B O A R D   P O L I C Y   L E T T E R
26 JANUARY 1972R
ISSUE V
REVISED AND REISSUED 11 OCTOBER 1974 AS BPL
Remimeo
Scn Orgs	CANCELS
Academies	HCO POLICY LETTER OF 26 JANUARY 1972
Level 1	ISSUE V
Students	SAME TITLE

SCIENTOLOGY  LEVEL  1  STANDARD

ACADEMY CHECKSHEET

( HTS )  Hubbard  Trained  Scientologist

	THIS COURSE CONTAINS KNOWLEDGE  VITAL TO SUCCESSFUL LIVING .

PREREQUISITE:	Provisional Class 0.  (The student must also have completed Word Clearing Method No. 1 with all words taken to F/N, and have done the Applied Scholastics Basic Study Manual (unless the student has already done a non-superliterate Student Hat or PRD and M1 with each word fully cleared to F/N.)

ORGANIZATION:_____________________________

STUDENT’S NAME:__________________________ POST:___________________

DATE STARTED:____________________ DATE COMPLETED:______________

	This checksheet contains the vital survival knowledge of Scientology  Level One technology.

REQUIREMENTS: 

	Full Study Tech is to be used throughout this course.  Standard classroom Word Clearing methods are required.  The course is done fast flow per HCO PL 31 Aug 74 Issue II  Fast Flow Training Reinstated.

CERTIFICATE: 

	Completion of this checksheet entitles you to a “Provisional Hubbard Trained  Scientologist Certificate”.  A Provisional Certificate is only valid for one year at which time it must be validated.

	When you have completed through to Class IV training you should Intern in this Organization under the professional guidance of our Technical Experts.  When you can then apply the processes of the grade flublessly you will be awarded your full permanent Hubbard Trained Scientologist Certificate.

	For Classification a minimum of completing one person on the Expanded Grade is required.  This is best done on a 3 way Co-Audit where student A audit student B who audits student C who audits student A.

	Study the data in checksheet order.  Do not go past a word you do not understand.  Use a dictionary and for Scientology (R) terms,  use a Scientology dictionary and refer to the Symbols and Definitions list (HCOB 23 Aug 65 - Abbreviations and Symbols of Dianetics (R) and Scientology).

	*  = 100% knowledge of and understanding and ability to apply.

	Not starred = read and listened to the data and understanding of.

	A demonstration of any of the materials may be requested to give you full understanding of them.

	The checksheet is one time through materials and practical.

	Academy Zero Checksheet has been done.	_________

A. 	ORIENTATION SECTION:

	*	HCO PL  15 Jun 70 	Keeping Scientology Working							*	HCO PL  17 Jun 70 	Technical Degrades						

B. 	BOOKS - To be read by end of Course.

	Problems of Work							
	Control & Mechanics of SCS						

C. 	CLAY

	*	1. 	What a Stable Datum is.						
	*	2. 	How it is that Control is composed of Start, Change 
		and Stop.							

D. 	CHARTS

	BPL  25 Jun 70R 	Classification & Gradation Chart 
		1974 Level 1 Section						

E. 	SCALES:

	*	HCOB  18 Sep 67R 	Scales
		Rev. 4 April 74						

F. 	CODES:

	*	HCO PL  14 Oct 68 	Auditor’s Code AD 18						
	*	HCO PL  2 Nov 66 	Auditor’s Code AD 18
			Addition						
	*	HCO PL  5 Feb 69 	Press Policy Code of a Scientologist 						

G. 	TA:

	*	HCOB  1 Oct 63 	How to Get Tone Arm Motion						
	*	HCOB  18 Mar 74 	E-Meter Sensitivity Errors						

H.		F/N DATA:

	*	HCOB  20 Feb 70 	Floating Needles and EP						
	*	HCOB  14 Mar 71 	F/N Everything						
	*	HCOB  21 Mar 74 	End Phenomena

I. 		PRACTICAL:

	*	HCOB  16 Aug 71 	Training Drills Modernized						
	*	HCOB  1 Oct 65 	Mutter TR						
	*	HCOB  24 May 68 	Coaching						
	*	HCOB  29 Jun 62 	How to Acknowledge						
	*	HCOB  29 Sep 65 	Cyclical & Non-Cyclical	
			Process Conclusions						
	*	HCOB  7 May 68 	Upper Indoc TRs						
	BTB  22 May 71 	TR 8 Clarification Revised						

J.	TRs:    (HCOB  16 Aug 71  Training Drills Modernized)

TAPE:  Listen to an LRH Tape Demo of an Auditing Session before and while drilling each TR. Listen specifically for the aspects of TR 0 (presence), TR 1, TR 2, TR 3, and TR 4 for each TR as you get to it.

	*	OT TR 0							*	TR 4						
	*	TR 0							*	TR 6						
	*	TR 0 BB							*	TR 7						
	*	TR 1							*	TR 8						
	*	TR 2							*	TR 9						
	*	TR 3							*	Mutter TR						

K. 	METER DRILLS:

	From the Book of E-Meter Drills

	1.							10.							19.						2.							11.							20.					
	3.							12.							21.					
	4.							13.							
	5.							14.								
	6.							15.							
	7.							16.								
	8.							17.							
	9.							18.								

L.	TAPES:

 	*	13 Oct 64 	Cycles of Action 						
 	*	29 Aug 65 	Basics of Auditing 						
 	CLAY DEMO:
 	1. 	The mechanics of a Cycle of Action.						
 	2. 	Session Control vs No Session Control.	
 		and what happens in the pc’s bank. 						

M. 	AUDITOR MUST NOTS:

	*	HCOB  7 Apr 64 	All Levels Q&A						 	*	HCOB  7 May 69 	5 GAEs						

N. 	PC DATA:

	*	HCOB  3 Mar 69 	Case Gain Completing Levels						
	*	HCOB  30 Apr 69 	Auditor Trust						
	BPL  25 Jun 70R 	Expanded Lower Grades Chart 
		of Abilities Gained
			(Level 1 Section)						 	*	HCOB  16 Jun 70 	C/S Series 6 What the C/S
		is doing						
	CLAY DEMO:  The full End Phenomena of Grade 1 
	Ability Attained.								
O. 	STYLES OF AUDITING

	*	HCOB  28 Feb 59 	Analysis of Cases						
	*	HCOB  6 Nov 64 	Styles of Auditing						

P. 	MODEL SESSION:

	*	BTB  18 Nov 68R 	Model Session						
		Revised 9 Jun 74
	*	BTB  2 May 72R 	Clearing Commands						
		Revised 10 June 74

Q. 	PROCESSES FOR LEVEL 1:

NOTE: See HCOB  17 Mar 74   TWC Checksheets TWC, Using Wrong Questions - before studying, drilling and running the processes.

