn't upset by them. Handles life easily. Is energetic generally and able to work efficiently at things. Takes setbacks optimistically. Feels good most of the time. Type B: Is deluged with personal problems. Can't see any way out. Gets upset easily or is just in plain apathy and is never upset because things aren't real anyway (like a boulder wouldn't get upset). Has a hard time in life. Is generally tired and can't work very long at anything. Takes setbacks emotionally or just collapses. Feels ill most of the time. Those are two types of people. There are of course shades of grey in between. If you were to take a Type B and throw him or her to the GPMs you'd not get anything as-ised. What is the basic difference, then, between these two types of condition? It isn't native or inherent. It can change. If you tire a Type A out you can make him or her behave on GPMs like a Type B. If you audit a Type A with the Auditor's Code clauses of food and rest wildly disobeyed, you would be auditing, suddenly, a Type B pc. The Type A will spring back faster of course but still he or she during that period will have a packed up meter. You could also inexpertly audit a Type A on wrong goals or sequences and get a Type B pc reaction. A difference between these two types of people is that one is more rested (Type A) and one is tired (Type B). You can see this at any level of processing. It registers in the amount of TA you get or don't get. A chronically tired pc who is not eating won't get TA for there's no as-is of locks. That's why the Auditor's Code has those clauses in it. Make your pc rest and eat and keep him or her out of a tiring environment and you'll get a lot more TA. If a pc gets no TA, just make him or her eat and sleep and leave the world alone for a bit and bang -- TA! But it isn't only physical weariness. The other, main factor we're interested in is why they're also tired. A Type B can't be Cause! Life flows in, in, in. The pc can't flow out. Here is the pc who can only receive auditing. Never give any. Here is the pc who has to be HELPED but never really helps. Here is the pc who has motivators but never any overts. Now, you see? It takes those lower grades to raise the pc's Cause Level so that the pc, on reaching Grade VI can as-is the bank. ONLY CAREFUL LOWER LEVEL AUDITING CAN MAKE A TYPE B PC INTO A TYPE A! We are running into this problem at Saint Hill now. Even an occasional auditor, arriving here, is found to be below Cause. They can't as-is. Also they can't put an examination answer back on the sheet. So they are here for quite a while and all that time we now work on raising their Cause Level so they can: 1. Use what they learn (that takes outflow) 2. As-is their PTPs (that takes the ability to be Cause) 434 3. Get up to Level VI materials without fainting at the sight of them and 4. As-is GPMs. That's the fight of the Supervisors at Saint Hill. Well, it's also our fight all over the world. The state of high Cause is also Keyed Out Clear. So your program is to: 1. Become very skilled with and successfully use processes which lead toward Keyed Out Clear and 2. Center the attention of your public on "A Keyed Out can be Cause". Get trained. Be Cause. And in small type "You have to attain a high Cause Level before you can even begin to think about OT processing." That puts their feet on the bottom rung of OT. And so help me how true, it's the only way they'll ever make that bottom rung! From time to time I will give you more concise data on old materials which bring this beneficial condition about. This one we have done well, can do and will do -- to increase Cause in a person. Suffice to say that 8C, and O/W in particular run alternately: "In this lifetime, what have you done?" "In this lifetime, what haven't you said?" or just Itsa on any action (not just bad actions) will start your pc up toward that bottom rung. Only realization of actions done will key out a GPM. That's worth a million words. Suffice it in that sentence. Not evil actions. Not confessions. Not just social unwillingness to let one's deeds be known. Any action. Any not speaking. And a person's Cause Level will rise. Their psychosomatics key out (for what is a psychosomatic but an inability to hold life off?). They feel better. They begin to live. Their needles get floppy. This is destimulative auditing. If you learn it well and do it well, your pc will thrive. If you center your public's attention on becoming cause you will have bodies in the shop. And that's the approach to the bridge. Without that approach they don't make it at all. So you're in business. And it isn't a business you'll cease to be in just because you can "do R6 on a pc". You'll only make the mistake once and take the pc back to exactly what I'm describing in this HCO Bulletin. So learn to do this well. We'll be doing it for a long time. And doing it right now can save your practice or org. LRH:gl.rd Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard L. RON HUBBARD ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [On 30 June 1964 another HCO B was issued titled Field Auditor Targets which had the same text as this HCO B, except for the following: The distribution was only to "Franchise"; instead of the seven lines after "Two things must be done:" on the second page of this issue, it said, " 1. Close the delivery gap fast. Get to Saint Hill and get trained. 2. Brighten up a skill that you can do with your current training and center the public's interest on a target that you can deliver now on the lower levels. This is the proposed program, then, just 1 and 2 above." Also, the word "Org(s)" was omitted or replaced by the word "Field" throughout.] 435  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=7/7/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY III & IV JUSTIFICATIONS   Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 7 JULY 1964 Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students SCIENTOLOGY III & IV JUSTIFICATIONS The reasons overts are Overts to people is JUSTIFICATIONS. If you ask a pc what overt he has committed, and then ask him why it wasn't an Overt, you will find that it wasn't an overt and therefore didn't relieve as an answer because it was all justified. One of the powerful new overt processes (as given by me on recent tapes) is: 1. In this lifetime what overt have you committed? 2. How have you justified it? 2. is run flat until the overt given in 1. is knocked out. Then a new overt is found and 2. is done thoroughly and repetitively on it. This is not a new form of process but these are very new commands. Note it is not an alternate command. Note that a cycle of action is completed with question 2. or 1. before you leave off processing this particular overt. Only when you have all the justifications and cognitions possible on 1. do you ask for a new overt from the pc. This cracks the general irresponsibility the auditor is met with in trying to get O/W to benefit the irresponsible case. "In this lifetime" is added because the pc who can't face his overts not only justifies them but goes way back into his past lives to find overts instead of getting off the simple this lifetime ones. This is not the same process as plain "What have you done?" in which any action done by the pc is accepted as the answer. However in simple general O/W you will find the pc is not answering the auditing question but is answering "What have I done that caused my trouble?" The pc is running "What action that I have done explains what has happened to me?" Therefore running justifications off is a further south process than any earlier version of O/W and is very effective in raising the Cause Level of the pc. LRH:nb.rd L. RON HUBBARD Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 436  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=8/7/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY III & IV MORE JUSTIFICATIONS   Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 8 JULY 1964 Remimeo Franchise SCIENTOLOGY III & IV Sthil Students MORE JUSTIFICATIONS The following list of Scientology Justifications was compiled by Phyll Stevens and several other Course Students and is issued to show how one can get around getting off an overt and stay sick from it. L. RON HUBBARD SOME FAMOUS JUSTIFICATIONS It wasn't really an overt because. .. .. It wasn't me it was just my bank You can't hurt a thetan He was asking for a motivator He's got overts on me I've got a service fac on that His overts are bigger than mine My intentions were good He's a victim anyway I had by-passed charge I was just being self-determined I've come up to being overt It's better than suppressing I'll straighten it out next lifetime He must have done something to deserve it He was dragging it in I was in an ARC break He needed a lesson He'll have another lifetime anyway It's only a consideration anyhow It's not against my moral code Codes are only considerations They couldn't have it They weren't willing to experience it I don't see why I have to be the only one to take responsibility It's about time I was overt They are only wogs anyhow They are so way out they wouldn't realize it He's such a victim already, one more motivator won't make any difference They just can't have 8-C I can't help it if he reacts He's too critical He must have missed W/Hs He's a no-effect case anyhow I'm above moral codes Why should I limit my causativeness just because others can't take it It was my duty to tell the truth You wouldn't want me to withhold He must have postulated it first He never would have cognited if I hadn't told him I'll run it out later He'll be getting more auditing LRH:nb.rd Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 437  Phyll Stephens L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=10/7/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  OVERTS -- ORDER OF EFFECTIVENESS IN PROCESSING   Remimeo Sthil Students Franchise (STAR RATED except for Forbidden Words List)  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 10 JULY 1964 Remimeo Sthil Students Franchise OVERTS -- ORDER OF EFFECTIVENESS IN PROCESSING (STAR RATED except for Forbidden Words List) It will be found in processing the various case levels that running overts is very effective in raising the cause level of a pc. The scale, on actual tests of running various levels of pc response, is seen to go something like this: I ITSA -- Letting a pc discuss his or her guilt feelings about self with little or no auditor direction. I ITSA -- Letting a pc discuss his or her guilt feelings about others, with little or no auditor direction. II REPETITIVE O/W -- Using merely "In this lifetime what have you done?" "What haven't you done?" Alternate. III ASSESSMENT BY LIST -- Using existing or specially prepared lists of possible overts, cleaning the meter each time it reads on a question and using the question only so long as it reads. IV JUSTIFICATIONS -- Asking the pc what he or she has done and then using that one instance (if applicable) finding out why "that" was not an overt. Advice enters into this under the heading of instruction: "You're upset about that person because you've done something to that person." Dynamics also permissively enter into this above Level I but the pc wanders around amongst them. In Level III one can also direct attention to the various dynamics by first assessing them and then using or preparing a list for the dynamic found. RESPONSIBILITY There is no reason to expect any great pc responsibility for his or her own overts below Level IV and the auditor seeking to make the pc feel or take responsibility for overts is just pushing the pc down. The pc will resent being made feel guilty. Indeed the auditor may only achieve that, not case gain. And the pc will ARC break. At Level IV one begins on this subject of responsibility but again it is indirectly the target. There is no need now to run Responsibility in doing O/Ws. The realization that one has really done something is a return of responsibility and this gain is best obtained only by indirect approach as in the above processes. ARC BREAKS The commonest cause of failure in running overt acts is "cleaning cleans" whether or not one is using a meter. The pc who really has more to tell doesn't ARC Break when the Auditor continues to ask for one but may snarl and eventually give it up. 438 On the other hand leaving an overt touched on the case and calling it clean will cause a future ARC Break with the auditor. "Have you told all?" prevents cleaning a clean. On the unmetered pc one can see the pc brighten up. On the meter you get a nice fall if it's true that all is told. "Have I not found out about something?" prevents leaving an overt undisclosed. On the unmetered pc the reaction is a sly flinch. On a metered pc it gives a read. A pc's protest against a question will also be visible in an unmetered pc in a reeling sort of exasperation which eventually becomes a howl of pure bafflement at why the auditor won't accept the answer that that's all. On a meter protest of a question falls on being asked for: "Is this question being protested?" There is no real excuse for ARC Breaking a pc by 1. Demanding more than is there or 2. Leaving an overt undisclosed that will later make the pc upset with the auditor. FORBIDDEN WORDS Do not use the following words in auditing commands. While they can be used in discussion or nomenclature, for various good reasons they should be avoided now in an auditing command: Responsibility (ies) Justification (s) Withhold (s) Failed (ures) Difficulty (ies) Desire (s) Here There Compulsion (s) (ively) Obsession (s) (ively) No unusual restraint should be given these words. Just don't frame a command that includes them. Use something else. WHY OVERTS WORK Overts give the highest gain in raising cause level because they are the biggest reason why a person restrains himself and withholds self from action. Man is basically good. But the reactive mind tends to force him into evil actions. These evil actions are instinctively regretted and the individual tries to refrain from doing anything at all. The "best" remedy, the individual thinks, is to withhold. "If I commit evil actions, then my best guarantee for not committing is to do nothing whatever." Thus we have the "lazy", inactive person. Others who try to make an individual guilty for committing evil actions only increase this tendency to laziness. Punishment is supposed to bring about inaction. And it does. In some unexpected ways. However, there is also an inversion (a turn about) where the individual sinks below recognition of any action. The individual in such a state cannot conceive of any action and therefore cannot withhold action. And thus we have the criminal who can't act really but can only re-act and is without any self direction. This is why punishment 439 does not cure criminality but in actual fact creates it; the individual is driven below withholding or any recognition of any action. A thief's hands stole the jewel, the thief was merely an innocent spectator to the action of his own hands. Criminals are very sick people physically. So there is a level below withholding that an auditor should be alert to in some pcs, for these "have no withholds" and "have done nothing". All of which, seen through their eyes is true. They are merely saying "I cannot restrain myself" and "I have not willed myself to do what I have done." The road out for such a case is the same as that for any other case. It is just longer. The processes for levels above hold also for such cases. But don't be anxious to see a sudden return of responsibility, for the first owned "done" that this person knows he or she has done may be "ate breakfast". Don't disdain such answers in Level II particularly. Rather, in such people, seek such answers. There is another type of case in all this, just one more to end the list. This is the case who never runs O/W but "seeks the explanation of what I did that made it all happen to me". This person easily goes into past lives for answers. Their reaction to a question about what they've done is to try to find out what they did that earned all those motivators. That, of course, isn't running the process and the auditor should be alert for it and stop it when it is happening. This type of case goes into its extreme on guilt. It dreams up overts to explain why. After most big murders the police routinely have a dozen or two people come around and confess. You see, if they had done the murder, this would explain why they feel guilty. As a terror stomach is pretty awful grim to live with, one is apt to seek any explanation for it if it will only explain it. On such cases the same approach as given works, but one should be very careful not to let the pc get off overts the pc didn't commit. Such a pc (recognizable by the ease they dive into the extreme past) when being audited off a meter gets more and more frantic and wilder and wilder in overts reported. They should get calmer under processing, of course, but the false overts make them frantic and hectic in a session. On a meter one simply checks for "Have you told me anything beyond what really has occurred?" Or "Have you told me any untruths?" The observation and meter guides given in this section are used during a session when they apply but not systematically such as after every pc answer. These observations and meter guides are used always at the end of every session on the pcs to whom they apply. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:nb.cden Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [This HCO B was reissued on 5 December 1974, as Integrity Processing Series 6R, which was cancelled by HCO B 9 December 1974, Effectiveness of Overts in Processing, Integrity Processing Series 6RA. HCO B 9 December 1974 was taken from HCO B 10 July 1964 which remains as originally issued.] 440  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=12/7/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY I to IV MORE ON O/Ws   Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 12 JULY 1964 Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students SCIENTOLOGY I to IV MORE ON O/Ws The Itsa processes for O/W are almost unlimited. There is, however, the distinct must not at Level I, as at upper Levels, DON'T RUN A PROCESS THAT MAKES THE PC FEEL ACCUSED. A pc will feel accused if he is run above his or her level. And remember that temporary sags in level can occur such as during ARC Breaks with the auditor or life. A process can be accusative because it is worded too strongly. It can be accusative to the pc because the pc feels guilty or defensive anyway. At Level I proper O/W processes can take up the troubles that are described as peculiar to some pcs without getting too personal about it. Here are some varied Level I Processes: "Tell me some things you think you should not have done." "Tell me what you've done that got you into trouble." "What wouldn't you do over again?" "What are some things a person shouldn't say?" "What gets a person into trouble?" "What have you done that you regret?" "What have you said you wish you hadn't?" "What have you advised others to do?" There are many more. These at Level II all convert to repetitive processes. At Level III such processes convert to lists. At Level IV such processes convert to how they weren't overts or weren't really done or justifications of one kind or another. Care should be taken not to heavily run an out-of-ARC type process. This is the command which asks for out-of-Affinity moments, out-of-Reality moments and out-of-Communication incidents. 441 All after charge is based on prior ARC. Therefore for a withhold to exist there must have been communication earlier. ARC incidents are basic on all chains. Out of ARC are later on the chain. One has to get a basic to blow a chain. Otherwise one gets recurring answers. (Pc brings up same incident over and over as you don't have the basic on the chain.) You can alternate an ARC command with an out-of-ARC command. "What have you done?" (means one had to reach for and contact) can be alternated with "What haven't you done?" (means not reached for and not contacted). But if one runs the out-of-ARC (not reached for and not contacted) process only the pc will soon bog. On the other hand an ARC process runs on and on with no bad side effects, i.e. "What have you done?" "What bad thing have you done?" is a mixture of ARC and out-of-ARC. Done reached and contacted. Bad wished one hadn't. So solely accusative commands upset the pc not because of social status or insult but because a pc, particularly at lower levels of case, wishes so hard he hadn't done it that a real bad done is really a withhold and the pc not only withholds it from the auditor but himself as well. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.cden Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 442  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=24/7/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY III & IV TA COUNTERS, USE OF   Remimeo Sthil Students Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 24 JULY AD14 Remimeo Sthil Students Franchise SCIENTOLOGY III & IV TA COUNTERS, USE OF With the advent of the TONE ARM COUNTER new problems arise in Auditing and Auditing supervision. Without an adequate written record of time and "TA" (by which is meant the total number of divisions down a tone arm has moved accurately in a unit of time such as 20 minutes or a 2 1/2 hr session) one does not know whether or not a process was flattened. A process is considered "flat" when it produces no more than .25 div of TA in 20 minutes. The auditor can't recheck the last 20 minutes because he has no time noted and no Tone Arm notations. Therefore he or she audits by guess and leaves process cycles of action on the case either unflat or overflattened. This alone is enough to upset pcs. Further, when two processes have been run in a session and only a counter was used, an auditing supervisor has no idea at all of whether one was flattened before the other was begun. Also "TA" for a session can be a gross error by reason of poor handling of the Tone Arm. If an auditor fails to set the Tone Arm accurately each time the needle moves from "set" on the dial, less TA is shown for the session. If the auditor habitually overworks the Tone Arm, setting it further than it should have gone to bring the needle to "set", either up or down, then the TA Counter will show far more TA for the session than really happened. The way to handle this dilemma is to use the TA Counter only for a rough estimate of TA for a session (or process) and to continue to record Tone Arm action at Levels III and IV. (One is too busy at Levels V and VI and by that time should be able to rely on the counter as TA in such sessions is very large.) The Tone Arm is never touched during sneezing, body motion, etc, and no recording is made. But if the TA blew down because of it, the fact is noted in the worksheet column and the new reading entered. All meter auditing below Level V should be recorded by Time and Tone Arm position. To so record TA it is not necessary to use several pounds of Auditor's Report forms. One uses one Auditor's Report form to report on the session and similar sized rough work sheets to record Time, TA position and what is going on. These rough work sheets are divided into two or three vertical columns with a ball-point pen and each one of these is split in half vertically. In the first column enter time, in the second enter TA notes of where the Tone Arm is at that time. Take Tone Arm readings only with the needle at "set". If something noteworthy occurs write it across these two columns, using the spaces of Time and TA position for a brief note and below it going on with the Time and TA position notes. One writes down the TA position with the time it happened only when the Tone Arm needs to be moved to bring the needle back to "set". A needle that moves but comes back at once (within 1 or 2 seconds) to "set" is not recorded. Point One (.1) division changes are not recorded as too minute. 443 One fills up these three double columns, turns over the sheet and does the same on the back. Printed Auditor's Reports are never used as work sheets. They give the details of the beginning of the session, condition of pc, what's intended, the wording of the process, etc. Then one goes to work sheets and only returns to the Auditor's Report, which is half empty, to complete the session and end it off with pc goals and gains and all that. The TA Counter is then read and written on the report. This is all so written that one can see the whole session at a glance, including TA total, just by looking at the one side of the Auditor's Report form. On that one side the session begins, ends, and by seeing how the pc was at start and is at the end, and the TA Counter read, what was done and the success or failure of the session is grasped at a glance. In trying to analyze the session and help the pc more, one inspects the work sheets. When the session is completed, the work sheets are put in proper sequence (sequence quite visible because of the time notations), the Auditor's Report is put face up on top and the lot are all stapled together by the left-hand corner. If an ordinary stapler won't do it easily for a 2 1/2 hr session, far too many notations are being made, for no III or IV pc is that active. Faults of Tone Arm handling (over or under setting of it by the auditor) show up, process flattening can be traced, changes of process can be seen and the auditor or the auditing supervisor can find out what really happened. I myself wouldn't know how to guide the next session at Levels III and IV if I didn't have a record of TA of the last session to inspect, whether the session were mine or another's. Such delicate judgements as "was the TA just working into the process', or "was the processing dying down" or "was it being overflattened" just can't be answered by the auditor himself, much less an auditing supervisor if no Time-TA record exists. Also, don't take a Tone Arm reading "every 2 minutes" or "every minute". That's poor because such timed readings tell nothing. When the TA has to be moved more than .1 divisions to keep the needle at set, one notes Time and the new Tone Arm reading. That's the only answer to how often one reads and notes TA action. Changes of process are noted across both Time and Tone Arm columns but also at session ending noted on the Auditor's Report. One doesn't often change processes and only when the old one has (1) had time to get the TA worked into it (2) had the TA worked out of it and (3) the old one produces only .25 divisions of TA action in a consecutive 20 minutes of auditing. The Tone Arm Counter is a must or one spends ages adding up his session TA when he needs lunch or a break. But it jolly well never can supplant a work sheet. Automation can only go so far. Tone Arm Counters can't think. The Auditors I train can. LRH:nb.cden L. RON HUBBARD Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 444  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=29/7/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY I to IV GOOD INDICATORS AT LOWER LEVELS   Remimeo Franchise Sthil  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex Remimeo HCO BULLETIN OF 29 JULY 1964 Franchise Sthil SCIENTOLOGY I to IV GOOD INDICATORS AT LOWER LEVELS The following list of good indicators was compiled from my lecture tapes by John Galusha. An additional three are added at the end. Lower Level Good Indicators. 1. Pc cheerful or getting more cheerful. 2. Pc cogniting. 3. Fundamental rightnesses of pcs asserting themselves. 4. Pc giving things to auditor briefly and accurately. 5. Pc finding things rapidly. 6. Meter reading properly. 7. What's being done giving proper meter response. 8. What's being found giving proper meter response. 9. Pc running rapidly and flattening by TA or cognitions. 10. Pc giving auditor information easily. 11. Needle cleanly swinging about. 12. Pc running easily and if pc encounters somatics they are discharging. 13. Tone Arm goes down when pc hits a cognition. 14. Further TA blowdown as pc continues to talk about something. 15. Expected meter behavior and nothing unexpected in meter behavior. 16. Pc gets warm and stays warm in auditing or gets hot and unheats while in auditing. 17. Pc has occasional somatics of brief duration. 18. Tone Arm operating in the range 2.25 to 3.5. 19. Good TA action on spotting things. 20. Meter reading well on what pc and auditor think is wrong. 21. Pc not much troubled with PTPs and they are easily handled when they occur. 22. Pc stays certain of the auditing solution. 23. Pc happy and satisfied with auditor regardless of what auditor is doing. 24. Pc not protesting auditor's actions. 25. Pc looking better by reason of auditing. 26. Pc feeling more energetic. 27. Pc without pains, aches or illnesses developing during auditing. Does not mean pc shouldn't have somatics. Means pc shouldn't get sick. 28. Pc wanting more auditing. 