	BTB  6 Jan 72R 	O-IV Expanded Grade
		Processes Part C - Grade
		1 Processes						
	USE:    BTB  9 Oct 71R  	Rev. 10 June 74
		Drills for Auditors
		Level 1 Drills
	CCHs:

	*	TAPE:   22 June 61 	Running CCHs							*	HCOB  12 Aug 62 	CCH Answers							*	HCOB  7 Aug 62 	CCHs More Info							*	BTB  12 Sep 63 	CCH Data						 	*	HCOB  11 Jun 57 	Training & CCH Processes						
		Reissued 12 May 72			
	CLAY DEMO: The purpose of CCHs and how it is accomplished.					
	DRILL: 	TR 100-1 						
		TR 100-2						
		TR 100-3						
		TR 100-4						
		TR 100-5 						
		TR 100-6 						
		TR 100-7 						
		TR 100-8 						
		TR 100-9 						
		TR 100-10 						
		TR 100-11 						
		TR 100-12 						
		TR 100-13 						
		TR 100-14						

OBJECTIVES

	*	BOOK:   	Creation of Human Ability - R2-67 Objects						
	DRILL:  	TR 100-15 							
		TR 100-16							
	*	PAB 153    (1 Feb 59) 	3 Part Locational						
	DRILL:	TR 100-17 							
		TR 100-18							
	*	BOOK: 	Creation of Human Ability - R2-17 Op Pro by Dup						
	*	HCOB  4 Feb 59 	Op Pro by Dup						
	BTB 24 Oct 71 Op Pro By Dup EP .
	DRILL: 	TR 100-19 							
		TR 100-20							

	START CHANGE STOP

	*	HCOB   2 Feb 61 	UK Cases Different						
		Issue I Clear Procedure
	*	PAB 87							
	DRILL: 	TR 100-21 							
		TR 100-22							

	CONTROL TRIO:

	*	PAB 137							
	*	PAB 146							
	DRILL: 	TR 100-23 							
		TR 100-24							

	GOALS:
	
	*	PAB 137							
	*	PAB 146							
	DRILL: 	TR 100-25							
		TR 100-26							

	OPENING PROCEDURE    SOP 8C:
	
	*	PAB 34							
 	*	BOOK:   	Creation of Human Ability - R2-16						
	DRILL: 	TR 100-27							
		TR 100-28							

	HELP PROCESSES:

	*	HCOB  5 May 60 	Help						
	DRILL: 	TR 100-29							
		TR 100-30							
	
	LOWER DICHOTOMY OF HELP OR TWO WAY FAILED HELP:

	*	HCOB  3 Nov 60 	Failed Help						
	DRILL: 	TR 100-31							
		TR 100-32							
	
	FORMULA 16:
	
	*	HCOB  10 Nov 60 	Formula 13						
	*	HCOB  15 Dec 60 	Pre-Session 37						
	DRILL: 	TR 100-33							
		TR 100-34							
	
	FORMULA 17:
			
	*	HCOB  15 Dec 60 	Presession 37							*	HCOB  3 Nov 60 	Failed Help						
	DRILL: 	TR 100-35							
		TR 100-36							

	FIVE WAY CONCEPT HELP:

	*	HCOB  14 July 60 	Concept Help						
	DRILL: 	TR 100-37							
		TR 100-38							

	CONCEPT HELP:
	 
	*	HCOB  14 Jul 60 	Concept Help						
	DRILL: 	TR 100-39							
		TR 100-40							

	HELP O/W:

	*	HCOB  12 May 60 	Help Processing						
	DRILL: 	TR 100-41							
		TR 100-42							

	FIVE WAY BRACKET HELP:

	*	HCOB  5 Nov 65 	5 Way Bracket on Help						
	DRILL: 	TR 100-43							
		TR 100-44							

	RUNNING HELP ON AN ITEM:

	*	HCOB  28 Jul 58 	Clear Procedure						
	*	HCOB  7 Jul 60 	The Assessment on Help						
	DRILL: 	TR 100-45							
		TR 100-46							
	
	REGIMEN TWO:

	*	HCOB  26 Aug 60 	Regimen Two						
	DRILL: 	TR 100-47							
		TR 100-48							

	FORMULA 20:

	*	HCOB  2 Mar 61 	Formula 20 						
	DRILL: 	TR 100-49 							
		TR 100-50							

	PROBLEMS PROCESSES:

	*	TAPE:   21 April 64 	Problems and Solutions						

	CLAY DEMOS:

	1. 	Demonstrate a problem.						
	2. 	Demonstrate why a pc makes no gain when he has a PTP.						

	INVENT PROBLEMS PROCESS

	*	HCOB  11 Jan 59 	An Amusingly Effective Process						
	DRILL: 	TR 100-51							
		TR 100-52							

	HAS V - GRADE I PROCESS:

	*	HCOB  19 Jan 61 	Additional HAS PROCESSES						
	DRILL: 	TR 100-53							
		TR 100-54							

	PROBLEMS PROCESSES FOR PTPs:

	*	HCOB  16 Dec 57 	Present Time Problem 						
	*	HCOB  1 Mar 58 	“Processes”						
	DRILL: 	TR 100-55							
		TR 100-56							

	PROBLEMS PROCESS:

	*	HCOB  31 Mar 60 	The PTP						
	DRILL: 	TR 100-57							
		TR 100-58							

	PROBLEM OF COMPARABLE MAGNITUDE:

	*	HCOB  15 Dec 57 	Present Time Problem						
	*	HCOB  1 Mar 58 	“Processes”						
	DRILL: 	TR 100-55							
		TR 100-60							

	ROUTINE 1A PROBLEMS PROCESS:

	*	HCOB  6 July 61 	Routine 1A						
	DRILL: 	TR 100-61							
		TR 100-62							

	SOLUTION TO SOLUTIONS:

	*	HCOB  3 May 59 	Solution to Solutions						
	DRILL: 	TR 100-63							
		TR 100-64							

	USE OF PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS:

	*	BOOK:      Creation of Human Ability - R2-20						
	DRILL: 	TR 100-65							
		TR 100-66							

	PREPCHECK DATA:

	*	HCOB  14 Aug 64 	Prepcheck Buttons 						
	*	HCOB  9 Sep 63 	Repetitive Rudiments &
		Repetitive Prepchecking						
	*	HCOB  27 May 70 	Unreading Questions & Items						
	*	TAPE:   3 Oct 61 	The Prior Confusion						
	CLAY DEMO:   The Prior Confusion & the Problem.						

	PROBLEMS INTENSIVE:

	*	HCOB  27 Sep 62 	Problems Intensive Use						
	*	TAPE:  11 Oct 61 	Problems Intensive						
	DRILL: 	TR 100-67							
		TR 100-68							

	LEVEL 1 TRIPLE: 

	*	BTB  6 Jan 72R 	Expanded Grade 1 Processes						
		(Level 1 Triple) 
	DRILL: 	TR 100-69							
		TR 100-70							

	HAVINGNESS:

	*	BTB  6 Jan 72R 	Expanded Grade 1 Processes						
		(Havingness ) 
	DRILL: 	TR 100-71
		TR 100-72

R.	AUDITING SECTION
	
	AUDIT A MINIMUM OF ONE PERSON TO EXPANDED 
	GRADE 1 RELEASE												
STUDENT ATTEST : _________________________  DATE: ____________________

ACADEMY  C/S : ____________________________  DATE: ____________________

S.      STUDENT COMPLETION

	I have completed the requirements of this checksheet and I know and can apply this material.

STUDENT ATTEST : _______________________  DATE:  ____________________

T.	SUPERVISOR

	I have trained this student to the best of my ability and he/she has completed the requirements of this checksheet and knows and can 	apply the checksheet data.

SUPERVISOR : ____________________________  DATE:  ____________________

U.      STUDENT ATTEST AT C&A 

	I attest :

	A.	I have enroled on the course.

	B.	I have paid for the course.

	C.	I have studied and understand all the materials 
                    	on the checksheet.

	D.	I have done all the drills on this checksheet.

	E.	I can produce an Expanded Grade 0 Release.

STUDENT ATTEST : ________________________  DATE:  ___________________

C&A :  _______________________________________

V.	CERTS AND AWARDS

	Provisional Class 1 Certificate issued.

C&A : _____________________________________  DATE:  ____________________

Route to Course Admin for filing in the students folder.

Training and Services Aide

Revised by
W/O Ron Shafran, CS-4
and Flag Mission 1234

Reissued as BPL
by Flag Mission 1234
I/C:  CPO Andrea Lewis
2nd:  Molly Harlow

Authorised by AVU

for the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
of the 
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:HH:BW:RS:AL:MH:mh
Copyright © 1972, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD  COMMUNICATIONS  OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 FEBRUARY 1965
REISSUED 15 JUNE 1970
Remimeo                                       (Corrected per Flag Issue 28.1.73)
Sthil Students
Assn/Org Sec Hat
HCO Sec Hat
Case Sup Hat
Ds of P Hat
Ds of T Hat
Staff Member Hat
Franchise
(issued May 1965)

Note:     Neglect of this Pol Ltr has caused great hardship on staffs, has cost countless millions and made it necessary in 1970 to engage in an all out International effort to restore basic Scientology over the world. Within 5 years after the issue of this PL with me off the lines, violation had almost destroyed orgs. “Quickie grades” entered in and denied gain to tens of thousands of cases. Therefore actions which neglect or violate this Policy Letter are HIGH CRIMES resulting in Comm Evs on ADMINISTRATORS and EXECUTIVES. It is not “entirely a tech matter” as its neglect destroys orgs and caused a 2 year slump. IT IS THE BUSINESS OF EVERY STAFF MEMBER to enforce it. 