29. Pc confident and getting more confident. 30. Pc's Itsa free but only covers subject. 31. Auditor easily seeing how it was or is on pc's case by reason of pc's explanations. 32. Pc's ability to Itsa and confront improving. 33. Pc's bank getting straightened out. 34. Pc comfortable in the auditing environment. 35. Pc appearing for auditing on his own volition. 36. Pc on time for session and willing and ready to be audited but without anxiety about it. 37. Pc's trouble in life progressively lessening. 38. Pc's attention becoming freer and more under pc's control. 39. Pc getting more interested in data and technology of Scientology. 40. Pc's havingness in life and livingness improving. 41. Pc's environment becoming more easily handled. LRH:nb.rd Copyright$c 1964 L. RON HUBBARD by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 445  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=14/8/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY TWO PREPCHECK BUTTONS   Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 14 AUGUST AD14 Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students SCIENTOLOGY TWO PREPCHECK BUTTONS (Cancels previous issues) The following order and number of Prepcheck Buttons should be used wherever "an 18 button Prepcheck" is recommended. Do not use the old order of buttons. The full command is usually "(Time Limiter) (on subject) has anything been _______" or "Is there anything you have been _______" for some of them which don't fit with "Has anything been _______". The (on _______) may be omitted. The Time Limiter is seldom omitted as it leads the pc to Itsa the Whole Track. On an RRing goal found and used in R3SC the Time Limiter "In this Lifetime" can be used with good effect. All Service Fac questions or Prepchecks must have a Time Limiter. In running R4 (R3M2), pc's actual GPMs, the goal and RIs are Prepchecked without a Time Limiter as pc is on the whole track anyway. But in all lower levels of auditing, particularly when using a possible goal as a Service Fac, the Time Limiter, usually "In this Lifetime _______", must be used or pc will become Over-Restimulated. In order to avoid most GPM words, for all uses the 18 Prepcheck Buttons now are: SUPPRESSED CAREFUL OF DIDN'T REVEAL NOT-ISED SUGGESTED MISTAKE BEEN MADE PROTESTED ANXIOUS ABOUT DECIDED WITHDRAWN FROM REACHED IGNORED STATED HELPED ALTERED REVEALED ASSERTED AGREED (WITH) BIG MID RUDS It will be noted that the first 9 are the Big Mid Ruds used as "Since the last time I audited you has anything been _______?" 446 A USEFUL TIP To get the Meter clean on a list during nulling the list the easiest system is to show the pc the list and just ask "What happened?" This saves a lot of Mid Ruds. TWO USEFUL PAIRS When trying to get an Item to read, the two buttons Suppress and Not-Ised are sometimes used as a pair. To get a pc easier in session the buttons Protested and Decided are sometimes used as a pair. DIRTY NEEDLE Mid Ruds (called because Middle of Session was the earliest use + Rudiments of a Session) are less employed today because of the discovery that all Dirty Needle phenomena is usually traced to the auditor having cut the pc's communication. To get rid of a Dirty Needle one usually need ask only, "Have I cut your Communication?" or do an ARC Break assessment if that doesn't work. A Dirty Needle (continuously agitated) always means the auditor has cut the pc's Itsa Line, no matter what else has happened. Chronically comm chopping auditors always have pcs with Dirty Needles. Conversely, pcs with high Tone Arms have auditors who don't control the Itsa Line and let it over-restimulate the pc by getting into lists of problems or puzzlements; but a high Tone Arm also means a heavy Service Fac, whereas a Dirty Needle seldom requires Mid Ruds or Prepchecks. It just requires an auditor who doesn't cut the pc's Itsa Line. THE OLD ORDER OF PREPCHECK BUTTONS The following buttons and order were the original buttons and may not be used, as they include GPM words which would make the pc uncomfortable in some cases if over-run. SUPPRESSED INVALIDATED BEEN CAREFUL OF SUGGESTED WITHHELD PROTESTED HIDDEN REVEALED MISTAKE (BEEN MADE) ASSERTED CHANGED (OR ALTERED) DAMAGED WITHDRAWN (FROM) CREATED DESTROYED AGREED (WITH) IGNORED DECIDED L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.cden Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 447  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=14/8/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  MODEL SESSION LEVELS III TO VI SESSION PRELIMINARIES   Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 14 AUGUST AD14 (CANCELLED -- see HCO B 3 July 65 Volume VI -- 60) Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students MODEL SESSION LEVELS III TO VI (Cancels previous issues) SESSION PRELIMINARIES All auditing sessions have the following preliminaries done in this order. 1. Seat the pc and adjust his or her chair. 2. Clear the Auditing room with "Is it ill right to audit in this room?" (not metered). 3. Can squeeze "Put your hands in your lap." "Squeeze the cans, please." And note that pc registers, by the squeeze, on the meter, and note the level of the pc's havingness. (Don't run hav here.) 4. Put in R Factor by telling pc briefly what you are going to do in the session. START OF SESSION: 5. "Is it all right with you if I begin this session now?" "START OF SESSION." (Tone 40) "Has this session started for you?" If pc says, "No", say again, "START OF SESSION. Now has this session started for you?" If pc says, "No", say, "We will cover it in a moment." RUDIMENTS: 6. "What goals would you like to set for this session?" Please note that Life or Livingness goals have been omitted, as they tend to remind the pc of present time difficulties and tend to take his attention out of the session. 7. At this point in the session there are actions which could be undertaken: the running of General O/W or the running of Mid Rudiments using "Since the last time I audited you", or pull missed W/Hs as indicated. But if pc cheerful and needle smooth, just get down to work. One would run General O/W if the pc was emotionally upset at the beginning of the session or if the session did not start for the pc, the latter being simply another indication of the pc's being upset or ARC broken, but these symptoms must be present, as sometimes the session hasn't started merely because of poor Tone 40 or because the pc had something he wanted to say before the auditor started the session. RUNNING O/W: "If it is all right with you, I am going to run a short, general process. The process is: 'What have you done?" 'What have you not done?'" (Another process that could be used is: "What have you said?", "What have you not said?" The process is run very permissively until the needle looks smooth and the pc is no longer emotionally disturbed.) 448 "Where are you now on the time track?" "If it is all right with you, I will continue this process until you are close to present time and then end this process." (After each command, ask, "When?") "That was the last command. Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this process?" "End of process." RUNNING THE MID RUDIMENTS: One would use the Middle Rudiments with, "Since the last time I audited you", if the needle was rough and if the Tone Arm was in a higher position than it was at the end of the last session. ORDER OF BUTTONS Here is the correct wording and order of use for the big Mid Ruds. "_______ has anything been suppressed?" "_______ is there anything you have been careful of?" "_______ is there anything you didn't reveal?" "_______ has anything been not-ised?" "_______ has anything been suggested?" "_______ has any mistake been made?" "_______ has anything been protested?" "_______ is there anything you have been anxious about?" "_______ has anything been decided?" In using the first three buttons (Suppressed, Careful of and Didn't Reveal), the rudiment question should be asked directly of the pc off the meter (repetitive). When the pc has no more answers, check the question on the meter. If the question reads, stick with it on the meter like in Fast Rud checking until it is clean. The last six buttons are cleaned directly on the meter as in Fast Ruds. PULLING MISSED WITHHOLDS: Use: "Since the last time you were audited has someone nearly found out something about you?" BODY OF SESSION: 8. Now go into the body of the session. END BODY OF SESSION: 9. "Is it all right with you if we end the body of the session now?" "Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I do?" "End of the body of the session." SMOOTH OUT SESSION: 10. Smooth out any roughness in the session if there has been any, favoring Suppress, Didn't Reveal, Protest, Decide, Overts, Asserts, using prefix "In this session _______?" 449 GOALS & GAINS: 11. "Have you made any of these goals for this session?" "Thank you for making these goals for this session" or "Thank you for making some of these goals for this session. I'm sorry you didn't make all of them" or "I'm sorry you didn't make these goals for this session." "Have you made any gains in this session that you would care to mention?" "Thank you for making these gains for this session," or "I'm sorry you didn't make any gains for this session." HAVINGNESS: 12. (After adjusting the meter) "Put your hands in your lap." "Please squeeze the cans." (If the squeeze test was not all right, the Auditor would run the pc's Havingness process until the can squeeze gives an adequate response.) ENDING SESSION: 13. "Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this session?" 14. "Is it all right with you if I end this session now?" 15. "END OF SESSION." (Tone 40) "Has this session ended for you?" If the pc says, "No", repeat "END OF SESSION." If the session still has not ended, say, "You will be getting more auditing. END OF SESSION. Tell me I am no longer auditing you." Please note that Havingness is run after Goals and Gains as this tends to bring the pc more into present time and to take his attention to a degree out of the session. Wording for the above follows the tradition of earlier model sessions. Adhere severely to this session form. It is nearly an irreducible minimum and is very fast, but it is all necessary. The Random Rudiment here is "What happened?" Session Mid Ruds are simply "Protest, Assert and Decide". RI rudiments are "Suppress and Not-Ised". ARC Break handling is in accordance with HCO Bulletin of Mar. 14, 1963. Don't continue a session until you find out why the ARC Break. LRH:jw.bh L. RON HUBBARD Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 450  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=17/8/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY I TO IV CLAY TABLE WORK IN TRAINING AND PROCESSING   Remimeo Sthil Students  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 17 AUGUST AD14 Remimeo Sthil Students SCIENTOLOGY I TO IV CLAY TABLE WORK IN TRAINING AND PROCESSING Covered in this HCO Bulletin are: 1. The Construction of Clay Tables. 2. Clay Table use in Training. 3. Clay Table Definition Training. 4. Clay Table Use in the HGC. 5. Clay Table HEALING. 6. Clay Table IQ Processing. CLAY TABLE WORK IN TRAINING THE ONLY REASON ANY STUDENT IS SLOW OR BLOWS LIES IN FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THE WORDS USED IN HIS OR HER TRAINING. You will find that students at any level in any course will benefit greatly from Clay Table work on definitions. The importance of this will become apparent as you study our new educational technology, now mainly to be found on the tapes of the few weeks before this date. A Clay Table is any platform on which a student, standing or sitting, can work comfortably. In an Academy it may be 3 feet by 3 feet or 5 feet by 3 feet or any larger size. Smaller sizes are not useful. In the HGC it is about 2 1/2 feet by 4 feet. The surface must be smooth. A table built of rough timber will serve but the top surface where the work is done should be oilcloth or linoleum. Otherwise the clay sticks to it and it cannot be cleaned and will soon lead to an inability to see clearly what is being done because it is stained with clay leavings. In the Academy castors (wheels) can be put on the legs of both the clay table and the clay container where they will be moved a lot. Several different colors of clay should be procured. The best source is a school supply house where educational supplies are sold. Artists' clay is not as good as the school type. (Ask for kindergarten clay.) A receptacle, also of wood or metal and having a separate stand of its own of any type is also valuable. It should have subdivisions in it for the different colored clays. The amount of each color is not important so long as there is at least a pound or two of each color in a small class or an auditing room. In the Academy colors are only used to make a student see the difference between one object and another and have no other significance as the objects in the mind are not uniformly colored. While "ridges" are black, they can become white. Engrams may be a number of colors all in one engram, just as Technicolor is a colored motion picture. However, some persons see engrams only in black and white. So the color in the Academy is for instruction only, assisting to tell the difference between one object or another. (In the HGC it may be very significant to the pc, as covered later.) The instructor works with the table before classes at times, so it is of benefit to have a table so arranged that it will tilt toward the class at about a 30 Deg angle with the floor. This can be done as easily as putting the back legs of the table on temporary wooden blocks or as complicatedly as using a large engineer's drawing table which tilts its whole top. If a table is to tilt, the lower edge during the tilt 451 must have a one or two inch guard board to keep the covering or the clay from falling to the floor if it slips. It doesn't slip, usually, on a linoleum table surface but sometimes a bit is dropped and an instructor can more gracefully recover it if it hasn't rolled off on the floor. A loose linoleum top is also prevented from sliding off by a guard board. Any part of the mind can be represented by a piece of clay or a white card. The mass parts are done by clay, the significance or thought parts by label. A piece of clay and a label are usually both used for any part of the mind. A thin-edged ring of clay with a large hole in it is usually used to signify a pure significance. The labels used by Instructors (but not by students) are done on white cards, inked with a heavy black inking means such as a china marking pencil or a "Gem-Marker" where a metal cylinder holds ink and the point is made of felt. The inked label is mounted on a small stick two to four inches long of the kind used by nurses for swabs or metal ones used to hold meat together. Scotch tape or Sellotape will bind a label to a stick. Everything is labelled that is made on the clay table, no matter how crude the label is. Students usually do labels with scraps of paper written on with a ball-point. An Instructor would use the fancier kind so that these would easily be visible to others. The main clay table and its clay container is set up in the lecture room of a course in such a way so that it can be moved up in front of a class, or over in the corner out of the way, or to an area in the room where two or three students can gather around it or work. More than one clay table must be made for large classes but the additional tables need not tilt. In the HGC a clay table is narrower and longer and one is placed in each auditing room. Any HGC clay table can be used to train staff auditors. The clay tables in auditing rooms are used for processing. In the HGC there is not just one table for everyone's use. There is one in each auditing room. USE ON COURSES Any part of the mind or any term in Scientology can be demonstrated on a Clay Table. This is an important point to grasp. The use of the table is not just for a few terms. It can be used for all definitions. The ingenuity of the instructor or the student and their understanding of the terms being demonstrated are the only limits on a Clay Table. Simplicity is the keynote. Nothing is too insignificant or unimportant to demonstrate on a clay table. The first mistake is to believe that only R6, for which the lower grade student is not ready, can be demonstrated on a clay table. Anything can be so demonstrated if you work at it. And just by working on how to demonstrate it or make it into clay and labels brings about renewed understanding. In the phrase "how do I represent it in clay" is contained the secret of the teaching. If one can represent it in clay one understands it. If one can't, one really doesn't understand what it is. So clay and labels work only if the term or things are truly understood. And working them out in clay brings about an understanding of them. Therefore one can predict that the clay table will be most used in a practice or organization which understands the most and will be least used in an organization that understands the least (and is least successful). Let us look over the level of simplicity of the terms to be used in a course of instruction. Let us take BODY. All right, make a few lumps and call it a body and put a sign on it "BODY". 452 Now that doesn't seem to be much to do. But it is a lot to do to forward understanding. Let us make a yellow ring of clay beside the body or on it or in it and label it "A Thetan". We can thereupon see the relationship between the two most used terms in Scientology, "Body" and "Thetan". And cognitions will result. The student's attention is brought right to the room and the subject. Getting the student to do this by himself, even when he's seen it done by the Instructor, produces a new result. Getting the student to do it 25 times with his own hands almost exteriorizes him. Getting the student to contrive how it can be done better in clay or how many ways it can be done in clay drives home the whole idea of the location of the thetan in the body. ART is no object in clay table work. The forms are crude. Take a large lump of clay of any color, and cover up both "thetan" and "body" with it and you have MIND. Take every part of the mind and make it in clay by making a thetan, making a body and making one or more parts of the mind (Machine, facsimile, ridge, engram, lock, what have you -- all Scientology terms) and get the student to explain what it is and we begin to clarify what we're about. Get a student to make a Present Time Problem. Make him put in all its parts represented in clay (boss, mother, self) and have each one done with a body, a thetan and a mind and some rather remarkable insights begin to occur. The quantity of things that can be made has no limit. The principal thing is to GET EVERY SCIENTOLOGY TERM MADE IN CLAY AND LABELS by the individual student. You will see a new era dawn in training. You will see Academy blows vanish and time on course cut to one fifth in many instances. These are desirable attainments in any course so Clay Table work is serious Academy business. Ingenuity and understanding are the only limits on the use of the clay table and the attainment of excellent results with it. CLAY TABLE WORK IN PROCESSING The Clay Table presents us with a new series of processes. The preclear is made to make in clay and labels whatever he or she is currently worried about or hasn't understood in life. Scientology terms such as the Present Time Problem can also be graphed but this is a specialized (if very beneficial) use. But the essence of CLAY TABLE PROCESSING is to get the pc to work it out. In training you mostly tell the student. In auditing the pc tells the auditor. This is still true in clay table processing. CLAY TABLE HEALING The preclear shows the auditor the objects and significances of his difficulty. Example: Pc has a continual pain in the right leg. A perfectly ordinary clay table and clay container as above are used but the table is narrower and longer than a training clay table. The auditor seats the pc on one side of the table and the auditor sits on the other side. There is no meter between them. The auditor report is kept on a side table or the auditing table nearby not on the clay table. The container is handy to the pc and contains several colors of clay. The pc under the 453 auditor's direction but with no coaching as to how then makes the leg of any color the pc chooses and a label "my right leg" and puts it on the clay leg. This done, the auditor asks the pc to say what should go near the leg. The pc then makes it crudely and rapidly in clay (again of any color the pc chooses) and makes a label for it and puts it on the new object. The auditor wants to know what else should be near the leg. The pc says what and makes it in clay and labels it. Usually the pc chooses colors which are significant to him or her but which in fact need have no significance to the auditor. Under the auditor's brief questioning or voluntarily the pc tells the auditor all about each and every object he or she makes as it is made and labelled. The full auditing comm cycle is observed but the auditor acknowledges more often than he or she commands. The representation in mass and label form and the Pc's explanation of each mass and label as made constitute the valuable actions. The pc can put aside or re-use the clay of objects already made, but not the leg, which must remain. If this is done well, and completely, the pc's right leg will alter in condition. You could assign several words to this activity to explain it. You could call it "symbolism" or "healing by projection of one's troubles into mass". You could call it "remedy by duplication". But you really don't have to explain it with a new term, because it works. This type of healing is very old. In fact it is the first recorded effective healing recorded in the dawn of man. But when we add to it what we really know of the mind, when we add to it the auditing comm cycle, when we use it with the pc telling the auditor, not the practitioner telling the pc, we move into zones of healing never dreamed of before. This is in fact one of the new healing processes I have been promising levels I to IV. Its name is CLAY TABLE HEALING. The pc's havingness stays up while the significance comes off, which is a chief value. INTELLIGENCE IQ (intelligence quotient or the relative brightness of the individual) can be rocketed out of sight with HGC use of a clay table. CLAY TABLE IQ PROCESSING This is another process than Clay Table Healing. Don't mix them. This is done with the following steps: 1. Find out where the pc is trying to get brighter. It won't do any good to try to make the pc brighter in fields or zones of knowledge where the pc doesn't know he or she is stupid. So it is of great interest to find out where the pc is trying to become smarter and then using only that subject. If you as the auditor select the zone, it has been inferred that the pc is stupid in the area the auditor chooses and usually you get an ARC Break even if it doesn't show in the session. So choose a zone of knowledge where the pc is striving to become more informed and the process works. 2. Trace back (with no meter) what word or term the pc failed to grasp in the subject chosen in 1. above. Trace one word, early in that training that the pc didn't understand. (Never ask for the first word -- merely an early one.) 3. Get the pc to make up the mass represented by the word in clay and any related masses. Get them all labelled and explained. 4. Repeat 2 and 3, (but not Step 1 until Step 1 is flat). The process for any one subject can be considered flat when the pc is alert and interested in the subject of 1. It may take several sessions to flatten Step 1. Once one subject has been straightened up and pc is bright about it we get Step 5 which consists of doing 1, 2 and 3 again, rather than just 2 and 3. But 454 flatten Step 1 before finding a new subject or the pc will be just as confused as ever. Clay Table IQ Processing is a clay table version of one of the new educational processes. If the clay table version is used don't use the other Itsa or Meter versions. If the other Itsa or Meter versions are used, don't use the clay table version. This is called, for purposes of reference, Clay Table IQ Processing. That is different than Clay Table Definition Training. And it is different than Meter Definition Processing. And different also from Coffee Shop Definition Processing. All these are different activities and the others named will be issued in due course. Suffice at this time to cover Clay Table Definition Processing. It is fantastic in producing results and in raising IQ. In all clay table processing the pc handles the mass. The auditor does not suggest subjects or colors or forms. The auditor just finds out what should be made and tells the pc to do it in clay and labels. And keeps calling for related objects to be done in clay ("Do it in clay," is the phrase. Avoid using "Make it," because it's a GPM word.) A good clay table auditor takes it very easy, is very interested, acknowledges when it is expected, is very sure to understand what it is and why, and lets the pc do the work. It is particularly important that the auditor grasp what the clay objects are and what the label means. An auditor tends to blow or become critical of the pc when the auditor glosses over his own understanding of what the pc is making and why. So when the auditor understands perfectly he or she simply acknowledges and when the auditor doesn't understand completely, he or she asks and asks until he or she does understand. The auditor never asks a question "so the pc understands" when the auditor already does, as this makes a false ARC in the session. HANDLING CLAY Clay is messy. Until we find or unless we find a totally non-oily clay, precautions must be taken to keep students and particularly pcs clean, and if not clean, cleaned up afterwards. Clay can get on E-Meter cans and insulate them from the hands. Clay can get on clothes and papers and walls and doors in a most alarming way. Therefore, students and pcs using it can provide smocks for themselves and the instructor and auditor can provide liberal quantities of cheap cleaning tissue and solvent. Several cheap solvents work. The least odorous and easiest handled are best. Odorous solvents should be guarded against as Academies, HGCs and private practice rooms will soon begin to smell like cleaning shops or mortuaries. This can become serious in restimulating pcs. So use odorless solvents. And provide baskets for used cleaning tissues. And empty them. The clinging quality of clay and the odor of bad solvents could put an end to the great value of Clay Table work. So safeguard against this. Good hunting. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.rd Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [The sections entitled "Clay Table Work in Training" and "Use on Courses" have been reissued verbatim as HCO B 10 December 1970, Issue I, Clay Table Work in Training.] 455  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=18/8/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY III TO IV CLAY TABLE WORK COVERING CLAY TABLE CLEARING IN DETAIL   Remimeo Sthil Students  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 18 AUGUST AD14 Remimeo Sthil Students SCIENTOLOGY III TO IV (This HCO Bulletin is preceded by HCO Bulletin of August 17, AD 14. The process covered in the present bulletin CLAY TABLE CLEARING was called "Clay Table IQ Processing" in the earlier HCO Bulletin.) CLAY TABLE WORK COVERING CLAY TABLE CLEARING IN DETAIL NOTE: CLAY TABLE CLEARING IS A RECOMMENDED HGC PROCESS AT LEVELS III & IV. One of the most compelling urges below Level VI is the desire to achieve an incomplete purpose. This will be found to be a remarkable dissemination factor. Below Level VI one is striving to complete his or her goals. At Level VI, GPMs are run out. But before that can be achieved, one is thrust into the GPMs by the effort to accomplish. Further, one does have wishes-to-do of his or her own having nothing to do with GPMs but only being blocked by them. Usually someone wanted to attain an improvement when he or she came into Scientology. This wished-for improvement, until achieved, remains as a hidden standard (by which one judges whether or not he has improved). If the wish is attained, then one "knows Scientology works". If the wish is not attained, then one isn't sure Scientology works. Wishes fall into two broad classes. I. Mental achievement. II. Physical achievements (including relief from illness). The Clay Table Process most likely to give the preclear his wish to accomplish some purpose is CLAY TABLE CLEARING. This is one of four Clay Table activities, the other three being Clay Table Definitions, Clay Table Healing, and Clay Table Track Analysis, the last being a training activity for Class VI. One must differentiate amongst these four activities as they are not the same things. Clay Table Definitions are done only in training and are not auditing. Clay Table Track Analysis is done in training for Level VI and again is not auditing. The two Clay Table auditing activities are I. Clay Table Clearing, used to achieve the pc's rehabilitation and raised IQ in various fields, and 456 II. Clay Table Healing, used to get rid of physical discomfort of psychosomatic origin. The above pair are the two HGC uses of Clay Table as of this writing. One does not use Clay Table Definitions or Clay Table Track Analysis in auditing sessions. CLAY TABLE CLEARING As one Scientology remedy for increased IQ and destimulation, Clay Table Clearing is audited by an auditor in a session. A meter may or may not be used depending on the training level of the auditor. But regardless of level, no metering is done during actual work on the Clay Table. Where the auditing space is limited, the equipment used may be as meagre as a biscuit can full of clay and a two-foot square piece of linoleum to lay on the auditing table, the meter and auditor's report being taken off the table, and the auditor's report written on a clipboard in his or her lap during the auditing session. To end the session on the meter the linoleum is simply set aside and the meter put back on the table. More elaborate arrangements can be used as time and finance permit. But so long as one takes precautions not to get clay all over everything and everybody, the two-foot square lino scrap will suffice. The entire effort by the auditor in a session of Clay Table Clearing is to help the pc regain confidence in being able to achieve things by removing the misunderstandings which have prevented that achievement. To process only Scientology terms and call it Clay Table Clearing would be a gross error. The pc's upsets with the mind seldom began with Scientology. If the pc, in answering the auditor's questions, gets into Scientology terms, that is perfectly all right. But to sit down and concentrate on Scientology terms while calling it Clay Table Clearing would be an error for these two reasons: 1. Scientology terms are a training activity called Clay Table Definitions and 2. The pc did not become aberrated only after he or she got into Scientology. Early on in an intensive one gets into Scientology terms now and then as these may be locks on an earlier misunderstanding with a similar subject. Here is an example of this: A psychologist has a terrible time understanding Dianetics and Scientology. In being run on Clay Table Clearing, the psychologist gives as his chief desire in life, gaining an ability to understand people. The first few terms chosen for Clay Table work may well be Scientology terms. But the auditor steers the pc back a bit, and lo! it was psychology the psychologist didn't understand. And the Clay Table work would then be concentrated on psychology terms or childhood misunderstandings about people until the pc felt he had regained the ability to understand people -- or, as such a pc would look at it, had begun to understand them. Now, with the first desire chosen (to understand people) flat, the auditor would search for a new zone where the pc wished to become able. So you see, the auditor is handling the chief urges of the pc in Clay Table Clearing. The auditor is not trying to teach the pc a thing. We have for long spoken of: (a) "Ability regained" (b) "Make the able more able" (c) "Help the pc achieve his goals in life". These, and other aims in processing, are strictly processing aims, they are not training activities. 457 The action is de-stimulation of those things which bar the pc's progress in life. By handling broadly the pc's bafflement about life we: 1. Unleash his theta by de-stimulating confusions, and 2. We eventually clear the pc. We are directly removing the "Held Down Fives" (see Dianetics, Evolution of a Science) and clearing the pc's ability to think, see and understand. We do not remain long on Scientology terms if we get into them because of the evidence that the pc was not clear before he came into Scientology. Further it is up to the pc to choose the zone to be explored. Just as you'd be in trouble setting goals for the pc, so you would be in trouble telling the pc what he wanted to do in life. He's had too much of that from others to also get it from his auditor. In using Clay Table Clearing we do not go into physical ills. These are handled faster by other processes. If these physical ills were the reason the pc wants to be processed then 1. You should have the pc given a competent physical examination as there may be some simple remedy for his condition or some condition present that needs physical treatment, and 2. If you process the pc and want to do Clay Table work, then you should be running Clay Table Healing, not Clay Table Clearing. If you start to run a pc on Clay Table Clearing, and discover the pc is being audited only to be cured of something, not to be mentally improved, you carry on to an early point where you can gracefully shift over and end off Clay Table Clearing and begin Clay Table Healing. (How to do Clay Table Healing will be covered more fully in a later bulletin.) THE STEPS OF CLAY TABLE CLEARING STEP ONE: Find a subject or activity where the pc has desired to improve himself. This could be anything from athletics to "not to be frightened of goats". In essence this is a stated goal. The pc's auditor's reports, if he or she has been audited before, will be found to abound with these. Further examination will discover that one is repeated very often. One may take up these earlier session "life and livingness goals" if the pc still wants to and does not have one on hand in which he or she is more interested. The current interest of the pc is the safest point with which to start. One establishes this by simple discussion of what the pc wants to do in life. This step is as brief as "What are you trying to do in life?" One finds something the pc wants to achieve or do, whether it is happy or unhappy, beneficial or suicidal, and one uses this. Do not linger on Step One once this is done. Do not challenge or question it. The auditor's job here is to assist the pc to attain his goal and if it's "to commit suicide", that's what the auditor uses. The auditor uses any sincere life and livingness goal the pc expresses as what he wants to do. Only one word of warning -- do not accept a sarcastic or critical goal. That means the pc has an ARC Break, a PTP, overts or withholds or is being audited under duress and the auditor must handle the attitude with the usual means. But it is also an error to challenge a purpose the pc really has just because it sounds crazy or anti-social. STEP TWO: Having established the purpose, the auditor now establishes something about it the pc didn't understand. This will be some generalized idea usually. It will seldom be a word. It will be some idea expressed in several words or gestures. However it is expressed by the pc, the auditor accepts this as what the pc has not understood about 1 above. It may take a while to sort out this concept or idea but when it is sorted out, that's it. Example: The pc has understood an afterlife in hell as a punishment for committing suicide. The question asked to get the pc to dredge up this 458 idea would be something like, "What about suicide haven't you grasped?" assuming the pc's desire was to commit suicide. It's always "What about _______ (the purpose expressed in 1 above) haven't you _______ (grasped, dug, been clear about, etc)?" or even "What was there in _______ (purpose expressed in 1 above) that baffled you?" When the pc has one go on to 3. It is a mistake to get the pc to try to clarify it any further than his first statement of what it is, as that isn't accepting the pc's answer and you must always accept a pc's answer so long as it is an answer according to the pc. One gets the point of bafflement stated any old way by the pc and goes on to Step Three. It is a good idea to write the idea or concept the pc didn't understand on your work sheet. STEP THREE: Get pc to reduce that idea to a single term. This may be one word or a composite word. This step may involve a lot of groping or discussion. It may go on for quite a while. The purpose of the auditor here is just the auditing question, gently but firmly and even insistently put, "Put that concept about (the idea found in 2) into one word." "Express that idea you had in a single term." Coax, bully, insist, plead, but finally get it done. It is this step that tests the auditor's comm cycle ability. For if the auditor has no control over the session, the pc will shift the idea in Step Two or try to discuss the whole subject of Step One. The pc will squirm, may try to beg off, may declare it's impossible. But the auditor recognizes this action of the pc as charge blowing off and presses on with the command, "Express the idea _______ (can be read off work sheet) in one word." Eventually the pc will deliver up one word. And that's one of the words in the original subject (as given in Step One) that the pc never understood and some of the reason why the pc has stayed confused about the subject (as given in Step One), with consequent aberration. You may not believe it at times while doing Step Three that the pc can do it. You may even be prone to agree it's impossible to do so. But if you do, you'll lose the session and may lose the pc. You must get the idea in Step Two expressed as a word in Step Three. And the pc must eventually be satisfied that the word he now gives does express the idea given in Step Two. The auditor must make sure of that. The question may be, "Are you satisfied that the word (give word pc has come up with) does express the idea (read the idea of Step Two off the work sheet)?" You'll easily see if the pc thinks it does or doesn't. Relief attends his realizing it does express the idea in Step Two. Vague confusion attends his feeling that the word he has given does not express the idea in Step Two. As this whole step borders on challenging a pc's answer, care must be taken not to really ARC Break the pc. He or she can be driven very close to the brink of an ARC Break and very possibly may be by the insistence on an answer. But the by-passed charge is the lost word and as soon as it comes up and is given to the auditor the pc becomes all smiles. If a session ARC Break occurs, use the List One ARC Break Assessment List or, if it's not a Grade III session, have a Class III auditor do the ARC Break Assessment. (You can see by this why Clay Table Clearing is really for HGCs or professionals.) The only major error the auditor can make in Step Three is to fail to get the pc to do the step and give a word for there is where the charge is -- on the word that represents the idea of Step Two. Sometimes Step Three is very easy. Often not. The greatest danger lies in an auditor going wishy-washy and letting the pc change the idea of Step Two, or just letting the session collapse into endless Itsa. In Step Three, as in Step Two, the auditor is there to get a job done and does it. Having gotten the word that represents the idea given in Step Two, the auditor goes on to Step Four. CAUTION: DON'T LET PC CHOOSE A WORD THAT SOLVES STEP TWO. STEP FOUR: This is the true Clay Table Step. And one might say "this is where the fun begins". This is usually the longest step by far. The auditing command is, "Represent the word _______ (as given in Step Three) in clay." The auditor's purpose in Step Four is to (a) acknowledge the pc's ideas and comments and protests, (b) understand (by questions where the auditor doesn't really understand) what the pc is trying to do and (c), and chiefly (c), get the pc to represent the word's meaning in clay and (d) make sure the pc is completely satisfied he or she has represented the meaning of the word in clay. The command "Represent _______ (the word) in clay" may have to be repeated many, many times. If the command is executed the auditor must ask gently, "Are you satisfied you have done it?" The pc may do it over and over, or protest how it can't be done and all that, but the auditor must get the pc to do it. The auditor may never suggest how it can be done, even when it is obvious. Truth is, 459 it's always obvious how to do it to the auditor, but the auditor isn't aberrated on that point and the pc is. So the pc struggles until he or she really does represent the word in clay in a way that brings the dawn of comprehension, a lovely thing to see. Any word can be represented in clay. The auditor must realize that. Words that are confusing to the pc are harder for the pc to represent in clay. Again, the major mistake is to fail to get the pc to do it. Another gigantic error is to agree it can't be done. And yet another error is for the auditor to fail to understand himself what the pc has done. If the auditor can't understand it, the pc can't either. Never be polite about not understanding what the pc means. Pcs ARC Break harder on a faked understanding than on repeated auditor efforts to understand. Pcs will explain for long periods when the auditor is still trying to grasp it. Pcs blow up when auditors fake a comprehension they have not obtained from what the pc said or did. To the auditor the clay representation and the pc's explanation of it must be seen to easily represent the word found in Step Three. An added command is, "How does that represent the word?" This has nothing to do with art. It has to do only with good sense. There may be one or several clay forms that represent the word. What the pc does with it or some action with it may also be part of the representation of the word. When the auditor is sure the pc has represented the word of Step Three in clay and is sure the pc is sure, the auditor leaves this step. STEP FIVE: Still keeping the subject found in Step One the auditor goes to Step Two and finds a new confused idea the pc has about the subject of Step One. The subject of Step One is left only when the pc is very satisfied he has either regained his ability or confidence or has no concern about it. This may take many sessions. Then one gets the pc to choose a new subject and proceeds with that, using the exact steps above with no shortcuts or failures to get the pc to do what he is supposed to do in each step. DON'T LEAVE A SUBJECT CHOSEN IN STEP ONE UNFLAT BY FAILING TO CLEAR THE PC ON THAT SUBJECT STEP BY STEP OVER AND OVER. It may be supposed that CLAY TABLE CLEARING is the only process needed to clear a pc. This is untrue. Pcs have overts and withholds. They get PTPs and have had ARC Breaks with Life. They are sometimes too hard to control and need CCHs. And sometimes they are so bad off they "have no faults of any kind" and say so while sitting right there in a body. But for the pc who can be audited on it, Clay Table Clearing is strawberries and cream, a soft berth, spring flowers and exit from the nightmare into life. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.jh Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [The steps of Clay Table Clearing in this HCO B are cancelled by HCO B 27 September 1964, Clay Table Clearing.] 460  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=23/8/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY II HQS COURSE THIS HCO BULLETIN CHANGES EXISTING CHECKSHEETS   Remimeo  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 23 AUGUST AD14 Remimeo SCIENTOLOGY II HQS COURSE THIS HCO BULLETIN CHANGES EXISTING CHECKSHEETS This is the general outline of the Hubbard Qualified Auditor Course. If the HQS Course being taught by a field auditor, a Franchise Holder, City Office, or a Central Organization does not conform to this general outline and specifications it must be changed at once. Any student who has had an item checked out and initialed on his or her checksheets prior to this HCO Bulletin is to be considered as having passed that item. If an HQS certificate has been applied for by the instructor, the student having completed the course, the certificate must be issued regardless of these changes. All HQS certificates already issued remain in force. PURPOSE OF THE HQS COURSE Personal gain to be expected: to be able to study and learn. Auditing skills to be acquired: (a) To be able to run the CCHs on a pc without ARC Breaking the pc and to achieve case gain. (b) To be able to sit down as an auditor and run a session on repetitive commands on a pc with gain. Wisdom to be acquired: (a) The basic purposes of Scientology; (b) the technology of study; (c) gradient scales; (d) tone scales; (e) the Auditor's Code; (f) the Code of a Scientologist; (g) ARC (the logics and axioms come at Level III now). Texts: Scientology, The Fundamentals of Thought; Notes on Lectures. Others to be issued. Tapes: Lists to be issued from time to time but to include three general divisions, (a) general discussion tapes about Scientology that I have done; (b) tapes covering study in full; (c) tapes on ARC. Practical Actions: TRs 0 to 9. Op Pro by Dup. Other minor TRs as needful. Processes to be adept in: 8C, ARC Straight Wire, Repetitive Processes. What must NOT be taught: Subjects and tapes containing words not defined at this level. "THERAPEUTIC" TRs There is no model session, no meter. Those belong in III. There must be no slightest search for or thought of the TRs being "therapeutic". Processing is unflat, not TRs. TRs are just learned with no other consideration. The student can or can't do them. There may not be any 75 ratings or 0 rating. Everything must be star rated or, according to more modern technology, you will lose your student. 75 ratings are prohibited. Questions irrelevant to a student's actual need from a tape or HCO Bulletin 461 are forbidden. Definitions of words dominate in all checkouts as per recent article on checkouts in "The Auditor". Not only Scientology words must be defined by the student. This is the full course. Anything on existing checksheets contrary to the above must be deleted. Where the above is missing in checksheets it must be added. You are making an auditor. Not processing a student. The auditor will be able to audit if he knows his definitions and materials and can do the drills easily. If a student is well trained on these courses, we can then say of an HQS: This being can 1. Study Scientology or anything else. 2. Run 8C. 3. Run repetitive processes (including O/W but only as a repetitive process). 4. Audit within the framework of the Auditor's Code. 5. Can tell you what Scientology is all about. And that's all we expect. And we will have full confidence in the students' being able to do the above. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.jh Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 462  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=24/8/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY I TO VI SESSION MUST-NOTS   Remimeo Sthil Students Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 24 AUGUST 1964 Remimeo Sthil Students Franchise SCIENTOLOGY I TO VI SESSION MUST-NOTS Not that you would do such a thing -- you undoubtedly already know better. But just as a matter of record, the following session must-nots should be taught in letters of fire to any new auditor. I NEVER tell a pc what his present time problem is. The pc's PTP is exactly and only what the pc thinks or says it is. To tell a pc what his PTP is and then audit what the auditor said it was will inevitably ARC Break the pc. This of course is under the heading of Evaluation in the Auditor's Code and is one way of evaluating, a very serious way too. II NEVER set a goal for a pc. Don't set a session goal, a life or livingness goal or any other kind of a goal. Auditors get tangled up on this because everybody has the same R6 goals and when you call out the next goal from the list it appears you are giving the pc a goal. But an R6 educated pc knows that and it isn't evaluation. Other goals are highly variable. The pc's life and livingness goals and session goals are especially variable pc to pc and even within one session on the same pc. To tell a pc what goals to set for a session or for life is to upset the pc. If you don't believe it, trace some pc's upsets with their parents and you will find these usually trace back to the parents' setting life and livingness goals for the child or youth. The pc's session and life and livingness goals are the pc's and for an auditor to deny, refute, criticize or try to change them gives ARC breaks; and for an auditor to dream up a brand new one for the pc is especially evaluative. III NEVER tell a pc what's wrong with him physically or assume that you know. What's wrong with the pc is whatever the pc says or thinks is wrong physically. This applies of course only to processing, for if you weren't auditing the person, and if the person had a sore foot and you found a splinter in it and told him so, it would be all right. But even in this case the person would have had to tell you he had a sore foot. The main reason society has such a distaste for medical doctors is the MDs' continuous "diagnosis" of things the person has not complained of. The violence of 463 surgery, the destruction of lives by medical treatment rather educates people not ot mention certain things. Instinctively the patient knows that the treatment may leave him or her in much worse condition and so sometimes hides things. For the medical doctor to cry "Aha" and tell the person he or she has some undefinable ill is to drive many into deep apathy and accounts for the high frequency of operational shock wherein the person just doesn't recover. So NEVER tell a pc what is physically wrong with him. If you suspect something is physically wrong that some known physical treatment might cure send the pc for a physical check-up just to be safe. In the field of healing by mental or spiritual means, the pc is sick because he or she has had a series of considerations about being sick. Deformity or illness, according to the tenets of mental healing, traces back to mentally created or re-created masses, engrams or ideas which can be either de-stimulated or erased completely. De-stimulation results in a temporary recovery for an indefinite period (which is nonetheless a recovery). Erasure results in permanent recovery. (De-stimulation is the most certain, feasible and most rewarding action below Level VI; erasure below Level VI is too prone to error in unskilled hands as experience has taught us.) The reality of the auditor is often violated by a pc's statement of what ails him. The pc is stone blind -- but the pc says he has "foot trouble". Obviously, from the auditor's viewpoint, it is blindness that troubles this pc. BUT IF THE AUDITOR TRIED TO AUDIT THE AILMENT THE PC HAS NOT OFFERED, AN ARC BREAK WILL OCCUR. The pc is ailing from what the pc is ailing from, not from what the auditor selects. For it is the statement of the pc that is the first available lock on a chain of incidents and to refuse it is to cut the pc's communication and to refuse the lock. After that you won't be able to help this pc and that's that. PERMITTED AUDITOR STATEMENTS There are, however, two areas where the auditor must make a statement to the pc and assume the initiative. These are in the OVERT -- MOTIVATOR SEQUENCE and in the ARC BREAK. A When the pc is critical of the auditor, the organization or any of many things in life, this is always a symptom of overts priorly committed by the pc. The pc is looking for motivators. These criticisms are simply justifications and nothing more. This is a sweeping fully embracive statement -- and a true one. There are no criticisms in the absence of overts committed earlier by the pc. It is quite permissible for the auditor to start looking for the overt, providing the auditor finds it and gets it stated by the pc and therefore relieved. But even here the auditor only states there is an overt. The auditor NEVER says what the overt is for that's evaluation. You will be amazed at what the pc considered was the overt. It is almost never what we would think it should be. But also, an auditor whose pc is critical of him or her in session who does not say, "It sounds like you have an overt there. Let's find it," is being neglectful of his job. The real test of a professional auditor, the test that separates the unskilled from the skilled is; CAN YOU GET AN OVERT OFF THE PC'S CASE WITHOUT ARC BREAKING THE PC AND YET GET IT OFF. 464 The nice balance between demanding the pc get off an overt and getting it off and demanding the pc get off an overt and failing to get it off but ARC Breaking the pc is the border line between the unskilled and the professional. If you demand it and don't do it you'll ARC Break the pc thoroughly. If you fail to demand it for fear of an ARC Break you'll have a lowered graph on the pc. The pro demands the overt be gotten off only when necessary and plows on until it's gotten off and the pc brightens up like a lighthouse. The amateur soul-searches himself and struggles and fails in numerous ways -- by demanding the wrong overt, by accepting a critical comment as an overt, by not asking at all for fear of an ARC Break, by believing the pc's criticism is deserved -- all sorts of ways. And the amateur lowers the pc's graph. Demanding an overt is not confined to just running O/W or some similar process. It's a backbone auditing tool that is used when it has to be used. And not used when it doesn't have to be. The auditor must have understood the whole of the overt-motivator theory to use this intelligently. B Indicating by-passed charge is a necessary auditor action which at first glance may seem evaluative. However, the by-passed charge is never what the pc says it was if the pc is still ARC Broken. By-Passed Charge is, however, found by the meter and the pc has actually got it or it wouldn't register. So the pc has really volunteered it in a round- about way -- first by acting like he or she has by-passed charge and then by bank reaction on the meter. Always indicate to the pc the by-passed charge you find on the meter. Never tell a pc what the by-passed charge is if you don't know. A Class VI auditor knows all goals but the goals are wrong and often sloppily just tells people at random they have "a wrong goal" knowing this to be probable. But it's very risky. If you find it on the meter, telling the pc what the by-passed charge is is not evaluation. Telling the pc "what it is" without having found it is evaluation of the worst sort. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.cden Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 465  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=7/9/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  CLAY TABLE LEVELS   Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 7 SEPTEMBER 1964 Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students CLAY TABLE LEVELS Until such time as accumulated data may otherwise indicate, and to prevent a beautifully effective area of processing being messed up by inept use on pcs, the following policies are in force for all uses of the Clay Table: Clay Table work is Level III. This means that it can be used by any HCA/HPA. Any student in training for HCA/HPA in an Academy may use, by general policy, HCA/HPA processes in the Academy while undergoing training. It can be used on any HQS student by an HCA/HPA student. It cannot be used by or taught to HQS students. Only the student who has completed his HCA training may use it on outside pcs or in an HGC. No Clay Table work of any kind may be used in PE work or in HAS Co-audits or in public co-audits of any kind where the co-auditors are not already trained in an Academy on Clay Table work. By recent policy relaxing pc gradation, pcs at any level may be run on Clay Table but only by a Level III (HCA/HPA) trained auditor or in an Academy by someone being trained in Level III processes. Clay Table work looks simple, works fast. But it is essentially a listing type process where things are being selected to run and that makes it solidly Level III. Expert handling of the auditing Comm Cycle and other fine points are vital to working with a pc on a Clay Table. One has to understand the theory of clearing as given in the Saint Hill tape lecture of 3 Sept '64. Clay Table evolves Homo Sapiens into Homo Novis, the new man. Clearing in its earliest, original sense, is easily obtained by Clay Table work in the hands of the auditor trained at Level III. That is a marvelous thing. There is no reason to wreck it in pcs and spoil it for them by letting it be badly used by untrained persons. Clay Table training will be available in Academies across the world. R6 auditors leaving Saint Hill and heading for key points in international central organizations have been carefully trained on Clay Table work and even as this is being written, it is being set up for teaching in most Academies. There is therefore no excuse to use it incorrectly. Clay Table work handles: 1. The longstanding goal of getting clear, without exceptions or only minor percentages making it -- with it comes broad, general clearing. It may have been overdue for a while, but it is here: clearing for anybody; 2. Improvement of work accomplishment by staffs; 3. Rapid, certain gains in HGCs as a routine activity by HCA/HPAs; 466 4. A penetration of the world of healing and a definite change in our attitude toward healing; 5. More rapid progress through upper courses. There are other gains attainable in Clay Table work. But the above five are the ones you will soon get the full benefit of technically and organizationally. The only things which can inhibit these gains are: (a) Trying to use Clay Table work without complete briefing; (b) Use of it by auditors below Level III. I sought for a long while for the technology up to Level IV. We have now achieved it. Let's go at it right, get it correctly applied, and succeed with it. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.rd Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 467  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=7/9/64 Volnum=0 Issue=2 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  ALL LEVELS PTPs, OVERTS AND ARC BREAKS   Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 7 SEPTEMBER 1964 Issue II Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students ALL LEVELS PTPs, OVERTS AND ARC BREAKS Just to remind you, other auditing is not possible in the presence of Present Time Problems and Overts. No auditing is possible in the presence of an ARC Break. These are data like "Acknowledge the pc", "An auditor is one who listens" etc. These belong in the ABCs of Scientology. PRESENT TIME PROBLEMS When a pc has a PTP and you don't handle it, you get no gain. There will be no rise on a personality test graph. There will be little if any TA action. There will be no gain in the session. The pc will not make his session goals. Etc. Etc. So you don't audit pcs who have PTPs on anything but the PTPs the pc has. And you don't audit PTPs slowly and forever. There are numerous ways of handling PTPs. One of them is "What communication have you left incomplete about that problem?" A few answers and poof! no PTP. Another is "What doesn't (that person or thing pc is having PTP with) know about you?" Other versions of overts and withholds can be used. These are all fast PTP handling methods and they get rid of the PTP and you can audit what you started to audit. The mark of a ruddy amateur in auditing is somebody who can always do successful assists but can't do a real session. The secret is: in an assist you are handling the PTP, aren't you? So you never audit over the top of (in the presence of) a PTP! Another circumstance is "can't get down to real auditing because the pc always has so many PTPs". This is only a confession that one can't handle a PTP and then get on with the session. One fumbles with the PTPs so badly as an auditor one never really handles the pc's PTPs so of course one never gets on with the job at hand -- auditing the pc. The pro, in a real session, just handles the PTPs quickly, gets the pc into session and gets on with whatever should be run. OVERTS Overts are the other principal source of getting no gain. Here we really can tell the goony birds from the eagles professionally. No pro would think of auditing a pc on other processes in the presence of overts. 1. The Pro would recognize by the pc's natter, or lack of previous gain, that the pc had overts; 2. The Pro would know that if he tried to do something else besides pull these overts, the pc would eventually get critical of the auditor; and 3. The Pro wouldn't (a) fail to pull the real overts or (b) ARC Break the pc in getting the overts off. If one gets "reasonable" about the pc's condition and starts agreeing with the motivators ("look at all the bad things they did to me"), thus ignoring the overts, that's the end of gains for that pc with that auditor. 468 If one is clumsy in recognizing overts, if one fails to get the pc to give them up, if one fails to properly acknowledge the overt when given, or if one demands overts that aren't there, overt pulling becomes a howling mess. Because, then, getting the pc overts off is a tricky business auditors sometimes become shy of doing it. And fail as auditors. Sometimes pcs who have big overts become highly critical of the auditor and get in a lot of snide comments about the auditor. If the overt causing it is not pulled the pc will get no gains and may even get ARC broken. If the auditor doesn't realize that such natter always indicates a real overt, when pcs do it, eventually over the years it makes an auditor shy of auditing. Auditors buy "critical thoughts" the pc "has had" as real overts, whereas a critical thought is a symptom of an overt, not the overt itself. Under these critical thoughts a real overt lies undetected. Also, I love these pcs who "have to get off a withhold about you. Last night Jim said you were awful ....... " An experienced auditor closes the right eye slightly, cocks his head a bit to the left and says, "What have you been doing to me I haven't known about?" "I thought ....... " begins the pc. "The question is", says the old pro, "What have you been doing to me that I don't know about. The word is doing." And off comes the overt like "I've been getting audited by Bessy Squirrel between sessions in the Coffee Shop." Well, some auditors are so "reasonable" they never really learn the mechanism and go on getting criticized and getting no gains on pcs and all that. I once heard an auditor say "Of course he was critical of me. What he said was true. I'd been doing a terrible job." The moral of this story is contained in the fact that this auditor's pc died. A rare thing but a true one. The pc had terrible overts on Scientology and the auditor, yet this auditor was so "reasonable" those overts were never cleaned up. And that was the end of those auditing sessions. It's almost never that drastic, but if an auditor won't pull overts, well auditing gets pretty unpleasant and pretty pointless too. A lack of grasp of the overt-motivator sequence (when somebody has committed an overt, he or she has to claim the existence of motivators -- the Ded-Dedex version of Dianetics -- or simply when one has a motivator he is liable to hang himself by committing an overt) puts an auditor at a very bad disadvantage. Howling pcs and no pc wins. ARC BREAKS You can't audit an ARC Break. In fact you must never audit in the presence of one. Auditing below Level III, the best thing to do is find an auditor who can do ARC Break Assessments. At Level III and above, do an ARC Break Assessment on the pc. An ARC Break Assessment consists of reading an ARC Break list appropriate to the activity to the pc on a meter and doing nothing but locate and then indicate the charges found by telling the pc what registered on the needle. That isn't auditing because it doesn't use the auditing comm cycle. You don't ack what the pc says, you don't ask the pc what it is. You don't comm. You assess the list between you and the meter, same as no pc there. Then you find what reads and you tell the pc. And that's all. A by-passed charge assessment is auditing because you clean every tick of the needle on the list being assessed. The pc is acked, the pc is permitted to Itsa and give his opinions. But you never do a by-passed charge assessment on an ARC Broken pc. You do an ARC Break Assessment as per the paragraph above this one. 469 These two different activities unfortunately have the word "assessment" in common and they use the same list. Therefore some students confuse them. To do so is sudden death. You can really clobber a pc by doing a by-passed charge assessment on an ARC Broken pc. And also you can ARC Break a pc by doing an ARC Break Assessment on a pc who isn't (or has ceased to be) ARC Broken. So unless you have these two separate and different actions -- the ARC Break Assessment and the by-passed charge assessment -- clearly understood and can do both of them well and never get too rattled to know which one to use, you can get into plenty of trouble as an auditor. Only auditing over the top of an ARC Break can reduce a graph, hang the pc up in sessions or worsen his case. So it's the next to the most serious blunder that an auditor can make. (The most serious error is to deny assistance either by not trying to get the pc into session or not using Scientology at all.) Auditing an ARC Broken pc and never realizing it can lead to very serious trouble for the auditor and will worsen the pc's case -- the only thing that will. SUMMARY It is elementary auditing knowledge that no gains occur in the presence of PTPs or overts and that cases worsen when audited over the top of an ARC Break. There aren't "lots more conditions that can exist". Given an auditing session there are only these three barriers to auditing. When you do Clay Table auditing or any other kind of auditing the rules all still apply. A change of process or routine doesn't change the rules. In doing Clay Table auditing off a meter one still handles the elements of a session. One puts the pc on the meter to start off and checks for PTPs, overts, withholds, even ARC Breaks, handles them quickly and then goes into the body of the session. Much the same as the oldest model session rudiments. One doesn't use Mid Ruds or buttons to get started. One just knows the things that mustn't be there (PTPs, overts, ARC Breaks) and checks for them, handles if found and goes on with the main session activity. If a PTP or an overt or an ARC Break shows up one handles them, putting the pc back on the meter if necessary. When they are handled, the pc is put back into the main activity of the session. It's true of any auditing that gets done. It isn't likely to alter and actually no new data is likely to be found that controverts any of this. The phenomena will still be the same phenomena as long as there are pcs. Ways of handling may change but not these basic principles. They're with the auditor in every session ever to be run. So one might as well stay alert to them and be continuously expert in handling them. They are the only big reefs on which an auditing session can go up high and dry, so their existence, causes and cures are of the greatest possible importance to the skilled auditor. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.cden Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 470  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=8/9/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  LEVELS II to IV OVERTS, WHAT LIES BEHIND THEM?   Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 8 SEPTEMBER 1964 Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students LEVELS II to IV OVERTS, WHAT LIES BEHIND THEM? I recently made a very basic discovery on the subject of overts and would like to rapidly make a note of it for the record. You can call this the "Cycle of an Overt". 4. A being appears to have a motivator. 3. This is because of an overt the being has done. 2. The being committed an overt because he didn't understand something. 1. The being didn't understand something because a word or symbol was not understood. Thus all caved-in conditions, illness, etc, can be traced back to a misunderstood symbol, strange as that may seem. It goes like this: 1. A being doesn't get the meaning of a word or symbol. 2. This causes the being to misunderstand the area of the symbol or word (who used it whatever it applied to); 3. This causes the being to feel different from or antagonize toward the user or whatever of the symbol and so makes it all right to commit an overt; 4. Having committed the overt, the being now feels he has to have a motivator and so feels caved in. This is the stuff of which Hades is made. This is the trap. This is why people get sick. This is stupidity and lack of ability. This is why Clay Table Auditing works. Clearing a pc then consists only of locating the area of the motivator, finding what was misunderstood and getting the word made into clay and explained. The overts blow. Pure magic. The trick is locating the area where the pc has one of these. This is discussed further in Saint Hill lecture of 3 Sept 1964, but is too important a discovery to leave only in tape form. The cycle is Misunderstood word or symbol -- separation from ARC with the things associated with the word or symbol -- overt committed -- motivator felt necessary to justify the overt -- decline of freedom, activeness, intelligence, well being and health. Knowing this and the technology of auditing one can then handle and clear these symbols and words and produce the gains we have described as being clear, for the things causing the decline are cleared out of the being. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.cden Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 471  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=9/9/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  LEVEL III CLAY TABLE HEALING   Remimeo Sthil Students Scientology Staff  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 9 SEPTEMBER 1964 Remimeo Sthil Students Scientology Staff LEVEL III CLAY TABLE HEALING The purpose, actions and the auditor commands of Clay Table Healing are completely different from those of Clay Table Clearing. When undertaking Clay Table Clearing one can also from time to time do Clay Table Healing on the pc. In fact one commonly starts out Clay Table Clearing by doing Clay Table Healing to get the hidden standards (things the pc uses to tell if the process is working) out of the way. However, when one is working on pcs to heal, not to clear, and when the sole object of auditing is healing, then one does not move over into clearing during a given series of sessions but only uses Clay Table Healing. Example: Mrs. G comes to be audited to heal her bad arm. On her, only Clay Table Healing is used. Mrs. Y comes to improve her ability. On her, Clay Table Clearing is used and as sessions progress, some sessions of Clay Table Healing also become necessary in the general course of auditing. Mrs. G would have to alter her reasons for being processed on her own say-so before one would move her into Clearing. This point is made to clarify for auditors the fact that when people want to be healed, they are given healing and one doesn't force them into living better lives also. This takes care of case levels. Clay Table Healing uses a different, more repetitive, easier approach than Clay Table Clearing. One completes cycles of action over and over on the pc. The steps are: STEP 1. Get the pc to name the condition the pc requires to be healed. STEP 2. Make sure the pc is satisfied this is the condition he or she wants to be healed, (this and 3 can be meter steps). STEP 3. Get the pc to name a body part that seems most closely associated with the condition. STEP 4. Make sure the pc is satisfied he or she has given the correct part. STEP 5. Get the pc to represent the named body part in clay or whatever modeling substance is being used. STEP 6. Make sure the pc is satisfied the body part has been represented. STEP 7. Get the pc to state "what should be near" the body part just made. STEP 8. Make sure the pc is satisfied he or she has stated the correct thing for 7. STEP 9. Get the pc to represent whatever is named in 7 in clay. STEP 10. Make sure the pc is satisfied he or she has represented it. STEP 11. Begin with 5 again and do not re-do 1 to 4 inclusive until the upsets in No. 3 have vanished. STEP 12. Begin with 3 again. STEP 13. Begin with 1 again when condition vanishes. Caution: To re-do the condition every time or to change the body part to be healed every time are failures to flatten the process before beginning another. 472 The whole process is flat only when No. 1 is flat by which is meant the condition has vanished. But one doesn't even test for the condition again until the afflicted body part is recovered. So there are two things to flatten. One first flattens the body part, or several body parts before choosing a new condition to handle. To be explicit, when one has done 5 onward over and over until there is no difficulty in the body part left, one checks the condition and if it has not vanished one finds a new body part (3) to fit the condition and using this does 5 onward over and over until that is flat. Then one checks the condition (1) again and if it is still there, one finds a new body part and uses it for doing 5 onward over and over. One does this until the condition (1) has vanished. You get a session then that looks like this in terms of the above step numbers. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, 11,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, 13,1,2,3,4,5,6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 5, 6 ....... and so forth. This is very easy auditing providing you do not do the following goofs. A. To touch the pc's clay is fatal. Never touch the pc's clay. B. Tell the pc what is wrong with him or her. Never evaluate. C. Fail to flatten a body part. Never leave a body part until it is O.K. D. Choose another condition before the original condition is gone. Always get another body part to do if the pc's attention is at all on the condition. E. Fail to get the pc to make up the affected body part each time. Always get the pc to make up the body part being used newly. F. Fail to follow the Auditor's Code. Always follow it. G. Fail to use the Auditing Comm Cycle every time the pc does or says anything he or she wants you to understand. H. Pass over something the pc did or said that you didn't understand. Always get it so you the auditor understand it. I. Audit a pc with a PTP. Always clean up PTPs. J. Audit a pc who has an undisclosed overt Always clean up the overts. K. Audit over the top of an ARC Break. Handle ARC Breaks properly on the meter. SUMMARY Clay Table Healing is a study in repetition and simplicity for an auditor. It is easy. It is very successful. But it is very simple auditing. However that simplicity has to be done right. Therefore it is a very precise series of actions. 473 An auditor who can't handle the auditing comm cycle shouldn't ever be let near Clay Table Healing as the pc will be made ill by constant ARC Breaks. The above A to K precautions are all but one (don't touch the clay) basic standard auditing. They must be well done skills each one before Clay Table Healing can be routinely successful. Failure to have these skills of auditing well in hand will give very uneven results -- one pc gets better, another pc no change, another gets worse. Uniform results come from uniform auditing skill. The pc is put on the meter only at session beginning and end and is not metered during Clay Table work unless PTPs, overts or ARC Breaks become apparent at which time the pc is put on the meter for as long as is necessary to handle the matter. No auditing occurs when the auditor takes up too much time with non-Clay Table activities in Clay Table Auditing. Caution: The pc sometimes names some very peculiar body parts and sometimes says conditions are body parts. It is not for the auditor to argue, he or she is just to make sure that the pc is sure. Sometimes, going into Clay Table Clearing, you find yourself really doing Clay Table Healing. In such a case the auditor should use the healing approach, not the clearing approach. Example: Pc wants to improve his "walking" and we find this, according to the pc is a body part, so we use Clay Table Healing, not Clearing. Clay Table Clearing is a process of clearing words and symbols. Clay Table Healing is a process of taking ailments out of objects. The processes therefore can both be used, in clearing. But when you use one or the other you flatten it before returning to the other. And you keep the steps separate -- don't mix the steps. Use the steps of one or the steps of the other. It should be noted in passing, as a point of interest, that a pc's trouble with any object in addition to a body part, responds to Clay Table Healing. Where the object is not a body part but is still an object (like a car or a typewriter) you can use the Clay Table Healing steps. These Healing steps, however, unlike the Clearing steps, will not work well on a condition only. Healing steps become less workable when you try to audit "worry" or "being afraid". They work best on "a leg" or "clumsy fingers". Extending them beyond their purpose, to any part of any of the eight dynamics, the Healing steps drop in workability. Clearing steps, however, work on almost anything whether an object or a condition, but work better on conditions than upon objects. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.rd Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 474  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=9/9/64 Volnum=0 Issue=2 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  CLAY TABLE CLEARING   Remimeo Franchise Sthil  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 9 SEPTEMBER 1964 Issue II Remimeo Franchise Sthil CLAY TABLE CLEARING Now the goofs start coming in as how to not do Clearing. If you don't get a word asked for in Step III in HCO Bulletin Aug 18, '64 that expresses the "didn't understand" in Step II you don't get anywhere in Clay Table Clearing. Example of a wrong one: Step I, pc says, "I want to improve my mind." Step II (what pc hasn't understood), "What the hell it is." So far so good. Now the goof. Auditor gets Step III (word to represent the difficulty in II) as "Mind" and then does Step IV (modeling in Clay) using Mind. Of course the session goes nowhere. Pc has not answered question in Step III. "What the hell it is," is not answered by "Mind . "Mind" does not mean "What the hell it is." The original Aug 18 HCO Bulletin covers this. It says don't let the pc solve II in the answer in III. Pc in the "Mind" example is just answering his own question "What the hell is it" and there's just one more solution on the case. The auditor here could not possibly have grasped the overt-motivator cycle of l. word -- 2. misunderstood idea -- 3. overt -- 4. motivator. The correct answer for III here would never be Mind as that doesn't package the thought "What the hell is it?" It answers the question "What the hell is it?" and so could never be accepted in III. III in this example would be "Bafflement" or "Curiosity" or "Mystery" and that would be used in IV. Only these words mean "What the hell is it?" Now don't anybody hereafter avoid the word "Mind" in Clay Table because it's used in this wrong example or they'll destroy my faith in students. Clay Table done right works. So when pcs don't get better it hasn't been done right. That's the complete reason. The word accepted by the auditor in Step III must mean the thought or difficulty given by the pc in Step II. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.rd Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 475  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=12/9/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  CLAY TABLE, MORE GOOFS   Remimeo Sthil Students Sthil Staff  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 12 SEPTEMBER 1964 Remimeo Sthil Students Sthil Staff CLAY TABLE, MORE GOOFS GOOF NO. 2 The auditor gets the body Part in Clay Table Healing as "my fat body" and then insists on running "body". Pc ARC Breaks. The goof: When pc insists on a wording, run it. Don't shove a pc into an ARC Break by contradicting. Correct Action: Run "my fat body". GOOF NO. 3 The pc, in Clay Table Clearing, says he wants to improve his memory. The auditor asks, of course, what difficulty the pc has had with "memory". The pc does not give a several-worded condition as is usual but says, "Remembering!" The goof: The auditor then spends the next hour trying to get a word which represents "remembering", not realizing the pc has already given it. Correct Action: Run "Remembering". GOOF NO. 4 The coach in Clay Table Definitions complains bitterly to an Instructor that "the pc's definitions are so far out the pc refuses to run Clay Table Definitions or do any Clay Table work at all". The goof: Forcing the student into an auditing-like activity when the student is ARC Broken. One of the principal indicators of an ARC Break is refusing auditing or co-operation. The Correct Action: Get an ARC Break Assessment done on the pc. GOOF NO. 5 The auditor can't get into Clay Table Work on the Pc because the pc "has so may overts one has to spend all the session getting the pc to get off overts". The goofs: (a) Not getting Clay Table work done in Clay Table sessions; (b) Being too slow in getting a pc to get his overts off; (c) Auditing off overts that would probably blow anyway on definitions; (d) Not knowing the full definition -- misunderstanding -- overt -- motivator cycle. 476 Correct Action: Get the pc to tell the auditor "something you've done that you've never told anybody else". Get it. Check for missed withholds and if clean on the needle get on with Clay Table work. GOOF NO. 6 The auditor in Clay Table Clearing gets "To improve my memory", then as the difficulty step "What the hell is it?" Then the auditor spends the next 2 1/2 hours doing a sort of perpetual list trying to get the pc to answer, "What word would represent 'What the hell is it?'?" and finally ARC Breaks the pc. The goofs: (a) Turning the get-the-word into a kind of listing session; (b) Not accepting the word the pc thinks it is. Correct Action: Take the first word that gives TA action and in which the pc is interested and use it for the thing to represent in clay. Step is usually about 3 or 4 minutes long. GOOF NO. 7 In Clay Table Definitions the coach must get the student to write a label and put it on each clay object made. The goof: Failure to get a label written and placed on the object. Correct Action: Label everything on paper, in writing, in all Clay Table work. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.rd Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 477  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 21 iDate=24/9/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  INSTRUCTION & EXAMINATION: RAISING THE STANDARD OF   Remimeo Sthil Instructors HCO Hat Check on all Acad Instructors  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 24 SEPTEMBER 1964 Remimeo Sthil Instructors HCO Hat Check on all Acad Instructors INSTRUCTION & EXAMINATION: RAISING THE STANDARD OF The basic reason students remain long on courses stems from inept criticism by Instructors regarding what is required. There is a technology of criticism of art, expressed beautifully in the Encyclopedia published by Focal Press. In this article it stresses that a critic who is also an expert artist tends to introduce unfairly his own perfectionism (and bias and frustrations) into his criticism. We suffer amazingly from this in all our courses. I had not previously spotted it because I don't demand a student at lower levels produce results found only in higher levels. You can carelessly sum this up by "letting the student have wins" but if you do you'll miss the whole point. Example: A student up for a pass on his Itsa is flunked because he or she couldn't acknowledge. But a student at the Itsa level hasn't been taught to acknowledge. This student hasn't even read the data on acknowledgement. So the student can't pass Itsa level and so never does get to the level where acknowledgement is taught -- and if he does, really never passed, in his own mind, Itsa and so hasn't advanced. And we catch all our students this way and they don't therefore learn. How is this done? How could this be? The Instructor is an expert auditor. That's as it should be. But as an expert auditor, bad execution of a level above where the student is studying, pains the Instructor. So he flunks the student because the auditing looks bad. But look here. The student wasn't being checked out as an auditor. The student was only being checked out on Itsa. Further, the action of auditing as a whole is so easy to an Instructor who is an expert auditor that he falls to take it apart for instruction. If I say the following, it will look ridiculous and you'll get the point better: The student is up to pass TR 0. The Instructor on checkout looks the student over and says, "You flunked the test." The student says, "Why?" The Instructor says, "You didn't take the Class VI actions to clear the pc of all his GPMs." All right, we can all see that that would be silly. But Instructors do just that daily, though on a narrower band. The Instructor puts in additives. As an expert auditor it seems natural to him to say, "You flunked your test on Itsa because you never acknowledged the pc." You get the point. This really is as crazy wide as the ridiculous example above. What does Ack have to do with Itsa? Nothing! 