ALL LEVELS

KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING
HCO Sec or Communicator Hat Check
on all personnel and new personnel
as taken on.

	We have some time since passed the point of achieving uniformly workable technology. 

	The only thing now is getting the technology applied. 

	If you can’t get the technology applied then you can’t deliver what’s promised. It’s as simple as that. If you can get the technology applied, you can deliver what’s promised. 

	The only thing you can be upbraided for by students or pcs is “no results”. Trouble spots occur only where there are “no results”. Attacks from governments or monopolies occur only where there are “no results” or “bad results”. 

	Therefore the road before Scientology is clear and its ultimate success is assured if the technology is applied. 

	So it is the task of the Assn or Org Sec, the HCO Sec, the Case Supervisor, the D of P, the D of T and all staff members to get the correct technology applied. 

Getting the correct technology applied consists of: 

One: Having the correct technology. 
Two: Knowing the technology. 

Three: Knowing it is correct. 

Four: Teaching correctly the correct technology. 

Five: Applying the technology. 
Six: Seeing that the technology is correctly applied. 

Seven: Hammering out of existence incorrect technology. 

Eight: Knocking out incorrect applications.

Nine: Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology. 

Ten: Closing the door on incorrect application. 

One above has been done. 

Two has been achieved by many. 

Three is achieved by the individual applying the correct technology in a proper manner and observing that it works that way. 

Four is being done daily successfully in most parts of the world. 

Five is consistently accomplished daily. 

Six is achieved by instructors and supervisors consistently. 

Seven is done by a few but is a weak point. 

Eight is not worked on hard enough. 

Nine is impeded by the “reasonable” attitude of the not quite bright. 

Ten is seldom done with enough ferocity. 

Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten are the only places Scientology can bog down in any area. 

	The reasons for this are not hard to find. (a) A weak certainty that it works in Three above can lead to weakness in Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. (b) Further, the not-too-bright have a bad point on the button Self-Importance. (c) The lower the IQ, the more the individual is shut off from the fruits of observation. (d) The service facs of people make them defend themselves against anything they confront good or bad and seek to make it wrong. (e) The bank seeks to knock out the good and perpetuate the bad. 

	Thus, we as Scientologists and as an organization must be very alert to Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten.
 
	In all the years I have been engaged in research I have kept my comm lines wide open for research data. I once had the idea that a group could evolve truth. A third of Century has thoroughly disabused me of that idea. Willing as I was to accept suggestions and data, only a handful of suggestions (less than twenty) had long run value and none were major or basic; and when I did accept major or basic suggestions and used them, we went astray and I repented and eventually had to “eat crow”. 

	On the other hand there have been thousands and thousands of suggestions and writings which, if accepted and acted upon, would have resulted in the complete destruction of all our work as well as the sanity of pcs. So I know what a group of people will do and how insane they will go in accepting unworkable “technology”. By actual record the percentages are about twenty to 100,000 that a group of human beings will dream up bad technology to destroy good technology. As we could have gotten along without suggestions, then, we had better steel ourselves to continue to do so now that we have made it. This point will, of course, be attacked as “unpopular” “egotistical” and “undemocratic”. It very well may be. But it is also a survival point And I don’t see that popular measures, self- abnegation and democracy have done anything for Man but push him further into the mud. Currently, popularity endorse degraded novels, self- abnegation has filled the South East Asian jungles with stone idols and corpses, and democracy has given us inflation and income tax. 

	Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the group had no supported me in many ways I could not have discovered it either. But it remains that  in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts, one can safely assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future. I can only say this now that it is done. There remains, of course, group tabulation or co-ordination of what has been done, which will be valuable-only so long as it does not seek to alter basic principles and successful applications. 

	The contributions that were worth while in this period of forming the technology were help in the form of friendship, of defence, of organization, of dissemination, of application, of advices on results and of finance. These were great contributions and were, and are, appreciated. Many thousands contributed in this way and made us what we are. Discovery contribution was not however part of the broad picture. 

	We will not speculate here on why this was so or how I came to rise above the bank. We are dealing only in facts and the above is a fact-the group left to its own devices would not have evolved Scientology but with wild dramatization of the bank called “new ideas” would have wiped it out. Supporting this is the fact that Man has never before evolved workable mental technology and emphasizing it is the vicious technology he did evolve-psychiatry, psychology, surgery, shock treatment, whips, duress, punishment, etc, ad infinitum. 

	So realize that we have climbed out of the mud by whatever good luck and good sense, and refuse to sink back into it again. See that Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten above are ruthlessly followed and we will never be stopped. Relax them, get reasonable about it and we will perish. 

	So far, while keeping myself in complete communication with all suggestions, I have not failed on Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten in areas I could supervise closely. But it’s not good enough for just myself and a few others to work at this. 

	Whenever this control as per Seven, Eight. Nine and Ten has been relaxed the whole organizational area has failed. Witness Elizabeth, N.l., Wichita, the early organizations and groups. They crashed only because I no longer did Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. Then, when they were all messed up you saw the obvious “reasons” for failure. But ahead of that they ceased to deliver and that involved them in other reasons. 

	The common denominator of a group is the reactive bank. Thetans without banks have different responses. They only have their banks in common. They agree then only on bank principles. Person to person the bank is identical. So constructive ideas are individual and seldom get broad agreement in a human group. An individual must rise above an avid craving for agreement from a humanoid group to get anything decent done. The bank-agreement has been what has made Earth a Hell-and if you were looking for Hell and found Earth, it would certainly serve. War, famine, agony and disease has been the lot of Man. Right now the great governments of Earth have developed the means of frying every Man, Woman and Child on the planet. That is Bank. That is the result of Collective Thought Agreement. The decent, pleasant things on this planet come from individual actions and ideas that have somehow gotten by the Group Idea. For that matter, look how we ourselves are attacked by “public opinion” media. Yet there is no more ethical group on this planet than ourselves. 

	Thus each one of us can rise above the domination of the bank and then, as a group of freed beings, achieve freedom and reason. It is only the aberrated group, the mob, that is destructive. 

	When you don’t do Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten actively, you are working for the Bank dominated mob. For it will surely, surely (a) introduce incorrect technology and swear by it, (b) apply technology as incorrectly as possible, (c) open the door to any destructive idea, and (d) encourage incorrect application. 

	It’s the Bank that says the group is all and the individual nothing. It’s the Bank that says we must fail. 

	So just don’t play that tune. Do Seven. Eight, Nine and Ten and you will knock out of your road all the future thorns. 

	Here’s an actual example in which a senior executive had to interfere because of a pc spin:   A Case Supervisor told Instructor A to have Auditor B run Process X on Preclear C. Auditor B afterwards told Instructor A that “It didn’t work.” Instructor A was weak on Three above and didn’t really believe in Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. So Instructor A told the Case Supervisor “Process X didn’t work on Preclear C.” Now this strikes directly at each of One to Six above in Preclear C, Auditor B, Instructor A and the Case Supervisor. It opens the door to the introduction of “new technology” and to failure. 