478 Because the Instructor is an expert auditor, auditing has ceased to have parts and is all one chunk. Okay. A good auditor regards it that way. But the poor student can't grasp any of the pieces because the whole chunk is being demanded. What's Itsa? It's Listen. Can the student listen? Okay, he can listen but the expert says, "He didn't get 15 divisions of TA per hour." On the what? "On the meter of course." What meter? That's Level II and Itsa is Level 0. "Yes," the expert protests, "but the pc didn't get any better!" Okay, so what pc is supposed to get better at Level 0. If they do it's an accident, usually. Now does this student pass? "No! He can't even look at the pc!" Well, that's TR 0 of Level I. "But he's got to look like an auditor!" How can he? An auditor has to get through a comm course before you can really call him that. "Okay, I'll drop my standards _______" the expert begins. Hell no, expert. You better pick up your standards for each Level and for each small part of auditing. What's it say at Level 0? "It says 'Listen'." Okay, then, damn it, when the student is able to sit and listen and not shut a pc down with yak, the student passes. "And the meter?" You better not let me catch you teaching meters at Level 0. And so it goes right on up through the Levels and the bits within the Levels. By making Itsa mysterious and tough, by adding big new standards to it like TA and Ack you only succeed in never teaching the student Itsa! So he goes on up and at Level IV audits like a bum. Can't control a pc. Can't meter, nothing. So the expert tries to make a student do Class VI auditing the first day and the student is never trained to do any auditing at Level 0. This nonsense repeated at Level I (by adding a meter, by purist flunking "because the pc couldn't handle an ARC Break") and repeated again at Level II ("because the pc couldn't assess") and at Level III ....... etc. etc. Well, if you add things all the time out of sequence and demand things the student has not yet reached, the student winds up in a ball of confusion like the cat getting into the yarn. So we're not instructing. We're preventing a clear view of the parts of auditing by adding higher level standards and actions to lower level activities. This consumes time. It makes a mess. The new HCA always tries to teach his group a whole HCA course his first evening home. Well, that's no reason seasoned veterans have to do it in our courses. If you never let a student learn Level 0 because he's flunked unless he does Level VI first, people will stay on courses forever and we'll have no auditors. Instructors must teach not out of their own expertise but out of the textbook expected actions in the Level the student is being trained in. To go above that level like assessment in Level II or Ack and meters at Level 0 is to deny the student any clean view of what he's expected to do. And if he never learns the parts, he'll never do the whole. And that's all that's wrong with our instruction or our Instructors. As expert auditors they cease to view the part the student must know as itself and do not train and pass the student upon it. Instead they confuse the student by demanding more than the part being learned. Instruction is done on a gradient scale. Learn each part well by itself. And only then can assembly of parts occur into what we want -- a well trained student. This is not lowering any standards. It's raising them on all training. 479 BULLETIN CHECKOUTS The other side of the picture, theory, suffers because of a habit. The habit is all one's years of formal schooling where this mistake is the whole way of life. If the student knows the words, the Theory Instructor assumes he knows the tune. It will never do a student any good at all to know some facts. The student is expected only to use facts. It is so easy to confront thought and so hard to confront action that the Instructor often complacently lets the student mouth words, ideas that mean nothing to the student. ALL THEORY CHECKOUTS MUST CONSULT THE STUDENT'S UNDERSTANDING. If they don't, they're useless and will ARC Break the student eventually. Course natter stems entirely from the students' non-comprehension of words and data. While this can be cured by auditing, why audit it all the time when you can prevent it in the first place by adequate theory checkout? There are two phenomena here. FIRST PHENOMENON When a student misses understanding a word, the section right after that word is a blank in his memory. You can always trace back to the word just before the blank, get it understood and find miraculously that the former blank area is not now blank in the bulletin. The above is pure magic. SECOND PHENOMENON The second phenomenon is the overt cycle which follows a misunderstood word. When a word is not grasped, the student then goes into a non- comprehension (blankness) of things immediately after. This is followed by the student's solution for the blank condition which is to individuate from it -- separate self from it. Now being something else than the blank area, the student commits overts against the more general area. These overts, of course, are followed by restraining himself from committing overts. This pulls flows toward the person and makes the person crave motivators. This is followed by various mental and physical conditions and by various complaints, fault-finding and look-what-you-did-to-me. This justifies a departure, a blow. But the system of education, frowning on blows as it does, causes the student to really withdraw self from the study subject (whatever he was studying) and set up in its place a circuit which can receive and give back sentences and phrases. We now have "the quick student who somehow never applies what he learns". The specific phenomena then is that a student can study some words and give them back and yet be no participant to the action. The student gets A+ on exams but can't apply the data. The thoroughly dull student is just stuck in the non-comprehend blankness following some misunderstood word. The "very bright" student who yet can't use the data isn't there at all. He has long since ceased to confront the subject matter or the subject. 480 The cure for either of these conditions of "bright non-comprehension" or "dull" is to find the missing word. But these conditions can be prevented by not letting the student go beyond the missed word without grasping its meaning. And that is the duty of the Theory Instructor. DEMONSTRATION Giving a bulletin or tape check by seeing if it can be quoted or paraphrased proves exactly nothing. This will not guarantee that the student knows the data or can use or apply it nor even guarantees that the student is there. Neither the "bright" student nor the "dull" student (both suffering from the same malady) will benefit from such an examination. So examining by seeing if somebody "knows" the text and can quote or paraphrase it is completely false and must not be done. Correct examination is done only by making the person being tested answer: (a) The meanings of the words (re-defining the words used in his own words and demonstrating their use in his own made-up sentences), and (b) Demonstrating how the data is used. The examiner need not do a Clay Table audit just to get a student to pass. But the examiner can ask what the words mean. And the examiner can ask for examples of action or application. "What is this HCO Bulletin's first section?" is about as dull as one can get. "What are the rules given about _______?" is a question I would never bother to ask. Neither of these tell the examiner whether he has the bright non-applier or the dull student before him. Such questions just beg for natter and course blows. I would go over the first paragraph of any material I was examining a student on and pick out some uncommon words. I'd ask the student to define each and demonstrate its use in a made-up sentence and flunk the first "Well... er... let me see...." and that would be the end of that checkout. I wouldn't pick out only Scientologese. I'd pick out words that weren't too ordinary such as "benefit" "permissive" "calculated" as well as "engram". Students I was personally examining would begin to get a hunted look and carry dictionaries -- BUT THEY WOULDN'T BEGIN TO NATTER OR GET SICK OR BLOW. AND THEY'D USE WHAT THEY LEARNED. Above all, I myself would be sure I knew what the words meant before I started to examine. Dealing with new technology and the necessity to have things named, we especially need to be alert. Before you curse our terms, remember that a lack of terms to describe phenomena can be twice as incomprehensible as having involved terms that at least can be understood eventually. We do awfully well, really, better than any other science or subject. We lack a dictionary but we can remedy that. But to continue with how one should examine, when the student had the words, I'd demand the music. What tune do these words play? I'd say, "All right, what use is this bulletin (or tape) to you?" Questions like, "Now this rule here about not letting pcs eat candy while being audited, how come 481 there'd be such a rule?" And if the student couldn't imagine why, I'd go back to the words just ahead of that rule and find the one he hadn't grasped. I'd ask, "What are the commands of 8-C?" And when the student gave them, I'd still have the task of satisfying myself that the student understood why those were the commands. I'd ask, "How come?" after he'd given me the commands. Or "What are you going to do with these?" "Audit a pc with them," he might say. I'd say, "Well, why these commands?" But if the student wasn't up to the point of study where knowing why he used those commands was part of his materials, I wouldn't ask. For all the data about not examining above level applies very severely to Theory Checkout as well as to Practical and general Instruction. I might also have a Clay Table beside my examiner's desk (and certainly would have if I were an HCO hat checker, to which all this data also applies) and use it to have students show me they knew the words and ideas. Theory often says, "Well, they take care of all that in Practical.". Oh no they don't. When you have a Theory Section that believes that, Practical can't function at all. Practical goes through the simple motions. Theory covers why one goes through the motions. I don't think I have to beat this to death for you. You've got it. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.rd Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [The above HCO PL is modified by HCO PL 4 October 1964, reissued 21 May 1967, Theory Checkout Data, on page 488.] 482  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=27/9/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  LEVEL IV CLAY TABLE CLEARING   Remimeo Sthil Students  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1964 Remimeo Sthil Students LEVEL IV CLAY TABLE CLEARING (This HCO Bulletin cancels the steps of Clay Table Clearing in HCO Bulletin of Aug 18 AD 14.) The original issue of "Clay Table Clearing" was called "Clay Table IQ Processing". The materials were not broadly released pending the outcome of pilot projects I conducted. I find now that the HCO Bulletin of Aug 17, AD14 which covered Clay Table IQ Processing was the better process. HCO Bulletin of Aug 18, AD 14, Clay Table Clearing, was not as good as the first process I released as auditors had more trouble with it. In using Clay Table Clearing as per the HCO Bulletin of Aug 18, AD14, auditors asking for the answer in Step II (what about the subject the pc hadn't grasped) always got a question as the pc's answer. Example of the error: Auditor: "What do you want to improve?" Pc: "My memory." Auditor: (Step Two) "What about memory haven't you grasped?" Pc: "What it is." Auditor: "Reduce that to a single term." Pc: "Remembering." End of Example of error. You see that the auditor's question was answered by a pc's question about the subject. (What it is.) Therefore, the pc answered his own question for the next step, Step III. (Remembering.) You now have a solution to get the pc to represent in clay. It has restimulated the real earlier missed word. The pc's solution to the pc's question won't lead anywhere in being processed. So this isn't correct to get a pc question as the answer to II or a pc's solution to the pc's question as the answer to III. This takes clearing nowhere. And also, restimulating an earlier word in the pc's bank that is misunderstood, puts by-passed charge into the session, leading to a possible ARC Break. We learn then that 1. We mustn't ask the pc a question about what he wants to improve that will cause the pc to answer with his own question, and 2. We must not take a new solution to the pc's difficulty to represent in Clay. A solution is later in time than the upset about the subject. The cause of the upset is always an earlier misunderstood term. The term is therefore restimulated in trying to represent the solution. The term then becomes by- passed charge. Therefore we also learn this phenomenon: IF YOU GET THE WRONG THING TO REPRESENT IN CLAY IT WILL RESTIMULATE THE RIGHT THING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPRESENTED AND THE WRONG THING WILL NOT ITSELF BLOW IF REPRESENTED IN CLAY AS IT IS NOT EARLY ENOUGH. 483 Therefore, done wrong, Clay Table Clearing will not seem to work and will also ARC Break the pc. Clay Table Clearing is then relegated to Level IV and only Clay Table Healing. (where the chance of wrong words is remote) is placed at Level III. At Level IV the auditor has been trained to do ARC Break Assessments. Obviously, Clay Table work needs its own ARC Break Assessment list. The Important things are 1. Don't let the pc answer "what about it he wants to improve" with a question, and 2. Don't let the pc give you a new solution to his difficulty as the thing to represent in Clay. In Clay Table IQ Processing as per HCO Bulletin of Aug 17, AD14, this didn't arise because the auditor's question was asking only for a term. These are other things I've learned about this process from watching other auditors use it and with the above these are incorporated into the following brief rundown of Revised Clay Table Clearing. CLAY TABLE CLEARING ISSUE 2 STEP I: Find an area where the pc is trying to get smarter or wants to Improve, or wants to become more able. This we will call THE SUBJECT. It must not be a physical body part as that is Clay Table Healing. If the pc gives a physical body part or Health, change to Clay Table Healing. STEP II: The caution here is don't let the pc toss this off carelessly. It must be some subject in which the pc really wants to improve or some subject in which the pc really is trying to get smarter. If pc is sarcastic do an ARC Break Assessment from an appropriate list. Establish that the pc sincerely wants to improve in the subject or get smarter about it or become more able in it. Write the Subject in the Auditor's Report. STEP III: Trace back (no meter, make no lists) a word or term the pc has had difficulty with in the Subject. This is called THE TERM. The usual question would be "What word or term have you had difficulty with in (subject name)?" STEP IV: Satisfy yourself that this is the word or term the pc has had difficulty with. But do not make lists or go on and on getting the pc to change terms for hours as Step III and Step IV require only a few minutes or even seconds usually. Write the term in the Auditor's Report. STEP V: Tell the pc "Represent that term in clay." Pc may represent it and any related masses in Clay and may work on it as long as he or she likes. STEP VI: Make sure pc labels with paper and pen or in some similar way each thing the pc represents. Make sure you do not touch or take away the pc's clay. Be honest if you don't understand what the pc is doing and get the pc to make you understand it, using labels and clay (not long verbal dissertations not related to the clay and labels). Make sure you don't evaluate for the pc or tell the pc what his models or difficulties are all about. Make sure the pc is satisfied he has represented the TERM in Clay. Don't ARC Break the pc by refusing the obvious or by letting the pc quit while the pc is still dissatisfied he has done it -- a nice balance to maintain. Make sure the pc is satisfied he has represented the term in Clay. STEP VII: Have the pc do the TERM in Clay again. This is repetitive representation in Clay. Do not do or continue to do this step after the pc has had a big 484 cognition about the TERM which blows it (or blows the whole subject). In this step the TERM can be done over and over many times. The test is whether or not the pc has fully understood it. (Note: With terms on which the pc has no definition at all, the pc can look them up in the dictionary or the auditor can look them up for him. But the term must still be done in Clay as there was some reason the pc missed it.) STEP VIII: When the TERM is flat, go back to the SUBJECT and ask the pc how he feels about it. If there is the least hesitation or any evidence of discomfort or doubt about the SUBJECT, continue to use the same Subject and go on with STEP III above, locating a new TERM for the same Subject. Be very careful however that the pc's attitude stems from the Subject itself and not an ARC Break. Go on down the Steps with this new Term for the same Subject. STEP IX: When you have handled enough Terms to produce a very obvious change and when the Subject is obviously flat by reason of cognitions or abilities regained, go to Step I for a new SUBJECT and carry it through the steps as above. CAUTION: Pcs with PTPs, Overts, Missed Withholds and ARC Breaks will not progress under ROUTINE auditing. These must be handled. See The Book of Case Remedies and other sources for data on how to handle PTPs, Overts, Missed Withholds and ARC Breaks. ROUTINE USE REMEDIES Note the new expanded definition for the old word Routine and the new word REMEDY. This special use of the word ROUTINE accidentally fits the way it was formerly used. But it was used more loosely then to mean any combination of processes in a package whereas it now means "that which advances the usual case that is in session and has no PTPs, Overts or ARC Breaks in restimulation." A Routine such as Clay Table Clearing is for routine use. It is for normal case advance. Pcs with PTPs, Overts, Missed Withholds, Hidden Standards, etc, as well as ARC Breaks do not advance on a Routine. These require a Remedy. A Remedy is "something you do to get the pc into condition for Routine auditing". This concept is new and is very much needed. It constitutes a bit of a breakthrough in itself. When you attempt Routine auditing such as Clay Table Clearing on a pc who has longstanding PTPs or has just got one for the session, or has overts or withholds or an ARC Break, you will get no advance from routine auditing. You have to Remedy the case by rudiments or special processes. Then when the case is ready to run routinely, you can do or resume Clay Table Clearing. There is no process that handles PTPs and rapidly advances the whole case also. There is no process that handles an immediate ARC Break and also advances the general condition of the case. Overt and withhold processes are excellent remedies but slow case advancers. The mark of the skilled auditor is the ability to remedy a case and then get on with routine auditing. The auditor who only audits remedies will never really advance a case permanently and an auditor who can handle only routines and cannot remedy a case are alike in that they won't make clears. It is upon the dual ability of the auditor that clearing depends -- the ability to spot the non-advancing case, spend a few sessions remedying it and then get on with routine auditing -- the ability to get those fresh PTPs and overts in the first few minutes of the session and get on with the routine -- these are two different auditing actions. The auditor who can observe which of these actions (the Remedy or the Routine) needs to be done and who can judge when they should be done and who knows the Remedies and who also knows the Routines can clear pcs. 485 The answer to clears now depends on the skill and training of the auditor far more than on the state of the pc's case. FUTURE ERRORS After the pilot run on getting Clay Table Clearing ironed out in use in the auditor's hands, and the blunders that will be made before auditors become familiar with the HCO Bulletins and these processes, I think the main errors will be found to be Gross Auditing Errors such as failing to get the pc to answer the auditing question and such like. METER Clay Table Clearing Sessions are started with a meter. The meter is laid aside when the routine is actually begun. Checks for "Tone Arm Action" can be made mainly by observing the pc's good indicators. If they're in, the pc is getting TA. If they're not observable, the pc isn't getting TA. However, as Clay Table Clearing is at Level IV, NO PC WHO HAS NOT GOTTEN TA ACTION ON LOWER LEVEL PROCESSES SHOULD BE RUN ON CLAY TABLE CLEARING UNTIL HIS CASE IS REMEDIED. (Note: It has been observed in one pc who did not get TA action that correcting just one word the pc had misdefined in his bank brought about good indicators, but this was done merely by A Case Remedy using TWO-WAY COMM, not by Clay Table Clearing. The pc thereafter got good TA -- but would have done so after the Remedy on any process. Clay Table work is not for cases who get no TA in general. See The Book of Case Remedies. Do not confuse getting one word defined by two-way comm with Clay Table Clearing. They aren't the same thing.) The Meter is used at the beginning and end of session to handle rudiments and give data on state of needle and TA and is used during session only when pc has an ARC Break and then only to locate and indicate the charge on ARC Break Lists. When a remedy such as mid ruds is undertaken during the session the meter is also used. SESSION FORM Model Session as amended is used as the session form of Clay Table Clearing. In using Model Session be careful not to restimulate overts and PTPs the pc obviously does not have in restimulation at session start. If the pc is eager and talking about the Clay Table, give the usual Start of Session procedure, note down the TA and state of needle, give the Start of Session and swing at once into the body of the session. When a session has been successful do an equally brief End of Session procedure and end it. Only if the pc seems preoccupied at the start of session or the TA is found to be much higher than at the end of the last session or something seems wrong should you go into a full Model Session beginning rudiments. And only if the session was rough should you do the end of session rudiments. These uses of Model Session are for Levels III, IV and VI. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.rd Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 486  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 21 iDate=28/9/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  CLAY TABLE USE   BPI Remimeo  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 28 SEPTEMBER 1964 BPI Remimeo CLAY TABLE USE Clay Table auditing is for use by Central Organizations, City Offices and field auditors who have received training in it. Clay Table is for Levels III and IV. Clay Table Healing is Level III and Clay Table Clearing is Level IV where the auditor is also trained to handle ARC breaks. Central Orgs are to use only on HGC pcs or in the staff co-audit but may permit use by an auditor only where that auditor has been fully checked out on its HCO Bulletins and is supervised. Clay Table public use or use on public co-audits or HAS courses will bring about casualties. These Clay Table processes are extremely powerful and therefore very restimulative. To give lectures on them to uninformed persons may have repercussions in their cases. Clay Table is also deceptively simple. It appears so easy to read about that one is likely to miss. It's simple but only if you consider driving between two ravines at a hundred miles an hour is simple. It looks easy until you run off the road by failing to locate the steering wheel before you drive. A Central Organization may teach Classification Courses at Level III for Clay Table Healing as soon as it has Instructors trained in it at Saint Hill. It may teach Classification Courses at Level IV in Clay Table Clearing to students who took the Class III Course. Staffs may be trained and checked out in Clay Table work but preferably by Saint Hill graduates. There is no penalty attached to misusing Clay Table work except the penalty of coping then with a messed up process and messed up pcs. Used right Clay Table is the fastest thing we ever had. But Clay Table Auditing isn't just fooling about with Clay. It's simple, powerful technology and requires expert usage to produce results and protect pcs. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.pm.cden Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 487  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 21 iDate=4/10/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  THEORY CHECK-OUT DATA   Remimeo All Staff All Students Tech Hats Qual Hats  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 4 OCTOBER 1964 Remimeo Reissued on 21 May 1967 All Staff All Students Tech Hats Qual Hats THEORY CHECK-OUT DATA (Modifies HCO Pol Ltr of Sept 24, '64) In checking out technical materials on students or staff, it has been found that the new system as per HCO Pol Ltr of Sept 24,'64 is too lengthy if the whole bulletin is covered. Therefore the system given in Sept 24, '64 Pol Ltr is to be used as follows: 1. Do not use the old method of covering each bit combined with the new method. 2. Use only the new method. 3. Spot check the words and materials, do not try to cover it all. This is done the same way a final examination is given in schools: only a part of the material is covered by examination, assuming that if the student has this right the student knows all of it. 4. Flunk on comm lag in attempts to answer. If the student "er....ah....well...," flunk it as it certainly isn't known well enough to use. (Doesn't include stammerers.) 5. Never keep on examining a bulletin after a student has missed. 6. Consider all materials star-rated or not rated. Skip 75%'s. In other words, the check-out must have been 100% right answers for a pass. 75% is not a pass. When you consider a bulletin or tape too unimportant for a 100% pass, just require evidence that it has been read and don't examine it at all. In other words, on those you check out, require 100% and on less important material don't examine, merely require evidence of having read. THE "BRIGHT" ONES You will find that often you have very glib students you won't be able to find any fault in who yet won't be able to apply or use the data they are passing. This student is discussed as the "bright student" in the Sept 24, '64 Pol Ltr. Demonstration is the key here. The moment you ask this type of student to demonstrate a rule or theory with his hands or the paper clips on your desk this glibness will shatter. The reason for this is that in memorizing words or ideas, the student can still hold the position that it has nothing to do with him or her. It is a total circuit action. Therefore, very glib. The moment you say "Demonstrate" that word or idea or principle, the student has to have something to do with it. And shatters. One student passed "Itsa" in theory with flying colors every time even on cross-check type questions, yet had never been known to listen. When the theory instructor said, "Demonstrate what a student would have to do to pass Itsa," the whole subject blew up. "There's too many ways to do Itsa auditing!" the student said. Yet on the bulletin it merely said "Listen". That given as a glib answer was all right. But "demonstration" brought to light that this student hadn't a clue about listening to a pc. If he had to demonstrate it, the non-participation of the student in the material he was studying came to light. Don't get the idea that Demonstration is a Practical Section action. Practical gives the drills. These demonstrations in Theory aren't drills. Clay Table isn't used to any extent by a Theory Examiner. Hands, a diagram, paper clips, these are usually quite enough! 