	What happened here? Instructor A didn’t jump down Auditor B’s throat, that’s all that happened. This is what he should have done: Grabbed the Auditor’s report and looked it over, When a higher executive on this case did so she found what the Case Supervisor and the rest missed: that. Process X increased Preclear C’s TA to 25 TA divisions for the session but that near session end Auditor B Qed and Aed with a cognition and abandoned Process X while it still gave high TA and went off running one of Auditor B’s own manufacture, which nearly spun Preclear C. Auditor B’s IQ on examination turned out to be about 75. Instructor A was found to have huge ideas of how you must never invalidate anyone, even a lunatic. The Case Supervisor was found to be “too busy with admin to have any time for actual cases”. 

	All right, there’s an all too typical example. The Instructor should have done Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. This would have begun this way. Auditor B: “That process X didn’t work.” Instructor A: “What exactly did you do wrong?” Instant attack. “Where’s your auditor’s report for the session? Good. Look here, you were getting a lot of TA when you stopped Process X. What did you do?” Then the Pc wouldn’t have come close to a spin and all four of these would have retained certainty. 

	In a year, I had four instances in one small group where the correct process recommended was reported not to have worked. But on review found that each one had (a) increased the TA, (b) had been abandoned, and (c) had been falsely reported as unworkable. Also, despite this abuse, in each of these four cases the recommended, correct process cracked the case. Yet they were reported as not having worked! 

	Similar examples exist in instruction and these are all the more deadly as every time instruction in correct technology is flubbed, then the resulting error, uncorrected in the auditor, is perpetuated on every pc that auditor audits thereafter. So Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten are even more important in a course than in supervision of cases. 

	Here’s an example: A rave recommendation is given a graduating student “because he gets more TA on pcs than any other student on the course!” Figures of 435 TA divisions a session are reported. “Of course his model session is poor but it’s just knack he has” is also included in the recommendation. A careful review is undertake because nobody at levels O to IV is going to get that much TA on pcs. It is found that this student was never taught to read an E-Meter dial! And no instructor observed his handling of a meter and it was not discovered that he “overcompensated” nervously swinging the TA 2 or 3 divisions beyond where it needed to go to place the needle at “set”. So everyone was about to throw away standard processes and model session because this one student “got such remarkable TA”. They only read the reports and listened to the brags and never looked at this student. The pcs in actual fact were making slightly less than average gain, impeded by a rough model session and misworded processes. Thus, what was making the pcs win (actual Scientology) was hidden under a lot of departures and errors. 
	I recall one student who was squirreling on an Academy course and running a lot of off-beat whole track on other students after course hours. The academy students were in a state of electrification on all these new experiences and weren’t quickly brought under control and the student himself never was given the works on Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten so they stuck. Subsequently, this student prevented another squirrel from being straightened out and his wife died of cancer resulting from physical abuse. A hard, tough instructor at that moment could have salvaged two squirrels and saved the life of a girl. But no, students had a right to do whatever they pleased. 

	Squirreling (going off into weird practices or altering Scientology) only comes about from non-comprehension. Usually the non-comprehension is not of Scientology but some earlier contact with an off-beat humanoid practice which in its turn was not understood. 

	When people can’t get results from what they think is standard practice, they can be counted upon to squirrel to some degree. The most trouble in the past two years came from orgs where an executive in each could not assimilate straight Scientology under instruction in Scientology they were unable to define terms or demonstrate examples of principles. And the orgs where they were got into plenty of trouble. And worse, it could not be straightened out easily because neither one of these people could or would duplicate instructions. hence, a debacle resulted in two places, directly traced to failures of instruction earlier. So proper instruction is vital. The D of T and his Instructors and all Scientology Instructors must be merciless in getting Four, Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten into effective action. That one student, dumb and impossible though he may seem and of no use to anyone, may yet some day be the cause of untold upset because nobody was interested enough to make sure Scientology got home to him. 

	With what we know now, there is no student we enrol who cannot be properly trained. As an instructor, one should be very alert to slow progress and should turn the sluggards inside out personally. No system will do it, only you or me with our sleeve rolled up can crack the back of bad studenting and we can only do it on an individual student, never on a whole class only. He’s slow = something is awful wrong. Take fast action to correct it. Don’t wait until next week. By then he’s got other messes stuck to him. If you can’t graduate them with their good sense appealed to and wisdom shining graduate them in such a state of shock they’ll have nightmares if they contemplate squirreling. Then experience will gradually bring about Three in them and they’ll know better than to chase butterflies when they should be auditing. 

	When somebody enrols, consider he or she has joined up for the duration of the universe- never permit an “open-minded” approach. If they’re going to quit let then quit fast. If they enroled, they’re aboard, and if they’re aboard, they’re here on the same terms as the rest of us- win or die in the attempt. Never let them be half-minded about being Scientologists. The finest organizations in history have been tough dedicated organizations. Not one namby-pamby bunch of panty-waist dilettantes have ever made anything. It’s a tough universe. The social veneer makes it seem mild. But only the tigers survive-and even they have a hard time. We’ll survive because we are tough and are dedicated. When we do instruct somebody properly he becomes more and more tiger. When we instruct half-mindedly and are afraid to offend, scared to enforce, we don’t make students into good Scientologists and that let’s everybody down. When Mrs. Pattycake comes to us to be taught, turn that wandering doubt in he eye into a fixed, dedicated glare and she’ll win and we’ll all win. Humour her and we all die a little. The proper instruction attitude is, “You’re here so you’re a Scientologist Now we’re going to make you into an expert auditor no matter what happens. We’d rather have you dead that incapable.” Fitting that into the economics of the situation and lack of adequate time and you see the cross we have to bear. 

	But we won’t have to bear it forever. The bigger we get the more economics and time we will have to do our job. And the only things which can prevent us from getting that big fast are areas in from One to Ten. Keep those in mind and we’ll be able to grow. Fast. And as we grow our shackles will be less and less. Failing to keep One to  Ten, will make us grow less. 

	So the ogre which might eat us up is not the government or the High Priests. It’s our possible failure to retain and practise our technology. 

	An Instructor or Supervisor or Executive must challenge with ferocity instances of “unworkability”. They must uncover what did happen, what was run and what was done or not done.                        

	If you have One and Two, you can only acquire Three for all by making sure of all the rest. 

	We’re not playing some minor game in Scientology. It isn’t cute or something to do for lack of something better. 

	The whole agonized future of this planet, every Man, Woman and Child on it, and your own destiny for the next endless trillions of years depends on what you do here and now with and in Scientology. 

	This is a deadly serious activity. And if we miss getting out of the trap now, we may never again have another chance. 

	Remember, this is a our first chance to do so in all the endless trillions of years of the past. Don’t muff it now because it seems unpleasant or unsocial to do Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. 

	Do them and we’ll win.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:nt.rd 
Copyright © 1965, 1970 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 17 JUNE 1970

Remimeo
Applies to all
SHs and	URGENT AND
Academies	IMPORTANT
Franchises

TECHNICAL DEGRADES

(This PL and HCO PL Feb 7, 1965 must be made part of every study pack as the first items and must be listed on checksheets. )

Any checksheet in use or in stock which carries on it any degrading statement must be destroyed and issued without qualifying statements.

Example: Level 0 to IV Checksheets SH carry “A. Background Material—This section is included as an historical background, but has much interest and value to the student. Most of the processes are no longer used, having been replaced by more modern technology. The student is only required to read this material and ensure he leaves no misunderstood.” This heading covers such vital things as TRs, Op Pro by Dup! The statement is a falsehood.

These checksheets were not approved by myself, all the material of the Academy and SH courses IS in use.

Such actions as this gave us “Quickie Grades”, ARC Broke the field and downgraded the Academy and SH Courses.

A condition of TREASON or cancellation of certificates or dismissal and a full investigation of the background of any person found guilty, will be activated in the case of anyone committing the following HIGH CRIMES.

1. 	Abbreviating an official Course in Dianetics and Scientology so as to lose the full theory, processes and effectiveness of the subjects.

2. 	Adding comments to checksheets or instructions labelling any material “background” or “not used now” or “old” or any similar action which will result in the student not knowing, using, and applying the data in which he is being trained.