488 COACHING IN THEORY There is Theory Coaching as well as Practical Coaching. Coaching Theory means getting a student to define all the words, give all the rules, demonstrate things in the bulletin with his hands or bits of things, and also may include doing Clay Table Definitions of Scientology terms. That's all Theory Coaching. It compares to coaching on drills in Practical. But it is done on bulletins, tapes and policy letters which are to be examined in the future. Coaching is not examining. The examiner who coaches instead of examining will stall the progress of the whole class. The usual Supervisor action would be to have any student who is having any trouble or is allow or glib team up with another student of comparable difficulties and have them turn about with each other with Theory Coaching, similar to Practical Coaching in drills. Then when they have a bulletin, tape or policy letter coached, they have a check-out. The check-out is a spot check-out as above, a few definitions or rules and some demonstration of them. DICTIONARIES Dictionaries should be available to students in Theory and should be used in Theory Examination as well, preferably the same publication. Dictionaries don't always agree with each other. No Supervisor should try to define English language words out of his own head when correcting a student as it leads to too many arguments. On English words, open a dictionary. A Scientology dictionary is available. Remember that with Courses becoming briefer in duration, the number of bulletins and tapes which the student must know on a Star-Rated basis is also less. General written examination for classification, however, remains on an 85% pass basis. Be sure that students who get low marks constantly are also handled in Review, preferably by definitions of words they haven't understood in some former subject. Scientology is never the cause of consistent dullness or glibness. Processing of this nature can be on an Itsa basis. It does not have to be Clay Table. Just finding the prior subject by discussion and discussing its words usually blows the condition. I've seen it change the whole attitude of a person in just 5 or 10 minutes of auditing on a "locate the subject and word" basis. Therefore, definitions exist at Levels 0 and I, but not with Clay Table or assessment, only by Itsa. You'd be surprised how well it works and how fast. "Subjects you didn't like", "words you haven't grasped" are the discussion questions. The subject of "wrong definitions cause stupidity or circuits, followed by overts and motivators", is not easy to get across because it is so general amongst Mankind. There is a possibility that past lives themselves are wiped out by changing language, whether it is the same language that changes through the years or shifting nationality. But however that may be, don't be discouraged at the difficulties you may have in getting this principle understood and used in Scientology departments -- the person you are trying to convince has definitions out somewhere also! LRH:jw.jp.rd Copyright $c 1964, 1967 L. RON HUBBARD by L. Ron Hubbard Founder ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 489  L. RON HUBBARD Founder   Type = 11 iDate=17/10/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  CLAY TABLE DATA   Remimeo Sthil Students  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 17 OCTOBER 1964 Remimeo Sthil Students CLAY TABLE DATA The only real error auditors are making on Clay Table work is not getting their auditing question answered at times. When a pc answers, in reply to the question asking for what he wants to improve, "To be clear" and this is then pursued in the session, serious trouble occurs. Why? "What do you want to improve?" is not answered by "To be clear." It would be answered by "My sanity." It would not be answered by "My aberrations" (since nobody wants his aberrations to improve). If your pc is not trained into being in session you of course don't get answers to your questions. What auditor has recently (as you should to all new pcs particularly) explained what was expected in the session? "I am going to ask you something, then you are going to answer it, then I will acknowledge, then I will ask again" etc. In other words what auditor has recently explained to a new pc the auditing cycle? Well, if he hasn't on a new pc an auditor can't control anything that goes wrong in the session as there's no session. Clay Table, like all other auditing, has to have an auditing cycle of asking or telling the pc, getting that exact question answered or command complied with, acknowledging it and so forth. When this is omitted particularly on Clay Table work, disaster follows faster than in other types of processes as Clay Table bites deep. So 1. Get your pc trained into what the auditing cycle is and 2. Get the question or command that was asked or given answered. Pcs can say whatever else they please. But they must answer the auditing question or no auditing occurs. More than any other sin, this one is bedeviling Clay Table work and slowing results and every upset on Clay Table so far has been traced to this. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.rd Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 490  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=17/10/64 Volnum=0 Issue=2 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  ALL LEVELS GETTING THE PC SESSIONABLE   Remimeo Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 17 OCTOBER 1964 Issue II Remimeo Franchise ALL LEVELS GETTING THE PC SESSIONABLE When you start to audit new pcs the liabilities are these: 1. If you do not show him what auditing is, he does not know what is expected of him. Thus he is not only not in session but in mystery. 2. If you do not indoctrinate him into what he is supposed to do when the auditor gives him a question or command, he often does not answer the question or comply with the command and only then can things go wrong in the session. 3. If the pc is not in the auditor's control and if anything goes wrong, then the auditor can do nothing about it as he does not have any session or control of the pc. COVERT AUDITING Some, particularly HAS students, are very remiss in this and "covertly audit". In "talking" to someone they also seek to audit that person "without the person knowing anything about it". This of course is nonsense since auditing results are best achieved in a session and a session depends upon a self-determined agreement to be audited. You can achieve changes in a person with covert auditing -- I won't say you can't since I have done so. But it is uncertain and not very popular. You have to audit without agreement when the pc is unconscious and can't respond. But to make it a common practice when it is really used only in emergency (as in unconsciousness or when you have no time) would be foolish. Further, using Scientology to handle situations in life is a whole subject in itself and it isn't auditing. (Example: Person angry, a Scientologist locates and indicates the by-passed charge. Example: On a raving psychotic, the Scientologist arranges for the person to have a rest away from his ordinary environment and associates and forbids damaging "treatments". Example: Somebody seems to have lots of problems so the Scientologist teaches him what a problem is. Example: By observing the anxiousness of a person to receive motivators the Scientologist estimates the degree of overts the person has committed. Example: One sees a difficulty in planning is not getting any better so he decides there must be a lie in the plan and locates it at which time a good plan can emerge.) There are countless ways to use the philosophy of Scientology in direct application to life. And even hopeless physical conditions respond to just understanding more about life. For instance there are many cases on record of a bedridden person reading no more than Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science and becoming well and active. 491 So one, doesn't have to "covertly audit" if any communication is possible. One can teach, advise, orient someone in existence, applying the truths and knowledge of Scientology. The point is, when auditing is begun it is best done by agreement to be audited and is most successful when the preclear understands what he is supposed to do in response to auditor actions, and is only disastrous when there is not enough control in the session to set things right if they start to go wrong. Any auditor who just sits and lets a pc ramble on and on with no regard to the subject being handled, even in Itsa, is very foolish, has no session and is wasting time. The wrong thing to do is chop the pc up and cut his comm because he is so far adrift. The right thing to do is to prevent it before it happens by not auditing preclears who have not agreed to be audited or who have no faintest idea of what's expected of them. In the hands of an unshilled "auditor" I have seen a preclear, who was running a psycho-analytic type session, giving all the expected psycho- analytic symptoms and responses. And getting nowhere. There are two ways it could have been handled -- one is to have explained this wasn't psycho-analysis and then explained the auditing cycle. The other would have been to run O/W on the analysis the pc had had or even do a by- passed charge assessment on the analysis. Probably both would be necessary if mere information about how auditing was done did not care for the condition. One of the rules of auditing is never to let any part of any question or command be agreed upon once and never repeated. Example: The auditor tells the pc, "When I say 'her' in this command, I mean your mother. Now what have you done to her?" The pc is always having to think back to this agreement to answer the command. Educating a pc is not the same thing. Here one is knocking out past response patterns, as in social actions or some earlier form of treatment. One is in effect cancelling out earlier habits of response in order to get auditing to occur. Once that is done one does not of course have to do it again and what the pc says in a session is what the pc says. Sometimes he wanders all about before he answers the question. But the auditor in any case must get his question answered or the command complied with. So auditing in general is a clean-cut agreement to be audited, a session is conducted with an auditing cycle, no matter how long or short that cycle may be. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.cden Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 492  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=17/10/64 Volnum=0 Issue=3 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  CLEARING WHY IT WORKS HOW IT IS NECESSARY   Remimeo Sthil Students Franchise  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 17 OCTOBER 1964 Issue III Remimeo Sthil Students Franchise CLEARING WHY IT WORKS HOW IT IS NECESSARY The wrap-up of Level VI this last year brought about a full explanation of why clearing works at lower levels. And it also brought about why some could not be run at once on R6. The reasons are quite simple. The basis of the reactive mind is the actual Goals Problem Masses (GPMs). Life has pulled these out of position and thrust the pc into the mess. When you find what lock words have been tied into the GPMs in this or even an earlier lifetime and key them out (destimulate them) (untie them from the main mass) the GPMs sink back into proper alignment and cease being effective. This makes a Key-Out Clear. This condition is valuable because the GPMs are now confrontable one by one (not dozens by dozens) and Routine 6 can be run easily on the preclear. Once Routine 6 auditing has begun one can only handle the derangements of masses by List 6 By-Passed Charge Auditing by Lists or, in an ARC Break, by using List 6 as an ARC Break Assessment. (If you seek to return to Clay Table Clearing after beginning R6, you get only locks on the Item the pc has been left in and cause only upset. So you never return a pc to Clay Table Clearing once he has begun R6. Moral, don't begin R6 too soon. Clear first.) That the state of Clear is transient and impermanent does not make it less worth while. In itself it is of enormous mental value and the full results never fade -- only some of the bloom. That's because the main bank is brought back into restimulation by Life or the pc's overts, etc. It is easiest to run R6 on pcs who have at some time or another been cleared. It is also possible to run R6 immediately on some rare pcs because they are just about clear anyway. It is risky to attempt R6 on the average pc who has not been cleared. Some pcs can't be audited at all on R6 until they are cleared. That is because they have too many lock words (words not in the GPMs but close in meaning) keeping the large chunks of the reactive mind in present time. When these lock words are handled by being found and understood the reactive mind drops out of restimulation and one can then run it out in an orderly fashion, Item by Item and GPM by GPM. Those are the mechanics of the reactive bank itself, the real use and value of clearing in auditing, and the conditions necessary for the successful handling of Routine 6. From the first moment he starts being audited, the pc is heading first for orientation in his environment (fewer PTPs and conflicts with others around him), 493 second for release (from the feeling he will only get worse and can't progress -- done by giving him small wins), third by getting rid of his physical problems, fourth by clearing away the locks on the reactive bank and fifth and sixth by running out the reactive bank itself. (Note: Fifth is mentioned as it is also encountered in the form of whole track, not always necessary to handle.) Once the reactive mind is vanquished, the pc is again capable of his full potential as a being. If you try to short-cut it you get failed cases. So that's the why of levels and their design and even if unpopular they are the necessary steps across the bridge. If somebody comes along and says it can be done with a needle and syringe or whirling until one is dazed or sitting on a mountain top gazing at his navel, he has a perfect right to say it. But the road out, whatever the process followed, must overcome the obstacles listed above or it is no road but a trap. My responsibility has been to find the way, to develop the processes by which it could be walked safely and to communicate what I know about it to the best of my ability even across barriers erected to communication and against the wishes of those who place value in slaves. There could have been a thousand other ways, a million variations, a billion reasons why one should not go. But if there are other ways, Man has not found them and indeed has only laid more difficulties by his past efforts. That is the way. It can be travelled. Truth is not always popular. That is why there is so little truth for men are commonly frightened things. One can't rush from nowhere to the stars. But there is a way. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.rd Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 494  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=1/11/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY III & IV MORE CLAY TABLE CLEARING GOOFS   Remimeo Sthil Students Sthil Scn Staff  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 1 NOVEMBER 1964 Remimeo Sthil Students Sthil Scn Staff SCIENTOLOGY III & IV MORE CLAY TABLE CLEARING GOOFS It has come to my attention that auditors in some instances have found a new way of not getting their auditing question answered on Clay Table work. They don't get the pc to represent the meaning of the word but let the pc do something in clay vaguely similar to the word. Example of wrong action: Auditor has found the word "Alchemy" has been misunderstood. Says, "Represent Alchemy." Pc then does in Clay a retort and a man in a conical hat. Auditor says, "Okay." This is a goof. In fact two goofs may be present. If the pc had really not understood "Alchemy" his answer in Clay would have been a more searching one. The auditor may have gotten five or six words from the pc and selected one that had no reaction and in which the pc was not interested. For a pc to be so glib means the pc isn't even puzzled about it and the auditor isn't auditing an aberration (a held-down 5) at all. (See Dianetics Evolution of a Science and my lecture this year on the definition of Clear, without understanding which nobody is going to clear anybody anyway.) There may even be a third goof. The auditor has no grasp at all of what constitutes Clay Table Clearing or why it works and hasn't got the idea he is clarifying meanings and clearing up puzzles the pc has. The actual goof is that the pc did not represent the word. REPRESENT means, according to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: "to bring into presence; to bring clearly and distinctly before the mind; to place clearly before another." This even shows up yet another goof. The auditor had no clearer idea of "Alchemy" than before and so was a sort of disinterested party to the whole thing and, on investigation, would have been found to pay no heed habitually to pc origins. Therefore the auditor was weak on TR 2 and a catastrophe on TR 4. But getting back to the main goof, pc really not representing the word, therefore not answering the auditing command, is obvious in that no clearer or more distinct understanding of the word emerged. The pc, then, didn't answer the "What word or term haven't you understood in that subject?" and gave a term he really already knew, or the auditor didn't accept the right one out of several offered, leaving in fact the pc's answer unacknowledged. Then when the auditor gave the second command, "Represent Alchemy," one auditing cycle had already been missed as above and so represent was not done either. If an auditor runs into the trouble of a pc just doodling in Clay with no clarification of anything, then one of the following is at fault: (a) The auditor accepted a subject the pc didn't want to improve at all; or (b) The auditor accepted a "misunderstood word" which the pc had never misunderstood; or (c) The auditor didn't get even earlier commands answered on the pc and so had a sloppy comm cycle going already; or (d) The auditor had no idea of what Clay Table Clearing was all about; or 496 (e) The auditor was auditing far above the pc's level and should have been working out of the Book of Remedies rather than Clay Table Clearing; or (f) The auditor was continuing to audit an already ARC broken pc; or (g) The pc hadn't enough grasp of the meaning of the word chosen to even start; or (h) The pc hadn't a clue what "represent" means. Resolutions of (a) to (f) are pretty obvious to any trained auditor. But they are resolved as follows: (a) Get the pc in comm as pc obviously not willing to talk about personal affairs or himself to the auditor. This is the oldest "In Session" definition. "What are you willing to talk to me about?" is the commonest remedy. (b) Same as (a) or the auditor is just willfully choosing the wrong word out of suggestions the pc makes in which case O/W on pcs is indicated on the auditor. (c) Pc or auditor madly out of comm with the other and the reason should be found and remedied. (d) The auditor should review Dianetics Evolution of a Science and have a Star-Rated examination on as well as a demonstration by the auditor of the definitions and principles of the lecture on Clearing of this year, before being permitted to do any more CT work. (e) The pc long since should have been looked up in the Book of Remedies and the remedy applied for the pc's condition or case before ever adventuring upon routine auditing such as Clay Table Clearing. (f) An ARC Break Assessment should have been done if this was what was wrong. (g) The pc should be given a dictionary to look the term up in before representing it in Clay. (h) The pc should be oriented or trained as to what is expected of him in Clay Table auditing including the meaning of represent. Also, to add a somewhat unusual solution, the command "Represent Alchemy" should be lengthened to "Represent the meaning of the word Alchemy in Clay." AUDITING CYCLE The more I see of Clay Table goofs the more impressed I am with the wisdom of keeping Clay Table Clearing at Level IV. Because the main goofs are all auditing cycle goofs. The silly ones -- such as the auditor never has passed Itsa but has always only done TR 0 when asked to do so, this auditor has never listened to the pc -- such as gummed up TR 1 -- such as the auditor acknowledging the pc before he has a clue what the pc said or did -- such as the auditor wandering off the course of the session, Q and Aing and just not duplicating the auditing command -- such as failing to handle pc originations. Clay Table work separates the experts and amateurs like a gourmet would separate sour wine and champagne. With sour basic auditing, it just doesn't satisfy what's required. I think letting students putter about with Clay even on Scientology definitions before they are Class Is at least is a horrible mistake. Every consistently done Clay Table goofing I've seen so far showed up an auditor who just didn't know his auditing cycle and couldn't get that done, much less CT Clearing. CT Clearing not only can be done. It Clears. If done. LRH:jw.rd Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard L. RON HUBBARD ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 497  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=6/11/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  STYLES OF AUDITING   Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 6 NOVEMBER AD14 Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students STYLES OF AUDITING Note 1: Most old-time auditors, particularly Saint Hill Graduates, have been trained at one time or another in these auditing styles. Here they are given names and assigned to Levels so that they can be taught more easily and so that general auditing can be improved. (Note 2: These have not been written before because I had not determined the results vital to each Level.) There is a Style of auditing for each class. By Style is meant a method or custom of performing actions. A Style is not really determined by the process being run so much. A Style is how the auditor addresses his task. Different processes carry different style requirements perhaps, but that is not the point. Clay Table Healing at Level III can be run with Level I style and still have some gains. But an auditor trained up to the style required at Level III would do a better job not only of CT Healing but of any repetitive process. Style is how the auditor audits. The real expert can do them all, but only after he can do each one. Style is a mark of Class. It is not individual. In our meaning, it is a distinct way to handle the tools of auditing. LEVEL ZERO LISTEN STYLE At Level 0 the Style is Listen Style Auditing. Here the auditor is expected to listen to the pc. The only skill necessary is listening to another. As soon as it is ascertained that the auditor is listening (not just confronting or ignoring) the auditor can be checked out. The length of time an auditor can listen without tension or strain showing could be a factor. What the pc does is not a factor considered in judging this style. Pcs, however, talk to an auditor who is really listening. Here we have the highest point that old-time mental therapies reached (when they did reach it), such as psychoanalysis, when they helped anyone. Mostly they were well below this, evaluating, invalidating, interrupting. These three things are what the instructor in this style should try to put across to the HAS student. Listen Style should not be complicated by expecting more of the auditor than just this: Listen to the pc without evaluating, invalidating or interrupting. Adding on higher skills like "Is the pc talking interestingly?" or even "Is the pc talking?" is no part of this style. When this auditor gets in trouble and the pc won't talk or isn't interested, a higher classed auditor is called in, a new question given by the supervisor, etc. It really isn't "Itsa" to be very technical. Itsa is the action of the pc saying, "It's a this" or "It's a that." Getting the pc to Itsa is quite beyond Listen Style auditors where the pc won't. It's the supervisor or the question on the blackboard that gets the pc to Itsa. 498 The ability to listen, learned well, stays with the auditor up through the grades. One doesn't cease to use it even at Level VI. But one has to learn it somewhere and that's at Level Zero. So Listen Style Auditing is just listening. It thereafter adds into the other styles. LEVEL ONE MUZZLED AUDITING This could also be called rote style auditing. Muzzled Auditing has been with us many years. It is the stark total of TRs 0 to 4 and not anything else added. It is called so because auditors too often added in comments, Qed and Aed, deviated, discussed and otherwise messed up a session. Muzzle meant a "muzzle was put on them", figuratively speaking, so they would only state the auditing command and ack. Repetitive Command Auditing, using TRs 0 to 4, at Level One is done completely muzzled. This could be called Muzzled Repetitive Auditing Style but will be called "Muzzled Style" for the sake of brevity. It has been a matter of long experience that pcs who didn't make gains with the partially trained auditor permitted to two-way comm, did make gains the instant the auditor was muzzled: to wit, not permitted to do a thing but run the process, permitted to say nothing but the commands and acknowledge them and handle pc originations by simple acknowledgment without any other question or comment. At Level One we don't expect the auditor to do anything but state the command (or ask the question) with no variation, acknowledge the pc's answer and handle the pc origins by understanding and acknowledging what the pc said. Those processes used at Level One actually respond best to muzzled auditing and worst to misguided efforts to "Two-Way Comm". Listen Style combines with Muzzled Style easily. But watch out that Level One sessions don't disintegrate to Level Zero. Crisp, clean repetitive commands, muzzled, given and answered often, are the road out -- not pc wanderings A pc at this Level is instructed in exactly what is expected of him, exactly what the auditor will do. The pc is even put through a few "do birds fly?" cycles until the pc gets the idea. Then the processing works. An auditor trying to do Muzzled Repetitive Auditing on a pc who, through past "therapy experience", is rambling on and on is a sad sight. It means that control is out (or that the pc never got above Level Zero). It's the number of commands given and answered in a unit of auditing time that gets gains. To that add the correctly chosen repetitive process and you have a release in short order, using the processes of this Level. To follow limp Listen Style with crisp, controlled Muzzled Style may be a shock. But they are each the lowest of the two families of auditing styles -- Totally Permissive and Totally Controlled. And they are so different each is easy to learn with no confusion. It's been the lack of difference amongst styles that confuses the student into slopping about. Well, these two are different enough -- Listen Style and Muzzled Style -- to set anybody straight. 