3. 	Employing after 1 Sept 1970 any checksheet for any course not authorized by myself and the SO Organizing Bureau Flag.

4. 	Failing to strike from any checksheet remaining in use meanwhile any such comments as “historical”, “background”, “not used”, “old”, etc. or VERBALLY STATING IT TO STUDENTS.

5. 	Permitting a pc to attest to more than one grade at a time on the pc’s own determinism without hint or evaluation.

6. 	Running only one process for a grade between 0 to IV.

7. 	Failing to use all processes for a level.

8. 	Boasting as to speed of delivery in a session, such as “I put in Grade zero in 3 minutes.” Etc.

9. 	Shortening time of application of auditing for financial or laborsaving considerations.

10. 	Acting in any way calculated to lose the technology of Dianetics and Scientology to use or impede its use or shorten its materials or its application.

REASON: The effort to get students through courses and get pcs processed in orgs was considered best handled by reducing materials or deleting processes from grades. The pressure exerted to speed up student completions and auditing completions was mistakenly answered by just not delivering.

The correct way to speed up a student’s progress is by using 2 way comm and applying the study materials to students.

The best way to really handle pcs is to ensure they make each level fully before going on to the next and repairing them when they do not.

The puzzle of the decline of the entire Scientology network in the late 60s is entirely answered by the actions taken to shorten time in study and in processing by deleting materials and actions.

Reinstituting full use and delivery of Dianetics and Scientology is the answer to any recovery.

The product of an org is well taught students and thoroughly audited pcs. When the product vanishes, so does the org. The orgs must survive for the sake of this planet.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:nt.rd 
Copyright © 1970 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

B O A R D  P O L I C Y  L E T T E R

25 JUNE 1970 RA

Remimeo                                        REVISED 11 SEPT 1974
OES
Qual Sec                                 Cancels HCO PL 6 Apr ‘70 Issue II
C&A                                          Scientology Release Attestation
C/Ses                                        Form which referred to cancelled
                                                         (HCO PL 14 Mar ‘68.)

EXPANDED LOWER GRADES

CHART OF ABILITIES GAINED

Ref: C/S Series 93 New Grade Chart

	This chart is used by the examiner when a pc is sent for “Declare?” on a grade. 

	The examiner first checks the pc’s auditing folder to see that every process of a Grade being attested to has been run to true End Phenomena for each process. 

	He then puts the pc on the meter noting TA and needle behaviour. 

	The PC then makes a statement to the examiner which indicates that the pc actually made the end result of a Grade. 

	The examiner gets the pc to state what ability he has attained. 

	The pc may not state the exact wording on the Grade Chart but must attest to the ability gained as written as well.

LEVEL                             			ABILITY GAINED

GROUP PROCESSES                   		Awareness that change is 									available

LIFE REPAIR                       			Awareness of truth and the way
                                  				to personal freedom

ARC STRAIGHTWIRE                  		Knows he/she won’t get any 									worse

DIANETIC CASE COMPLETION		A well and happy human being

GRADE O COMMUNICATIONS  		Ability to communicate freely
RELEASE					with anyone on any subject

GRADE I, PROBLEMS RELEASE		Ability to recognize the source
                                  				of problems and make them 									vanish

GRADE II, RELIEF RELEASE         	Relief from the hostilities and
                                  				sufferings of life

GRADE III, FREEDOM RELEASE 		Freedom from the upsets of the
                                  				past and ability to face the future

GRADE IV, ABILITY RELEASE      	Moving out of fixed conditions 								and gaining abilities to do new 								things

Revised by 
Training & Services Aide

Approved by

L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER

BDCS:LRH:RS:rs	for the
Copyright © 1971, 1974	BOARDS OF DIRECTOTRS
by L. Ron Hubbard	of the 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 OCTOBER 1968R
REVISED 1 JANUARY 1976
Remimeo
Auditor 43
Class VIII

THE AUDITOR’S CODE

In celebration of the 100% gains attainable by Standard Tech.

I hereby promise as an Auditor to follow the Auditor’s Code.

1. 	I promise not to evaluate for the preclear or tell him what he should think about his case in session.

2. 	I promise not to invalidate the preclear’s case or gains in or out of session.

3. 	I promise to administer only Standard Tech to a preclear in the standard way.

4. 	I promise to keep all auditing appointments once made.

5. 	I promise not to process a preclear who has not had sufficient rest and who is physically tired.

6. 	I promise not to process a preclear who is improperly fed or hungry.

7. 	I promise not to permit a frequent change of Auditors.

8. 	I promise not to sympathize with a preclear but to be effective.

9. 	I promise not to let the preclear end session on his own determinism but to finish off those cycles I have begun.

10. 	I promise never to walk off from a preclear in session.

11. 	I promise never to get angry with a preclear in session.

12. 	I promise to run every major case action to a floating needle.

13. 	I promise never to run any one action beyond its floating needle.

14. 	I promise to grant beingness to the preclear in session.

15. 	I promise not to mix the processes of Scientology with other practices except when the preclear is physically ill and only medical means will serve.

16. 	I promise to maintain Communication with the preclear and not to cut his comm or permit him to overrun in session.

17. 	I promise not to enter comments, expressions or enturbulence into a session that distract a preclear from his case.

18. 	I promise to continue to give the preclear the process or auditing command when needed in the session.

19. 	I promise not to let a preclear run a wrongly understood command.

20. 	I promise not to explain, justify or make excuses in session for any Auditor mistakes whether real or imagined.

21. 	I promise to estimate the current case state of a preclear only by Standard Case Supervision data and not to diverge because of some imagined difference in the case.

22. 	I promise never to use the secrets of a preclear divulged in session for punishment or personal gain.

23. 	I promise to see that any fee received for processing is refunded following the policies of the Claims Verification Board, if the preclear is dissatisfied and demands it within three months after the processing, the only condition being that he may not again be processed or trained.

24. 	I promise not to advocate Scientology only to cure illness or only to treat the insane, knowing well it was intended for spiritual gain.

25. 	I promise to cooperate fully with the legal organizations of Dianetics and Scientology as developed by L. Ron Hubbard in safeguarding the ethical use and practice of the subject according to the basics of Standard Tech.

26. 	I promise to refuse to permit any being to be physically injured, violently damaged, operated on or killed in the name of “mental treatment”.

27. 	I promise not to permit sexual liberties or violation of the mentally unsound.

28. 	I promise to refuse to admit to the ranks of practitioners any being who is insane.

Auditor:__________________________

Date: ____________________________

Witness:	Place: ___________________________

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:nt.rd 
Copyright © 1968, 1976 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 5 FEBRUARY 1969R
(Revised 15 May 1973)
Remimeo
PRESS POLICY

CODE OF A SCIENTOLOGIST

The Code of a Scientologist as per “The Creation of Human Ability” is withdrawn. It is reissued as follows:

As a Scientologist, I pledge myself to the Code of Scientology for the good of all.

1.	To keep Scientologists, the Public and the Press accurately informed concerning Scientology, the world of Mental Health and Society.

2.	To use the best I know of Scientology to the best of my ability to help my family, friends, groups and the world.

3.	To refuse to accept for processing and to refuse to accept money from any preclear or group I feel I cannot honestly help.

4.	To decry and do all I can to abolish any and all abuses against life and Mankind.

5.	To expose and help abolish any and all physically damaging practices in the field of Mental Health.

6.	To help clean up and keep clean the field of Mental Health.

7.	To bring about an atmosphere of safety and security in the field of Mental Health by eradicating its abuses and brutality.

8.	To support true Humanitarian endeavors in the fields of Human Rights.

9.	To embrace the policy of e(lual JU tice for all.

10. 	To work for freedom of speech in the world .

11. 	To actively decry the suppression of knowledge, wisdom, philosophy or data which would help Mankind.

12. 	To support the freedom of religion.

13. 	To help Scientology orgs and groups ally themselves with public groups.

14. 	To teach Sclentology at a level it can be understood and used by the recipients.

15. 	To stress the freedom to use Scientology as a philosophy in all its applications and variations in the humanities.
	
16. 	To insist upon standard and unvaried Scientology as an applied activity in ethics, processing and administration in Scientology organizations.

17. 	To take my share of responsibility for the impact of Scientology upon the world.

18. 	To increase the numbers and strength of Scientology over the world.

19. 	To set an example of the effectiveness and wisdom of Scientology.

20. 	To make this world a saner, better place.

L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER

LRH:ldm:nt 
Copyright © 1969, 1973 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

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.

l. 	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.

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 Whatsit, 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% 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 21/2 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 21/2 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.

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 2l/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 2l/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.

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.

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.

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.

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 © 1963 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 MARCH 1974
Remimeo

E-METERS
SENSITIVITY ERRORS

An auditor must set the Sensitivity of an E-Meter exactly right for each  pc.

The setting is different for almost every pc.

TOO LOW

Too low a Sensitivity on some pcs (like Sens 5-32) will obscure reads and make them look like ticks. It will obscure an F/N. Whereas a Sens 16-128 will show reads and F/Ns.

A pc can be hindered by the auditor not setting the Sensitivity high enough to show reads and F/Ns. Items are missed as well as F/Ns.

TOO HIGH

When auditing a flying pc or a Clear or OT the auditor who sets the Sensitivity too high gets weird impressions of the case.

“Latent reads” on such a case are common. They aren’t latent at all. What happens is that the F/N is more than a dial wide at high Sensitivity and a started F/N looks like a read as its sweep is stopped by the pin on the right of the dial.

In this way uncharged items are taken up, the case is slowed, overrun and general upsets requiring repairs occur.

On one hand electrode an OT VII sometimes has a 3h dial wide F/N at Sens 5-32.

This would mean a 3/4 dial F/N at Sens 2-32 with two cans.

A Clear sometimes has a floating TA at Sens 32-32 instead of an F/N. He would have to be run at Sens 3-32 two cans to keep him on a dial or detect F/Ns.

This is a very important matter as the auditor will miss F/Ns, think beginning F/Ns are reads and as the Pre-OT is off the dial, miss reads.

Thus uncharged areas are run and charged ones are missed.

The result is very chaotic to repair.

Some lower level pcs also have a need for lower Sensitivity settings.

SUMMARY

Sometimes an easy pc looks very difficult just because of wrong Sensitivity settings.
Set the Sensitivity for the pc for a half dial F/N maximum or minimum.

Don’t get repairs.

Get wins.

LRH:ntm.rd	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1974	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 FEBRUARY 1970
Remimeo
Dn Checksheet
Class VIII
Checksheet
FLOATING NEEDLES AND END PHENOMENA

Now and then you will get a protest from preclears about “floating needles”.

The preclear feels there is more to be done yet the auditor says, “Your needle is floating.”

This is sometimes so bad that in Scientology Reviews one has to Prepcheck the subject of “Floating Needles”.

A lot of by-passed charge can be stirred up which ARC Breaks (upsets) the preclear.

The reason this subject of floating needles gets into trouble is that the auditor has not understood a subject called END PHENOMENA.

END PHENOMENA is defined as “those indicators m the pc and meter which show that a chain or process is ended”. It shows in Dianetics that basic on that chain and flow has been erased, and in Scientology that the pc has been released on that process being run. A new flow or a new process can be embarked upon, of course, when the END PHENOMENA of the previous process is attained.

DIANETICS

Floating needles are only ONE FOURTH OF THE END PHENOMENA in all Dianetic auditing.

Any Dianetic auditing below Power has FOUR DEFINITE REACTIONS IN THE PC WHICH SHOW THE PROCESS IS ENDED.

1. 	Floating needle.
2. 	Cognition.
3. 	Very good indicators (pc happy).
4. 	Erasure of the final picture audited.

Auditors get panicky about overrun. If you go past the End Phenomena the F/N will pack up (cease) and the TA will rise.

BUT that’s if you go past all four parts of the end phenomena, not past a floating needle.

If you watch a needle with care and say nothing but your R3R commands, as it begins to float you will find:

1. 	It starts to float narrowly.
2. 	The pc cognites (What do you know—so that’s . . .) and the float widens.
3. 	Very good indicators come in. And the float gets almost full dial, and
4. 	The picture, if you inquired, has erased and the needle goes full dial.

That is the full End Phenomena of Dianetics.

If the auditor sees a float start, as in 1, and says, “I would like to indicate to you your needle is floating,” he can upset the pc’s bank.

There is still charge. The pc has not been permitted to cognite. VGIs surely won’t appear and a piece of the picture is left.

By being impetuous and fearful of overrun, or just being in a hurry, the auditor’s premature (too soon) indication to the pc suppresses three quarters of the pc’s end phenomena.

SCIENTOLOGY

All this also applies to Scientology auditing.

And all Scientology processes below Power have the same end phenomena.

The 0 to IV Scientology End Phenomena are:

A. 	Floating needle.
B. 	Cognition.
C. 	Very good indicators.
D. 	Release.

The pc goes through these four steps without fail IF PERMITTED TO DO SO.

As Scientology auditing is more delicate than Dianetic auditing, an overrun (F/N vanished and TA rising, requiring “rehab”) can occur more rapidly. Thus the auditor has to be more alert. But this is no excuse to chop off three of the steps of end phenomena.

The same cycle of F/N will occur if the pc is given a chance. On A you get a beginning F/N, on B slightly wider, on C wider still and on D the needle really is floating and widely.

“I would like to indicate to you your needle is floating” can be a chop. Also it’s a false report if it isn’t widely floating and will keep floating.

Pcs who leave session F/N and arrive at Examiner without F/N, or who eventually do not come to session with an F/N have been misaudited. The least visible way is the F/N chop, as described in this session. The most obvious way is to overrun the process. (Running a pc after he has exteriorized will also give a high TA at Examiner.)

In Dianetics, one more pass through is often required to get 1, 2, 3, 4 End Phenomena above.

I know it said in the Auditor’s Code not to by-pass an F/N. Perhaps it should be changed to read “A real wide F/N”. Here it’s a question of how wide is an F/N? However, the problem is NOT difficult.

I follow this rule—I never jolt or interrupt a pc who is still looking inward. In other words, I don’t ever yank his attention over to the auditor. After all, it’s his case we are handling, not my actions as an auditor.

When I see an F/N begin I listen for the pc’s cognition. If it isn’t there, I give the next command due. If it still isn’t there, I give the 2nd command, etc. Then I get the cognition and shut up. The needle floats more widely, VGIs come in, the F/N goes dial wide. The real skill is involved in knowing when to say nothing more.

Then with the pc all bright, all end phenomena in sight (F/N, Cog, VGIs, Erasure or Release, depending on whether it’s Dn or Scn), I say, as though agreeing with the pc, “Your needle is floating.”
DIANETIC ODDITY

Did you know that you could go through a picture half a dozen times, the F/N getting wider and wider without the pc cogniting? This is rare but it can happen once in a hundred. The picture hasn’t been erased yet. Bits of it seem to keep popping in. Then it erases fully and wow, 2, 3 and 4 occur. This isn’t grinding. It’s waiting for the F/N to broaden to cognition.

The pc who complains about F/Ns is really stating the wrong problem. The actual problem was the auditor distracting the pc from cognition by calling attention to himself and the meter a moment too soon.

The pc who is still looking inward gets upset when his attention is jerked outward. Charge is then left in the area. A pc who has been denied his full end phenomena too often will begin to refuse auditing.

Despite all this, one still must not overrun and get the TA up. But in Dianetics an erasure leaves nothing to get the TA up with!

The Scientology auditor has a harder problem with this, as he can overrun more easily. There is a chance of pulling the bank back in. So the problem is more applicable to Scientology as a problem than to Dianetics.