499 LEVEL TWO GUIDING STYLE AUDITING An old-time auditor would have recognized this style under two separate names: (a) Two-Way Comm and (b) Formal Auditing. We condense these two old styles under one new name: Guiding Style Auditing. One first guides the pc by "two-way comm" into some subject that has to be handled or into revealing what should be handled and then the auditor handles it with formal repetitive commands. Guiding Style Auditing becomes feasible only when a student can do Listen Style and Muzzled Style Auditing well. Formerly the student who couldn't confront or duplicate a command took refuge in sloppy discussions with the pc and called it auditing or "Two-Way Comm". The first thing to know about Guiding Style is that one lets the pc talk and Itsa without chop, but also gets the pc steered into the proper subject and gets the job done with repetitive commands. We presuppose the auditor at this Level has had enough case gain to be able to occupy the viewpoint of the auditor and therefore to be able to observe the pc. We also presuppose at this Level that the auditor, being able to occupy a viewpoint, is therefore more self-determined, the two things being related. (One can only be self-determined when one can observe the actual situation before one: otherwise a being is delusion-determined or other- determined.) Thus in Guiding Style Auditing, the auditor is there to find out what's what from the pc and then apply the needful remedy. Most of the processes in the Book of Remedies are included in this Level (II). To use those, one has to observe the pc, discover what the pc is doing, and remedy the pc's case accordingly. The result for the pc is a far-reaching re-orientation in Life. Thus the essentials of Guiding Style Auditing consist of Two-Way Comm that steers the pc into revealing a difficulty followed by a repetitive process to handle what has been revealed. One does expert TRs but one may discuss things with the pc, let the pc talk and in general one audits the pc before one, establishing what that pc needs and then doing it with crisp repetitive auditing, but all the while alert to changes in the pc. One runs at this Level against Tone Arm Action, paying little or no heed to the needle except as a centering device for TA position. One even establishes what's to be done by the action of the Tone Arm. (The process of storing up things to run on the pc by seeing what fell when he was running what's being run, now belongs at this Level (II) and will be re-numbered accordingly.) At II one expects to handle a lot of chronic PTPs, overts, ARC Breaks with Life (but not session ARC Breaks, that being a needle action, session ARC Breaks being sorted out by a higher classed auditor if they occur). To get such things done (PTPs, overts and other remedies) in the session the auditor must have a pc "willing to talk to the auditor about his difficulties". That presupposes we have an auditor at this Level who can ask questions, not repetitive, that guide the pc into talking about the difficulty that needs to be handled. Great command of TR 4 is the primary difference in TRs from Level I. One understands, when one doesn't, by asking more questions, and by really acknowledging only when one has really understood it. 500 Guided comm is the clue to control at this Level. One should easily guide the pc's comm in and out and around without chopping the pc or wasting session time. As soon as an auditor gets the idea of finite result or, that is to say, a specific and definite result expected, all this is easy. Pc has a PTP. Example: Auditor has to have the idea he is to locate and destimulate the PTP so pc is not bothered about it (and isn't being driven to do something about it) as the finite result. The auditor at II is trained to audit the pc before him, get the pc into comm, guide the pc toward data needful to choose a process and then to run the process necessary to resolve that thing found, usually by repetitive command and always by TA. The Book of Remedies is the key to this Level and this auditing style. One listens but only to what one has guided the pc into. One runs repetitive commands with good TR 4. And one may search around for quite a while before one is satisfied he has the answer from the pc needful to resolve a certain aspect of the pc's case. O/W can be run at Level I. But at Level II one may guide the pc into divulging what the pc considers a real overt act and, having that, then guide the pc through all the reasons it wasn't an overt and so eventually blow it. Half-acknowledgment is also taught at Level II -- the ways of keeping a pc talking by giving the pc the feeling he is being heard and yet not chopping with overdone TR 2. Big or multiple acknowledgment is also taught to shut the pc off when the pc is going off the subject. LEVEL III ABRIDGED STYLE AUDITING By Abridged is meant "abbreviated", shorn of extras. Any not actually needful auditing command is deleted. For instance, at Level I the auditor always says, when the pc wanders off the subject, "I will repeat the auditing command" and does so. In Abridged Style the auditor omits this when it isn't necessary and just asks the command again if the pc has forgotten it. In this style we have shifted from pure rote to a sensible use or omission as needful. We still use repetitive commands expertly, but we don't use rote that is unnecessary to the situation. Two-Way Comm comes into its own at Level III. But with heavy use of repetitive commands. At this Level we have as the primary process, Clay Table Healing. In this an auditor must make sure the commands are followed exactly. No auditing command is ever let go of until that actual command is answered by the pc. But at the same time, one doesn't necessarily give every auditing command the process has in its rundown. In Clay Table Healing one is supposed to make sure the pc is satisfied each time. This is done more often by observation than command. Yet it is done. We suppose at III that we have an auditor who is in pretty fine shape and can observe. Thus we see the pc is satisfied and don't mention it. Thus we see when the pc is not certain and so we get something the pc is certain of in answering the question. 501 On the other hand, one gives all the necessary commands crisply and definitely and gets them executed. Prepchecking and needle usage is taught at Level III as well as Clay Table Healing. Auditing by List is also taught. In Abridged Style Auditing one may find the pc (being cleaned up on a list question) giving half a dozen answers in a rush. One doesn't stop the pc from doing so, one half acknowledges, and lets the pc go on. One is in actual fact handling a bigger auditing comm cycle, that is all. The question elicits more than one answer which is really only one answer. And when that answer is given, it is acknowledged. One sees when a needle is clean without some formula set of questions that invalidate all the pc's relief. And one sees it isn't clean by the continued puzzle on the pc's face. There are tricks involved here. One asks a question of the pc with the key word in it and notes that the needle doesn't tremble, and so concludes the question about the word is flat. And so doesn't check it again. Example: "Has anything else been suppressed?" One eye on pc, one on needle, needle didn't quiver. Pc looks noncommittal. Auditor says, "All right, on _______ " and goes on to next question, eliminating a pc's possible protest read that can be mistaken for another "suppress". In Abridged Style Auditing one sticks to the essentials and drops rote where it impedes case advance. But that doesn't mean one wanders about. One is even more crisp and thorough with Abridged Style Auditing than in rote. One is watching what happens and doing exactly enough to achieve the expected result. By "Abridged" is meant getting the exact job done -- the shortest way between two points -- with no waste questions. By now the student should know that he runs a process to achieve an exact result and he gets the process run in a way to achieve that result in the smallest amount of time. The student is taught to guide rapidly, to have no time for wide excursions. The processes at this Level are all rat-a-tat-tat processes -- CT Healing, Prepchecking, Auditing by List. Again it's the number of times the question is answered per unit of auditing time that makes for speed of result. LEVEL IV DIRECT STYLE AUDITING By direct we mean straight, concentrated, intense, applied in a direct manner. We do not mean direct in the sense of to direct somebody or to guide. We mean it is direct. By direct, we don't mean frank or choppy. On the contrary, we put the pc's attention on his bank and anything we do is calculated only to make that attention more direct. It could also mean that we are not auditing by vias. We are auditing straight at the things that need to be reached to make somebody clear. Other than this the auditing attitude is very easy and relaxed. At Level IV we have Clay Table Clearing and we have Assessment type processes. These two types of process are both astonishingly direct. They are aimed directly at the Reactive Mind. They are done in a direct manner. 502 In CT Clearing we have almost total work and Itsa from pcs. From one end of a session to another, we may have only a few auditing commands. For a pc on CT Clearing does almost all the work if he is in session at all. Thus we have another implication in the word "direct". The pc is talking directly to the auditor about what he is making and why in CT Clearing. The auditor hardly ever talks at all. In assessment the auditor is aiming directly at the pc's bank and wants no pc in front of it thinking, speculating, maundering or Itsaing. Thus this assessment is a very direct action. All this requires easy, smooth, steel-hand-in-a-velvet-glove control of the pc. It looks easy and relaxed as a style, it is straight as a Toledo blade. The trick is to be direct in what's wanted and not deviate. The auditor settles what's to be done, gives the command and then the pc may work for a long time, the auditor alert, attentive, completely relaxed. In assessment the auditor often pays no attention to the pc at all, as in ARC Breaks or assessing lists. Indeed, a pc at this level is trained to be quiet during the assessment of a list. And in CT Cleaning an auditor may be quiet for an hour at a stretch. The tests are: Can the auditor keep the pc quiet while assessing without ARC Breaking the pc? Can the auditor order the pc to do something and then, the pc working on it, can the auditor remain quiet and attentive for an hour, understanding everything and interrupt alertly only when he doesn't understand and get the pc to make it clearer to him? Again without ARC Breaking the pc. You could confuse this Direct Style with Listen Style if you merely glanced at a session of CT Clearing. But what a difference. In Listen Style the pc is blundering on and on and on. In Direct Style the pc wanders off the line an inch and starts to Itsa, let us say, with no clay work and after it was obvious to the auditor that this pc had forgotten the clay, you'd see the auditor, quick as a foil, look at the pc, very interestedly and say, "Let's see that in Clay." Or the pc doesn't really give an ability he wants to improve and you'd hear a quiet persuasive auditor voice, "Are you quite certain you want to improve that? Sounds like a goal to me. Just something, some ability you know, you'd like to improve." You could call this style One-Way Auditing. When the pc is given his orders, after that it's all from the pc to the auditor, and all involved with carrying out that auditing instruction. When the auditor is assessing it is all from the auditor to the pc. Only when the assessment action hits a snag like a PTP is there any other auditing style used. This is a very extreme auditing style. It is straightforward -- direct. But when needful, as in any Level, the styles learned below it are often also employed, but never in the actual actions of getting CT Clearing and Assessment done. (Note: Level V would be the same style as VI below.) LEVEL VI ALL STYLE So far, we have dealt with simple actions. Now we have an auditor handling a meter and a pc who Itsa's and Cognites and gets PTPs and ARC Breaks and Line Charges and Cognites and who finds Items and lists and who must be handled, handled, handled all the way. 503 As auditing TA for a 2 1/2 hour session can go to 79 or 125 divisions (compared to 10 or 15 for the lowest level), the pace of the session is greater. It is this pace that makes perfect ability at each lower level vital when they combine into All Style. For each is now faster. So, we learn All Style by learning each of the lower styles well, and then observe and apply the style needed every time it is needed, shifting styles as often as once every minute! The best way to learn All Style is to become expert at each lower style so that one does the style correct for the situation each time the situation requiring that style occurs. It is less rough than it looks. But it is also very demanding. Use the wrong style on a situation and you've had it. ARC Break! No progress! Example: Right in the middle of an assessment the needle gets dirty. The auditor can't continue -- or shouldn't. The auditor, in Direct Style, looks up to see a puzzled frown. The auditor has to shift to Guiding Style to find out what ails the pc (who probably doesn't really know), then to Listen Style while the pc cognites on a chronic PTP that just emerged and bothered the pc, then to Direct Style to finish the Assessment that was in progress. The only way an auditor can get confused by All Style is by not being good at one of the lower level styles. Careful inspection will show where the student using All Style is slipping. One then gets the student to review that style that was not well learned and practice it a bit. So All Style, when poorly done, is very easy to remedy for it will be in error on one or more of the lower level styles. And as all these can be independently taught, the whole can be co-ordinated. All Style is hard to do only when one hasn't mastered one of the lower level styles. SUMMARY These are the important Styles of Auditing. There have been others but they are only variations of those given in this HCO Bulletin. Tone 40 Style is the most notable one missing. It remains as a practice style at Level One to teach fearless body handling and to teach one to get his command obeyed. It is no longer used in practice. As it was necessary to have every result and every process for each Level to finalize Styles of Auditing, I left this until last and here it is. Please note that none of these Styles violate the auditing comm cycle or the TRs. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.rd Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 504  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=12/11/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY II PC LEVEL 0-IV DEFINITION PROCESSES   Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 12 NOVEMBER 1964 Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students SCIENTOLOGY II PC LEVEL 0-IV DEFINITION PROCESSES The first thing to know about DEFINITION PROCESSES is that they are separate and distinct and stand by themselves and are not Clay Table processes. Because definitions are used in Clay Table work, in clearing and in instruction, it is easy to make the colossal mistake of not realizing they are themselves a distinct type of process and that they can be run with no reference whatever to Clay Table or examinations. In The Book of Case Remedies we find on page 25 REMEDY A and REMEDY B. These two remedies are A and B because they handle a primary source of worry to instructors and auditors. Because Definitions are also in Clay Table Clearing and are used in Instruction one might overlook A and B as processes. AUDITING STYLE Each level has its own basic auditing style and its secondary style as will be found covered completely in publications after this date. The Auditing Style of Level II is Guiding Style. The Secondary Style is GUIDING SECONDARY STYLE or Guiding S Style. ASSISTS An assist is different from auditing as such in that it lacks any model session. Assists are normally short periods of auditing but not always. I have seen a touch assist go on for months at the rate of 15 minutes a day, two or three days a week. And it may take hours to do a touch assist on an accident victim. What characterizes an assist is that it is done rapidly and informally and anywhere. "Coffee Shop Auditing" isn't really an assist as it is usually done over coffee too casually to be dignified by the name of auditing. The pc is never informed at all of the existence of a session. The pc, in an assist, is however informed of the fact and the assist is begun by "Start of Assist" and "End of Assist", so an assist, like a session, has a beginning and an end. The Auditor's Code is observed in giving an assist and the Auditing Comm Cycle is used. As an Auditor one sets out in an assist to accomplish a specific thing for the pc like relieve the snivels or make the ache in the leg better. So an Assist also has a very finite purpose. SECONDARY STYLES Every level has a different primary STYLE OF AUDITING. But sometimes in actual sessions or particularly in Assists this Style is altered slightly for special purposes. The Style altered for assists or for a particular process in a regular session, is called a SECONDARY STYLE. It doesn't mean that the primary style of the level is merely loosely done. It means that it is done a precise but different way to accomplish assists or to assist the pc in a regular session. This variation is called the SECONDARY STYLE of that level. 505 REMEDIES A Remedy is not necessarily a assist and is often done in regular session. It is the Remedy itself which determines what auditing style is used to administer it. Some Remedies, as well as being used in regular sessions, can also be used as Assists. In short, that a process exists as a Remedy has no bearing on whether it is used in an Assist or a Model Session. GUIDING STYLE The essence of Guiding Style is: 1. Locate what's awry with the pc. 2. Run a Repetitive Process to handle what's found in 1. In essence -- steer the pc into disclosing something that needs auditing and then audit it. GUIDING SECONDARY STYLE Guiding Secondary Style differs from proper Guiding Style and is done by: 1. Steering the pc toward revealing something or something revealed; 2. Handling it with Itsa. Guiding Secondary Style differs from Guiding Style only in that Guiding Secondary Style handles the matter by Steer + Itsa. Guiding Style Proper handles the matter with Steer + Repetitive Process. DEFINITIONS PROCESSING Definitions Processes, when used as Remedies, are normally processed by Guiding Secondary Style. Both Remedies of The Book of Case Remedies A and B are Guiding Secondary Style in their normal application. One would expect them to be used by a Class II Auditor. One would expect the Assist to last 10 or 15 minutes, perhaps more, but less than a regular session would take. One would expect that any case in a PE class, any student that was getting nowhere, would be handled by the Instructor with Guiding Secondary Style using Remedies A and B as precision processes. REMEDY A PATTER One would not expect the person or student in trouble to be turned over to another student for handling. It's too fast, sharp and easy to handle that trouble oneself if one is Class II or above and far more certain. You can do it while you'd be finding another student to do the auditing. It would be uneconomical in terms of time not to just do it right then -- no meter -- leaning up against a desk. The auditor's patter would be something like what follows. The pc's responses and Itsa are omitted in this example. "I am going to give you a short assist." "All right, what word haven't you understood in Scientology?" "Okay, it's pre-clear. Explain what it means." "Okay, I see you are having trouble, so what does pre mean?" "Fine. Now what does clear mean?" "Good. I'm glad you realize you had it mixed up with patient and see that they're different." "Thank you. End of Assist." In between the above total of auditing patter, the student may have hemmed and hawed and argued and cognited. But one just steered the pc straight along the subject selected and got it audited and cleaned up. If the student gave a glib text book definition after challenging the word preclear, we wouldn't buy it, but would give the 506 student a piece of paper or a rubber band and say "Demonstrate that." And then carry on as it developed. And that would be Remedy A. You see it is precision auditing and is a process and does have an Auditing Style. And it works like a dream. You see this is Steer + Itsa as to its Style. And that it addressed the immediate subject. What makes A Remedy A is not that it handles Scientology definitions, but that it handles the immediate subject under discussion or study. REMEDY B What makes Remedy B Remedy B is that it seeks out and handles a former subject, conceived to be similar to the immediate subject or condition, in order to clear up misunderstandings in the immediate subject or condition. Remedy B, run on some person or student, would simply be a bit more complex than Remedy A as it looks into the past. A person has a continuous confusion with policy or auditors, etc. So one runs B like this (the following is auditor patter only): "I'm going to give you an Assist. Okay?" "All right. What subject were you mixed up with before Scientology?" "I'm sure there is one." "Okay. Spiritualism. Fine. What word in Spiritualism didn't you understand?" "You can think of it." "Good. Ectoplasm. Fine. What was the definition of that?" "All right, there's a dictionary over there, look it up. I'm sorry it doesn't give the spiritualist definition. But you say it says Ecto means outside. What's plasm?" "Well, look it up." "All right. I see, Ecto means outside and plasm means mold or covering." (Note: You don't always break up words into parts for definition in A & B Remedies.) "Yes, I've got that. Now what do you think spiritualists meant by it?" "All right, I'm glad you realize that sheets over people make ghosts ghosts." "Fine, glad you recalled being scared as a child." "All right, what did the spiritualist mean then?" "Okay. Glad you see thetans don't need to be cased in goo." "All right. Fine. Good. You had Ectoplasm mixed up with engrams and you now realize thetans don't have to have a bank and can be naked. Fine. End of Assist." (Note: You don't always repeat after him what the pc said, but sometimes it helps.) Student departs still cogniting. Enters Scientology now having left Spiritualism on the back track. Doesn't keep on trying to make every HCO Bulletin studied solve "Ectoplasm", the buried misunderstood word that kept him stuck in Spiritualism. DEFINITIONS PURPOSE The purpose of definitions processing is fast clearing of "held down fives" (jammed thinking because of a misunderstood or misapplied datums) preventing someone getting on with auditing or Scientology. Remedies A and B are not always used as Assists. They are also used in regular sessions. But when so used they are always used with Guiding Secondary Style -- Steer + Itsa. As a comment, people who seek to liken Scientology to something, "Oh, like Christian Science," are stuck in Christian Science. Don't say, "Oh no! It isn't like Christian Science!" Just nod and mark them for a fast assist or a session the moment the chance offers if they seem very disinterested or aloof when asked to a PE Course. There's weapons in that arsenal, auditor. Use them. As Remedies A and B stand as the first and second given in The Book of Case Remedies, so before a large number of potential Scientologists stands the confusion of definitions. We are now working hard to make Scientology definitions easy for them by compiling a dictionary, using words new to people only when useful. 507 But those that don't come along at all, are so wound up in some past subject they can't hear or think when that earlier subject is restimulated. And that earlier subject is held down only by some word or phrase they didn't grasp. Some poor pawn howling for the blood of Scientologists isn't mad at Scientology at all. But at some earlier practice he got stuck in with misdefinition of its terms. You see, we inherit some of the effects of the whole dullness of Man when we seek to open the prison door and say, "Look. Sunshine in the fields. Walk out." Some, who need Remedy B, say: "Oh no! The last time somebody scratched the wall that way I got stupider." Why say, "Hey. I'm not scratching the wall. I'm opening the gate"? Why bother. He can't hear you. But he can hear Remedy B as an assist. That's the channel to his comprehension. UNDERSTANDING When a person can't understand something and yet goes on facing up to it, he gets into a "problems situation" with it. There it is over there, yet he can't make it out. Infrequently (fortunately for us) the being halts time right there. Anything he conceives to be similar presented to his view is the puzzle itself (A=A=A). And he goes stupid. This happens rarely in the life of one being, but it happens to many people. Thus there aren't many such messes in one person in one lifetime that have to be cleaned up. But there are a few in many people. The cycle of Mis-definition is: 1. didn't grasp a word, then 2. didn't understand a principle or theory, then 3. became different from it, commits and committed overts against it, then 4. restrained himself or was restrained from committing those overts, then 5. being on a withhold (inflow) pulled in a motivator. Not every word somebody didn't grasp was followed by a principle or theory. An overt was not committed every time this happened. Not every overt committed was restrained. So no motivator was pulled in. But when it did happen, it raised havoc with the mentality of the being when trying to think about what seem to be similar subjects. You see, you are looking at the basic incident + its locks as in a chain of incidents. The charge that is apparently on the lock in present time is actually only in the basic incident. The locks borrow the charge of the basic incident and are not themselves causing anything. So you have a basic misunderstood word which then charges up the whole subject as a lock; then a subject charging up similar subjects as locks. Every nattery or non-progressing student or pc is hung up in the above 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 cycle. And every such student or pc has a misdefined word at the bottom of that pile. If the condition is new and temporary it's a Scientology word that's awry. If natter, no progress, etc, is continuous and doesn't cease when all is explained in Scientology or when attempts to straighten up Scientology words fail, then it's an earlier subject at fault. Hence, Remedies A and B. Hence Guiding Secondary Style. Hence, the fact that Definitions Processes are processes. And VITAL processes they are if one wants a smooth organization, a smooth PE, a smooth record of wins on all pcs. And if one wants to bring people into Scientology who seem to want to stay out. Of course these Remedies A and B are early-on processes, to be audited by a Class II or above on a Level 0 or I pc or student. However some in Scientology, as of this date, are studying slowly or progressing poorly because A and B haven't been applied. One expects that very soon, now that auditors have this data, there will be nobody at upper levels with his definitions dangling. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.rd Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [This HCO B is amended by HCO B 21 February 1966, Definition Processes, Volume VI -- 150.] 508  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=16/11/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY III and IV CLAY TABLE LABEL GOOFS   Remimeo Sthil Students Scien. Staff  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 16 NOVEMBER AD14 Remimeo Sthil Students Scien. Staff SCIENTOLOGY III and IV CLAY TABLE LABEL GOOFS You will find in all poor auditing situations, where something has gone wrong, that you can figure yourself half to death if you do not know that all auditing errors are gross (huge, large, and in this meaning, basic). The Gross Auditing Error most commonly found in auditing is just not following the directions for the process. Not mild departures but big ones. This often goes undetected by Case and Auditing Supervisors because the auditing report or the statement of some student is not complete or truthful about what was done. If Case and Auditing Supervisors don't know that sometimes reports or statements are most expressive in what they leave unsaid or even twisted to make somebody look good (safeguard repute), then the Case or Auditing Supervisor can worry himself or herself silly trying to find out why some case isn't running. Clay Table Healing and Clay Table Clearing, like any other processes, are subject to Gross Auditing Errors (GAEs), incomplete statements or reports or even falsified descriptions of what was or was not done. "Unusual solutions" is a phrase describing actions taken by an auditor or a Case or Auditing Supervisor when he or she has not spotted the Gross Auditing Error. The "unusual solution" seldom resolves any case because the data on which it is based (the observation or report) is incomplete or inaccurate. Sometimes people wonder why a certain order was given. They never ask what data was given that described the situation for which the order was given. Example: (Past pc reporting on an auditor) "The auditor was drunk." Order given as a result: "Auditors must not drink." Actual situation: Auditor was dizzy after a session and wobbled when he stood up; a whiskey bottle in the office had been made into a lamp. The pc's statement was false data. Therefore the order given by the D of P was a order which remedied nothing. The D of P should have seen this as natter and located instead the pc's overt. That would have improved a case and spared a order. Sometimes such data can be very convincing. In administration at long distances or in life one can't always get the right data and so issues an order hopefully. But in auditing, the factors are fewer and under better control. And so incomplete or false data is easy to detect. THE GOOF In Clay Table work of all kinds the pc must label everything he or she makes. The word "everything" runs up against one of Man's favorite aberrations. Man crunches things up, condenses, goes all out for togetherness or sameness. His Epitaph should be "It's all the same." Identifying things with things causes Man to call a number of things one thing. (He also is fond of calling one thing a number of things when he worsens on this point.) I'll show you how this works. Auditor's Report: "The pc labelled everything." Actual fact: The pc made a representation in Clay composed of 15 separate pieces, made one label giving all fifteen one name. Auditor's complaint: "The pc isn't progressing -- no cognitions." 