But ALL auditors must realize that the END PHENOMENA of successful auditing is not just an F/N but has 3 more requisites. And an auditor can chop these off.

The mark of the real VIRTUOSO (master) in auditing is his skilled handling of the floating needle.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH.jz.ei.rd 
Copyright © 1970 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 MARCH 1971R
CORRECTED & REISSUED 25 JULY 1973
(Only change being word “by” in para 4 changed to “but”.)
Remimeo
All Levels
F/N EVERYTHING

Whenever an auditor gets a read on an item from Ruds or a prepared list (LIB, L3A, L4B, etc, etc) IT MUST BE CARRIED TO AN F/N.

To fail to do so is to leave the pc with by-passed charge.

When a pc has had several reads on various lists which were none of them carried to F/N, it can occur that he will become upset or depressed without any other apparent reason. As one has DONE the lists without F/Ning each item, one now has the mystery of what is wrong?

The error is reading items from Ruds or prepared lists cleaned to no read but not carried to F/N.

This action (amongst many such refinements) is what makes Flag auditing so smooth and indeed makes it Flag Auditing.

When an auditor first tries this he may well think it is impossible.

Yet it is simplicity itself. If you know bank structure you know it is necessary to find an earlier item if something does not release. What has been found as a read on a prepared list would F/N if it were the basic lock. So if it doesn’t F/N, then there is an earlier (or an earlier or an earlier) lock which is preventing it from F/Ning.

So the RULE:

NEVER WALK OFF FROM A READING ITEM ON A RUDIMENT OR A PREPARED REPAIR LIST BEFORE YOU CARRY IT DOWN (EARLIER SIMILAR) TO AN F/N.

Example: ARC Brk reads. Pc says what it is, Auditor does ARCU CDEI. If no F/N, Auditor asks for an earlier similar ARC Brk, gets it, ARCU CDEI, etc until he gets an F/N.

Example: PTP reads. Carry it E/S (earlier similar) until a PTP F/Ns.

Example: L4B: Has an item been denied you? Reads. Answered. No F/N. Is there an earlier similar denied item? Answered. F/N. Go on to next reading item on the list.

Example: GF assessed once through for reads. The next C/S must take every item on it that read, by 2wc or other process, to an F/N.

So there is a much more general rule:

EVERY ITEM THAT READS MUST F/N.

In Dianetics you get the F/N when you run E/S secondaries or engrams to an erasure, F/N, Cog, VGIs.

In Rudiments, every out rud you get a read on is run E/S to F/N.

On a prepared list you take each read to an F/N or E/S to F/N.

On an LX list you run each flow chain to an F/N.

On GF you get by whatever process an F/N.

On Listing by the Laws of Listing and Nulling, your eventual item listed must F/N.

So another rule:

EVERY MAJOR AND MINOR ACTION MUST BE CARRIED TO AN F/N.

There are NO exceptions.

Any exception leaves by-passed charge on the pc.

Also, every F/N is indicated at the conclusion of the action when cog is obtained.

You take too soon an F/N (first twitch) you cut the cognition and leave by-passed charge (a withheld cognition).

I could take any folder and simply write out the ruds and prepared list reading items and then audit the pc and carry each one to F/N and correct every list so disclosed and wind up with a very shining, cool calm pc.

So “Have reading items been left charged?” would be a key question on a case.

Using lists or ruds on high or low TAs that are not meant for high or low TAs will get you reading items that won’t F/N.

So, another rule:

NEVER TRY TO FLY RUDS OR DO LIB ON A HIGH OR LOW TA.

One can talk the TA down (see HCO B on Talking the TA Down).

Or one can assess L4B.

About the only prepared lists one can assess are the new Hi-Lo TA HCO B 13 Mar 71 and possibly a GF+40 once through for biggest read. The biggest read will have a blowdown on it and can possibly be brought to F/N. If this occurs then one also handles all other items that read.

The most frequent errors in all this are:

Not taking a read earlier similar but just checking it and leaving it as “clean”.

Not using suppress and false on items.

And of course leaving a pc thinking things are still charged by failing to indicate the F/N.

Indicating an F/N before Cog.

Not going back through the folder to handle ruds and items that read but were called “clean” or were simply abandoned.

A pc audited under tension of poor TRs has a hard time and does not F/N sometimes, inviting overrun.

The rules then to happy pcs are:

GOOD TRs.

F/N EVERYTHING FOUND ON RUDS AND LISTS.

AUDIT WITH TA IN NORMAL RANGE OR REPAIR IT SO IT IS IN NORMAL RANGE.

	L. RON HUBBARD
	Founder
LRH:mes.nt.rd	
Copyright © 1971, 1973	
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 MARCH 1974
Remimeo 
AO Auditors 
Class VIII
END PHENOMENA

(Ref: HCO B 20 Feb 1970,
“Floating Needles and End Phenomena”)

Different types of auditing call for different handlings of End Phenomena.

End Phenomena will also vary depending on what you’re running.

The definition of END PHENOMENA is “those indicators in the pc and meter which show that a chain or process is ended”. Misapplication of this definition can result in underrun and overrun processes or actions and the pc snarled up with BPC.

TYPES OF EPs

In Power Processing the auditor waits for a specific  EP and does not indicate an F/N until he has gotten the specific EP for the process. To miss on this in Power is disastrous, thus Power auditors are drilled and drilled on the handling of Power EPs.

In Dianetics, the EP of a chain is erasure, accompanied by an F/N, cognition and good indicators. You wouldn’t necessarily expect rave indicators on a pc in the middle of an assist, under emotional or physical stress until the full assist was completed though. What you would expect is the chain blown with an F/N. Those two things themselves are good indicators. The cognition could simply be “the chain blew”.

In Scientology, End Phenomena vary with what you’re auditing. An ARC Broken pc on an L-1C will peel off charge and come uptone gradually as each reading line is handled. Sometimes it comes in a spectacular huge cog and VVGIs and dial F/N, but that’s usually after charge has been taken off on a gradient. What’s expected is an F/N as that charge being handled moves off.

In Ruds it’s the same idea. When you’ve got your F/N and that charge has moved off, indicate it. Don’t push the pc on and on for some “EP”. You’ve got it.

Now a major grade process will run to F/N, Cog, VGIs and release. You’ll have an ability regained. But that’s a grade  process on a set up flying pc.

F/N ABUSE

Mistakenly applying the Power EP rule to Ruds will have the pc messed up by overrun. It invalidates the pc’s wins and keys the charge back in. The pc will start thinking he hasn’t blown the charge and can’t do anything about it.

In 1970 I had to write the HCO B “F/Ns and End Phenomena” to cure auditors of chopping pc EPs on major actions by indicating F/Ns too soon. This is one type of F/N abuse which has largely been handled.

That bulletin and Power EP handling have been in some instances misapplied in the direction of overrun. “The pc isn’t getting EP on these chains as there’s no cognition, just ‘it erased’,” is one example. Obviously the C/S didn’t understand the definition of cognition or what an EP is. Another example is the pc spots what it is and F/Ns and the auditor carries on, expecting an “EP”.

OTs and EPs

An OT is particularly subject to F/N abuse as he can blow things quite rapidly. If the auditor misses the F/N due to too high a sensitivity setting or doesn’t call it as he’s waiting for an “EP”, overrun occurs. It invalidates an OT’s ability to as-is and causes severe upsets.

This error can also stem from auditor speed. The auditor, used to auditing lower level pcs or never trained to audit OTs, can’t keep up with the OT and misses his F/Ns or reads.

Thus overruns occur and charged areas are bypassed.

This could account for those cases who were flying then fell on their heads with the same problems that blew back again.

REMEDY

The remedy of this problem begins with thoroughly clearing all terms connected with EPs. This is basically Word Clearing Method 6, Key Words.

The next action is to get my HCO Bs on the subject of EPs and also related metering HCO Bs fully understood and starrated. This would be followed by clay demos of various EPs of processes and actions showing the mechanics of the bank and what happens with the pc and meter.