509 In this case the auditor conceived the clay layout to be the "one thing" the pc said it was and had the pc "label it". The pc did. One label. Now the auditing direction in Clay Table work is to label every thing. The GAE was failing to get everything labelled. Instead of figuring out some new process or angle to the case, all that would have been necessary was to get a complete, accurate description of the session. "Exactly what did the pc do?" And it would have transpired that the pc made "a picture". "Was it labelled?" "Yes." "What was it labelled?" "The pc labelled it 'Catastrophe' which is the word we were working on, of course." At that point a smart D of P, Case or Auditing Supervisor would have figured it out. "How many things were there in the picture?" "Oh, about twenty." And the correct auditing direction would have been, "Go back and have the pc make the picture again if you've re-used the clay. And this time have the pc label everything -- thing, piece, item -- made. Got it? One label for each different bit of clay in the picture." That done, the pc's case falls apart as the pc sees this or that should or shouldn't be in the picture or why it is. So the biggest goof in all processes is not doing the process. And in C.T. work, the surest way in the world not to do the process is to let the pc make something and not get the pc to label it. And a thing of many parts must have a label on each part. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.rd Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 510  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=10/12/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY 0 LISTEN STYLE AUDITING   Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students Sthil Co-audit  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 10 DECEMBER 1964 Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students Sthil Co-audit SCIENTOLOGY 0 LISTEN STYLE AUDITING There are two ways to run Listen Style Auditing -- 1. As a number of teams directly under an auditing supervisor and 2. As an individual auditor. Correct training procedure at Level 0 is to have the auditor do co-audit style until confident and then train him to do the same thing individually. LISTEN STYLE CO-AUDIT The Co-audit version is merely to get the student to do auditing without having to assume too much responsibility. In this version it is really the instructor who is doing the auditing. He starts the session and tells the auditor to give the commands and acknowledge the answers. If this relationship is understood it makes the supervision of a Level 0 group of teams much easier. The procedure for running a Listen Style Co-audit is as follows: 1. Instructor gets the auditors to seat their pcs in their chairs and then sit down. 2. He writes up on a board the exact wording of the process to be used. 3. He asks students if the room is alright for them to be audited in. 4. He tells them what is going to be run in the session (R Factor) and cleans up any questions on the part of pcs (obviously, stress is on getting them able to talk to anyone). 5. He tells auditors and pcs that all the auditor is permitted to do is to give the command and acknowledge the answers. If pc says anything that cannot be handled with an acknowledgement the auditor will put out his hand behind him and wait for an instructor. 6. He tells the auditors to keep their auditor's reports. 7. Instructor then says "Start of Session". And tells the auditors to give the command. No goals or rudiments are set or done. Notes: Students should be taught that before they give an acknowledgement they should understand pc's answer. They are permitted therefore to ask pc to amplify an answer or to explain a word so that they (the auditors) understand the answer. If a student puts out his hand the instructor goes to session and without ending it handles what needs handling and then lets session go on. The instructor is careful not to become the pc's auditor completely as transference will set in and pcs will invent trouble to get more attention. Instructor should have a meter handy so that in the case of an ARC Break he can quickly do an assessment. In doing the ARC Break Assessment he is of course careful not to audit the pc, only to locate and indicate the by-passed charge. At end of period, Instructor says "Commence ending your sessions." He waits a bit and then says: "Tell your auditor any gains you've made in the session. Auditors 511 write them down." Waits again and then says "Alright, I'm going to end the session now. End of Session." Instructor then gives whatever instruction is necessary either to end the period or to get the room ready for the next period or gives a break, etc. LISTEN STYLE, INDIVIDUAL This is done exactly the same as the Co-audit version but in this case of course the auditor handles the session. It goes like this: 1. The auditor seats the pc in his or her chair and then sits down across from the pc, knees a few inches from the pc's A table is used, or just two chairs, the auditor's report being kept on a clip board. There is, of course, no meter. 2. The auditor takes the exact auditing command to be used from his text book, bulletin or notes. 3. He asks the pc if it is all right to audit the pc in the room and if not, makes things right by adjusting the room or location of auditing. 4. He tells the pc the purpose of such sessions (Reality Factor) "I want to get you used to talking to another." "I want to improve your reach," etc. It's the auditor's goal at this level, not the pc's. Pcs don't get a chance to have goals in Listen Style as they would set goals they can't attain at this level and wouldn't have enough reality on auditing anyway to be sensible about it. So, only an R Factor is used -- no goals. The auditor also tells the pc exactly how long the session will be. 5. The auditor tells the pc that all he is going to do is to listen and try to understand the pc, and that all he wants the pc to do is talk on the selected subject the auditor will give him and that if he veers off, the auditor will call it to his attention. 6. The auditor then quickly starts his auditor's report. 7. The auditor says "Start of Session". 8. The auditor gives the command from his text, bulletin or notes. The command must have something to do with telling people things or communicating, and may also specify a subject to talk about. 9. Further commands are given only when the pc loses track of the subject and wants to know what it was (see Routines for Level 0 for exact handling of commands). 10. When the pc says something and obviously expects a response, the auditor signifies he has heard, using any normal means. 11. When the pc says something the auditor doesn't grasp, the auditor asks the pc to repeat it or amplify it so that the auditor does hear it in the fullest sense of the word. (See "The Prompters" below. Only 4 are allowed.) 12. When the pc stops talking, the auditor must adjudicate whether the pc is simply no longer interested in the subject, or has become unwilling to talk about some bit of it. If the auditor believes the pc has stopped because of embarrassment or some similar reason, the auditor has The Prompters, the only things he is allowed to use. Prompter (a) "Have you found something you think would make me think less of you?" Prompter (b) "Is there something you thought of that you think I wouldn't understand?" Prompter (c) "Have you said something you felt I didn't understand. If so, tell me again." Prompter (d) "Have you found something you haven't understood? If so, tell me about it." 512 (The student must know these prompters by heart.) He uses as many as needed, in the sequence given, to start the pc talking again. The auditor must not start a new subject or process just because the pc can't bring himself to go on talking. The whole essence of Level 0 is to get the pc up to being willing to talk about anything to anyone. Thus any coaxing is also allowed. Threats are forbidden. (a) (b) (c) or (d) usually handle. These are the commonest reasons people cease talking. Mere forgetting is handled just by reminding the pc of the subject. 13. New Processes (or new subjects in a Routine which are in essence new processes) are started only when the pc has brightened up and become quite able by reason of getting comfortable about the last one. Realizing that the whole target of Level 0 is to get people willing to talk about anything to others, a regained ability on a subject governs when to start a new process. If the auditor can answer to himself this question in the affirmative, then he can go to a new process, "Is this pc able to talk freely to or about (subject of last process)?" If so, it's all right to select a new question from the same routine or a new Routine (more rarely) and ask it now. But it is never all right to prevent a pc from talking by butting in with a new question. One never asks amplifying questions at Level 0. Commentary type questions are also out. The auditor listens to the question's answers and only interrupts when he truly hasn't heard or didn't grasp some point. No over and over repetitive use of commands is made, of course, as that's Level One. The Commands are given rarely, same commands, but only to get the pc going again. Staccato repetitive commands and brief pc answers are not for Level 0. 14. Toward the end of the auditing period, the auditor warns, "The session time is about over. We'll have to be ending shortly." 15. When the pc has given an extra comment or two, the auditor says, "We're closing the session now. Time is up. Have you made any gains in this session?" 16. The pc's answers are quickly noted. 17. The auditor says, "End of Session." Note: Pcs of course often keep on talking and make it hard to end a session. End it anyway. If this seems to shock the pc, point out the time the session ended as originally set and say also, "You'll be getting more auditing and we'll take that up in the next session." You'll always have trouble ending a session if you fail to put in its time in the R Factor (Reality Factor) in 4 above. As the auditor notes the time in his report (see 4 above) he must say, "This session will go until _______ (hours and minutes) precisely." Thus he has an out for ending it. An auditor must never run beyond that time set, and must, of course, audit until it is reached. This, by the way, does not just hold good for Level 0. It is very good practice for all levels in regular sessions. The only exception is the assist where one is auditing toward a definite gain. In general auditing one seeks to obtain general gains not sudden momentary spurts. The auditor, whether in co-audit or individual session at this and the next level, will soon become impressed with this fact: the more he himself says during the session, the less gain the pc gets. Therefore, aside from the above, the auditor does very little in the session and is paid handsomely for it in pc gains. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.cden Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [This HCO B is corrected by HCO B 26 December 1964, Routine O-A (Expanded), page 520.] 513  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=11/12/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY 0 CURRICULUM FOR LEVEL 0 -- HAS   Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students Sthil Co-audit  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 11 DECEMBER AD14 Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students Sthil Co-audit SCIENTOLOGY 0 CURRICULUM FOR LEVEL 0 -- HAS Effective January 1, 1965 (AD15) The Hubbard Apprentice Scientologist Course for the HAS certificate is the first requisite course. It is taught in qualified Academies. It can be preceded by a personal efficiency course and for this franchise holders may issue, on the form provided by a Central Organization, a course completion certificate. But this is not requisite to enrolling in an HAS Course. For some years HAS courses have been very successful. However, at higher levels lack of training in basics has been a stumbling block to auditors. Therefore this course becomes a formal Academy course out of actual training need and has a proper and precise curriculum. The HAS Course is a rigorous course. To cover its materials in 160 course hours requires great diligence and application. THEORY REQUIREMENTS The Study Materials. Code of a Scientologist. The Auditor's Code. The Dianetic Axioms. The Pre-Logics. The Logics. The Scientology Axioms. Scientology Vocabulary. The ARC Triangle. The Tone Scale. The 8 Dynamics. Relationship of Thetan -- Body -- Reactive Mind. HCO Bulletins on Listen Style Auditing. HCO Bulletins on Level 0 Processes. How to make out an Auditor's Report. The Local and Worldwide Organizations of Scientology. An Org Board. The Symbols of Dianetics and Scientology. A Short History of Dianetics and Scientology. The Gradation and Classification Program. PRACTICAL REQUIREMENTS Listen Style Drills. Patter Drills for Zero Routines. The Prompters (responses to pcs in difficulty about talking). How to set up a session. 514 AUDITING REQUIREMENTS All Routines of Level Zero run and received. STUDY GOAL A good familiarity with the substance and precision of Scientology. GOAL AS AN AUDITOR To be able to get people to talk to him or her easily without meeting it with censure, interruptions or invalidation. To be a safe, trustworthy auditor who can listen. GOAL AS A PC To be able to talk more freely to others and be more comfortable about it. This is the totality of study -- and achievements. No axioms or logics must be learned verbatim but they as well as their words must be understood and the student must be able to demonstrate what they mean. Vocabulary should be glib and useful to the student. Cases that are severe cases may be relegated to the HGC at student rates but only to have Remedies A and B run. Five hour or 25 hour intensives may be offered students for this purpose. No attempt should be made to get this auditing done on course and no instructor may do it. Any time spent in being audited is either added to course time or done by the weekend HGC. Instructors may not audit students on the HAS course, but may give minor assists or demonstrations. Instructors must be alert on the consequences of missed definitions and, due to limited course time, may not waste any time noticing a student is dragging and doing something about it in the limits given above. Course texts and HCO Bulletins are mainly already in existence. But they may be re-compiled or condensed in future publications. This is the totality of the HAS Course. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.cden Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 515  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=11/12/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY 0 PROCESSES   Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students Sthil Co-audit  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 11 DECEMBER 1964 Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students Sthil Co-audit SCIENTOLOGY 0 PROCESSES The whole case gain to be expected from a pc at Level 0 is an increase of ability to talk to others. At Level 0 we do not expect or lead people to expect any sudden miracle of physical or mental recovery. Rather, we emphasize that we are getting their feet on the ladder and as they progress up through levels they will achieve all they ever hoped for and more. Jumping to higher levels leaves the lower level disabilities untouched and while trying to audit somebody at, say, Level III, we will find ourselves struggling with things that should have been handled at Level 0. Further, this target is the one that beginning pcs make the most gains on in my experience. I recall one near miracle on a girl who couldn't bring herself to talk to her parents and all I did was get her to tell me what she'd say to them if she could talk to them. Recalling is too steep for a starting pc. They can't recall well really until about Level IV when they can be cleaned up on their ARC Breaks with Life. Here we have the whole design of Level 0: "Recover the pc's ability to talk to others freely." If you realize that a pc can't be in session unless he is willing to talk to his auditor, you will also realize that he can't be in life until he is able to communicate freely with others. Thus any process that does not forward this end is not for Level 0, no matter how frantic the case may be to become clear yesterday. The more hysterical a pc is about getting advanced processes or a case gain, the less strenuous the process administered must be. The psychiatrist erred on this one point and it wiped him out as a social benefactor. The more desperate the case, the more desperate were his measures. He was just echoing his patients. It is very important for an auditor to realize this one datum for it is the second guiding rule of Level 0. It is a very senior datum. One must not become desperate and use desperate measures just because the pc is desperate or the family or society is desperate about the pc. The worse off the pc, the lighter the approach to that pc must be. Psychotics (real, gibbering ones) are below auditing treatment in sessions. The measure used for them should be just rest and isolation from their former environments. And the first process used should be just getting the person to realize you are safe and safe to talk to. So, although a few cases are psychotic, this still holds good. The auditor must get 516 the pc to realize he is safe -- won't punish, scold, reprimand or betray confidences -- and that the auditor will listen. It doesn't give the auditor a withhold to not speak of another's withholds. One can only withhold what one oneself has done. What the pc did or said isn't even subject for a session on the auditor for withholding it had no aberrative value. Even when we're Class IV, we still start all our pcs at the pc's level, which is, for a beginning pc, Level 0. So what we are trying to do with our pcs at Level 0 is the following: 1. Recover the pc's ability to talk to others freely; 2. Teach the pc by example the auditor is safe to talk to and won't scold, reprimand, punish or betray, and 3. Refuse to engage in desperate measures just because the pc is desperate; and therefore get a real, lasting gain for the pc. ROUTINES A routine is a standard process, designed for the best steady gain of the pc at that level. The remedy is different. It is an auditing process which is designed to handle a non-routine situation. The only real remedy at Level 0 is patching up having failed to hear or understand the pc. The rest is all done by routine. The Case Remedies are at Level II and while we all realize that every Level 0 case needs a lot of Level II remedies, we also know that no remedy will work well until the pc is able to talk to others. When you run into trouble at Level 0, there are only 3 reasons possible: 1. The pc was not run in a direction or on a process to improve his or her ability to communicate to others; 2. The auditor failed to understand the pc's statements, either words or meanings; or 3. The auditor engaged in desperate measures, changed processes, or scolded or did something to lower the pc's feeling of security in the session. That's all. As you go on up through the levels, you will find many other ways a pc can get upset. But at Level 0, the pc is not close enough to reality on his own case to even be touched by these at first. The pc is a long way off when he first starts getting audited. He can only approach his own case by degrees. So a pc, no matter how wildly he or she dramatizes at Level 0, is really only capable of a reality of the smallest kind about self. And such a pc must be able to talk before anything else can happen. Pcs can be ruined by someone who doesn't grasp that simple fact. Psychiatrists, failing to grasp it, murdered several million people -- so it's no light matter. It's an important one. A pc at Level 0 usually can't even conceive of an overt (a harmful act) done by himself. When they can, they go religiously guilty and seek to atone or some such thing. Become a monk or commit suicide. The reason 33 1/3 percent of all psycho-analytic patients are said to have committed suicide in their first three months of treatment is not that they "came too late" but that a lot of wild data was thrown at them to get at their "source of guilt" and they went head on into the reactive bank, sought to demonstrate their "guilt" by making others guilty and killing themselves. You don't want anything out of the pc but an increased ability to talk relaxedly to others without fear, embarrassment, suspicion or guilt. So all processes at Level 0 are arranged accordingly. 517 WORDINGS To give all possible wordings of routines that will accomplish the above is completely beyond need. Once you have the idea of it straight, you can invent them by the dozens. One doesn't even have to think of a particular pc. All Level 0 processes are good only when they apply to all pcs. ROUTINE 0-0 (Zero-Zero) The starting routine is the most basic of all auditing routines. It is simply "What are you willing to talk to me about?" Pc answers. "What would you like to tell me about that?" At Level II, the first question alone becomes a remedy. Here the two questions make a routine -- and a very effective one it is! ROUTINE 0-A This is how the auditor puts together Routine 0-A: 1. Make a list of people or things one can't generally talk to easily! That includes parents, policemen, governments and God. But it's a far longer list. The auditor must do this. It must never be published as a "canned" list. 2. Using any one of the listed items: "If you could talk to _______ (listed item) what would you say?" All right, that's all there is to finding the commands for Routine 0-A. One doesn't get the pc to do the list. The list isn't done in session. The auditor does it himself on his own time. And each auditor must do his own list for his pcs and add to it from time to time as he thinks of new ones. The pc isn't necessarily given any choice of items. The auditor picks one he thinks may fit. That's easy to do after one session. The pc keeps complaining about parents. OK. Run 0-A on parents. And flatten it! By flatten is meant to use that one subject until the pc is darned sure he or she could now talk to the item chosen. If the pc still wants to abuse the item, it isn't flat. If the pc still wants to do something about the item, it is not flat. When the pc is cheerful about the item or no longer fascinated with it, it's flat. Remember, there's no need to find out what the pc can't talk to. In fact, most cases you're better off just to take an item of your own for 0-A and use it. May seem strange, but you'll have a smoother time of it with the pc. Further you'll not restimulate (churn up) the pc's bank so hard. ROUTINE 0-B The second routine consists of things to talk about. One puts the routine together this way: 1. The auditor makes a list (not from the pc but himself) of everything he can think of that is banned for any reason from conversation or is not generally considered acceptable for social communication. This includes non-social 518 subjects like sexual experiences, W.C. details, embarrassing experiences, thefts one has done, etc. Things nobody would calmly discuss in mixed company. 2. An item from the list is included in the auditing command, "What would you be willing to tell me about _______ ?" Add the item you choose. 3. When they have "run down" (as in clocks) ask them, "Who else could you say those things to?" 4. Rechoose a subject on the list. 5. Repeat 3. 6. Continue to repeat 4. and 5. Above all, don't be critical of the pc. And very calmly hear and seek to understand what the pc said. (You never, by the way, seek to find out why the pc reacted or responded in some way. A real blunder at Level 0 is "Why did you feel that way?" Or "Why do you think you can't say that?" You're not after the causes of things at Level 0. You will find out why at Level VI!) At Level 0, just keep them talking while you listen. And you use only the subject chosen to keep them talking. ROUTINE 0-C Routine 0-C is, of course, old R-1-C renamed. It is done without a meter and it has any subject under the sun included in its command. It is elsewhere covered. In all the above routines it is vital not to alter the commands given above. There are many more possible routines. But to be a Level Zero Routine it must have as its goal only freeing up the ability of the pc to talk freely to others. This is not a level to be regarded with a brush-off. It takes a lot of skill to restore a pc's ability to communicate freely. When an auditor has that skill he will succeed at all higher levels. When a pc has that skill regained, his world will look to him to be a far, far better place. So it is very important to get over this first hurdle. And very important not to dodge it and try to climb the hill anyway. It will become an awfully steep hill. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.cden Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED [This HCO B is corrected by HCO B 26 December 1964, Routine 0-A (Expanded).] 519  L. RON HUBBARD   Type = 11 iDate=26/12/64 Volnum=0 Issue=0 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SCIENTOLOGY ZERO ROUTINE 0-A (EXPANDED)   Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students Sthil Co-audit  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 26 DECEMBER 1964 Remimeo Franchise Sthil Students Sthil Co-audit SCIENTOLOGY ZERO (Corrections to HCO Bulletin of 11 December 1964, "Processes", and to HCO Bulletin of 10 December 1964, "Listen Style Auditing") ROUTINE 0-A (EXPANDED) An additional command increases the usefulness of this routine. It is therefore rewritten as follows: The auditor makes a list of things people generally can't talk to easily. That includes parents, policemen, governments and God. But it's a far longer list. The auditor must compile this list himself or herself out of session. It may be added to by the auditor from time to time. It must never be published as a "canned list". Scientology Instructors and Scientology Personnel should not be listed on it as it leads to upset in sessions. STEP 1. The auditor chooses one of the subjects off the list and uses it in Steps 2 and 3 below until the pc is comfortable about it. Subjects from the list can be chosen in sequence or at random. A chosen subject is not left until the pc is comfortable about it. By this is meant, the pc would not feel disturbed talking to the subject chosen. The auditor does not ask the pc which subject or if it is all right to choose that subject as the pc at the moment of selection is not likely to feel comfortable about any of the listed subjects and so will just reject. No, the auditor just chooses one and starts on it. STEP 2. The auditor asks, "If you could talk to _______ (chosen subject), what would you talk about?" Pc answers one or more things at greater or shorter length. STEP 3. When the pc seems satisfied the question has been answered, the auditor then says, "All right, if you were talking to _______ (chosen subject in 1) about that what would you say, exactly?" The pc is expected to speak as though talking to the subject chosen in 1. STEP 4. The auditor notes whether pc is comfortable about the subject chosen in Step 1, yet without asking pc. This is done by noting the voice tone or text of what the pc would say. If it is shy, diffident, or if it is belligerent or annoyed, the same subject is retained for a new go with Steps 2 and 3. If the pc seems bright and cheerful, a new subject is chosen from the list for a working over with Steps 2 and 3. If the subject in 1 is retained, the auditor again does Steps 2 and 3 above over and over until the pc is cheerful. A subject chosen in 1 is not left until the pc really can respond cheerfully. When this is accomplished, a new subject is chosen as Step 1 and the process is continued with Steps 2 and 3 using the new subject. The whole of Routine 0-A is flat when the pc feels far more comfortable about talking to specific items and isn't shying off from items on the list. It is flat, therefore, when an ability is regained on specific items on the list and the list items aren't producing big new changes in the pc's communication ability. 520 LISTEN STYLE CO-AUDIT It is expected that by the time an auditor is permitted to do the Zero Routines, Individual Listen Style will have been entered upon. Until the class seems able to run individual sessions, old "R-1-C" can be used by the auditing supervisor on a group basis using Listen Style Co-audit until the group has the idea of sessions. Routines work best on Individual Listen Style. The pc is always wondering, in Listen Style Co-audit, if the auditing supervisor is listening to him personally. The auditor is not the receipt point of the pc's comm in many instances. Old R-1-C is the best training mechanism to get auditors to run sessions. In this process the auditing supervisor just chooses something for all the pcs to talk to the auditors about, like a dynamic or a common social problem. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.rd Copyright $c 1964 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 521  L. RON HUBBARD