TRs and meter drills on spotting F/Ns would follow, including any needed obnosis drills and correction of meter position so that the auditor could see the pc, meter and his admin at a glance.

Then, the auditor would be gradiently drilled on handling the pc, meter and admin at increasing rates of speed including recognizing and indicating EPs when they occurred. When the auditor could do all of this smoothly at the high rate of speed of an OT blowing things by inspection without fumbling, the last action would be bullbaited drills like TRs 103 and 104, on a gradient to a level of competence whereby the auditor could handle anything that came up at speed and do so smoothly.

Then you’d really have an OT auditor. And that’s what you’ll have to do to make them.

SUMMARY

Overrun and underrun alike mess up cases.

Both stem from an auditor inability to recognize and handle different types of EPs and inexpertness in handling the tools of auditing at speed.

Don’t overrun pcs and have to repair them.

Let the pc have his wins.

LRH:ams.rd    	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1974   	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 AUGUST 1971
Issue II
Remimeo
Courses
Checksheets

TRAINING DRILLS MODERNIZED

(Revises 17 APRIL 1961.
This HCO B cancels the following:

            	Original	HCOB 17 April 1961,	“Training Drills Modernized”
            	Revised 	HCO B 5 Jan 1971, 	“Training Drills Modernized”
            	Revised 	HCO B 21 June 1971, 	“Training Drills Modernized”
                 	Issue III
                 	HCO B 25 May 1971, 	“The TR Course”

This HCO B is to replace all other issues of
TRs 04 in all packs and checksheets.)

Due to the following factors, I have modernized TRs 0 to 4.

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 Scientology training courses, THE BALANCE OF THE COURSE WILL FAIL AND SUPERVISORS AT UPPER LEVELS WILL BE TEACHING NOT THEIR SUBJECTS BUT TRS.

4. 	Almost all confusions on Meter, Model Sessions and Scientology or Dianetic processes stem directly from inability to do the TRs.

5. 	A student who has not mastered his TRs will not master anything further.

6. 	Scientology or Dianetic processes 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.

Public courses on TRs are NOT “softened” because they are for the Public. Absolutely no standards are lowered. THE PUBLIC ARE GIVEN REAL TRS ROUGH, TOUGH AND HARD. To do otherwise is to lose 90% of the results. There is nothing pale and patty-cake about TRs.

THIS HCO B MEANS WHAT IT SAYS. IT DOES NOT MEAN SOMETHING ELSE. IT DOES NOT IMPLY ANOTHER MEANING. IT IS NOT OPEN TO INTERPRETATION FROM ANOTHER SOURCE.

THESE TRS ARE DONE EXACTLY PER THIS HCO B WITHOUT ADDED ACTIONS OR CHANGE.

NUMBER:  OT TR 0 1971

NAME:  Operating Thetan Confronting.

COMMANDS:  None.

POSITION:  Student and coach sit facing each other with eyes closed, a comfortable distance apart—about three feet.

PURPOSE:  To train student to be there comfortably and confront another person. The idea is to get the student able to BE there comfortably in a position three feet in front of another person, to BE there and not do anything else but BE there.

TRAINING STRESS:  Student and coach sit facing each other with eyes closed. There is no conversation. This is a silent drill. There is NO twitching, moving, confronting with a body part, “system” or vias used to confront or anything else added to BE there. One will usually see blackness or an area of the room when one’s eyes are closed. BE THERE, COMFORTABLY, AND CONFRONT.

When a student can BE there comfortably and confront and has reached a major stable win, the drill is passed.

HISTORY:  Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in June 71 to give an additional gradient to confronting and eliminate students confronting with their eyes, blinking, etc. Revised by L. Ron Hubbard in August 1971 after research discoveries on TRs.

NUMBER: TR 0 CONFRONTING REVISED 1961

NAME:  Confronting Preclear.

COMMANDS:  None.

POSITION:  Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart— about three feet.

PURPOSE:  To train student to confront a preclear with auditing only or with nothing. The whole idea is to get the student able to be there comfortably in a position three feet in front of a preclear, to BE there and not do anything else but BE there.

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, blink, 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 Confronting 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. Confronting with a body part can cause somatics in that body part being used to confront. The solution is just to confront and BE there. Student passes when he can just BE there and confront and he has reached a major stable win.

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 S.O.P. Goals required for its success a much higher level of technical skill than earlier processes. Revised by L. Ron Hubbard in August 1971 after research discoveries on TRs.

NUMBER: TR 0 BULLBAIT REVISED 1961

NAME:  Confronting Bullbaited.

COMMANDS:  Coach: “Start” “That’s it” “Flunk”.

POSITION:  Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart— about three feet.

PURPOSE:  To train student to confront a preclear with auditing or with nothing. The whole idea is to get the student able to BE there comfortably in a position three feet in front of the preclear without being thrown off, distracted or reacting in any way to what the preclear says or does.

TRAINING STRESS:  After the student has passed TR 0 and he can just BE there comfortably, “bull baiting” can begin. Anything added to BEING THERE is sharply flunked by the coach. Twitches, blinks, sighs, fidgets, anything except just being there is promptly flunked, with the reason why.

PATTER:  Student coughs. Coach: “Flunk! You coughed. Start.” This is the whole of the coach’s patter as a coach.

PATTER AS A CONFRONTED SUBJECT:  The coach may say anything or do anything except leave the chair. The student’s “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). Student passes when he can BE there comfortably without being thrown off or distracted or reacting in any way to anything the coach says or does and has reached a major stable win.

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 S.O.P. Goals required for its success a much higher level of technical skill than earlier processes. Revised by L. Ron Hubbard in August 1971 after research discoveries on TRs.

NUMBER: TR 1 REVISED 1961

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. It is repeated until the coach is satisfied it arrived where he is.

POSITION:  Student and coach are seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

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.

The coach must have received the command (or question) clearly and have understood it before he says “Good”.

PATTER:  The coach says “Start”, says “Good” without a new start if the command is received, or says “Flunk” if the command is not received. “Start” is not used again. “That’s it” is used to terminate for a discussion or to end the activity. If session is terminated for a discussion, coach must say “Start” again before it resumes.

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.

NUMBER: TR 2 REVISED 1961

NAME:  Acknowledgements.

PURPOSE:  To teach student that an acknowledgement is a method of controlling preclear communication and that an acknowledgement is a full stop.

COMMANDS.  The coach reads lines from “Alice in Wonderland” omitting “he saids” and the student thoroughly acknowledges them. The coach repeats any line he feels was not truly acknowledged.

POSITION:  Student and coach are seated facing each other at a comfortable distance apart.

TRAINING STRESS:  Teach student to acknowledge exactly what was said so preclear knows it was heard. Ask student from time to time what was said. Curb over and under acknowledgement. Let student do anything at first to get acknowledgement across, then even him out. Teach him that an acknowledgement 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 acknowledgement across or can fail to stop a pc with an acknowledgement or can take a pc’s head off with an acknowledgement.

PATTER:   The coach says “Start”, reads a line and says “Flunk” every time the coach feels there has been an improper acknowledgement. The coach repeats the same line each time the coach says “Flunk”. “That’s it” may be used to terminate for discussion or terminate the session. “Start” must be used to begin a new coaching after a “That’s it”.

HISTORY:   Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956 to teach new students that an acknowledgement 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.

NUMBER: TR 3 REVISED 1961

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.

TRAINING STRESS:   One question and student acknowledgement 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.

The student must learn to give a command and receive an answer and to acknowledge it in one unit of time.

The student is flunked if he or she fails to get an answer to the question asked, if he or she fails to repeat the exact questions, if he or she Q and As with excursions taken by the coach.

PATTER:   The coach uses “Start” and “That’s it”, as in earlier TRs. The coach is not bound after starting to answer the student’s question but may comm lag or give a commenting type answer to throw the student off. Often the coach should answer.

Somewhat less often the coach attempts to pull the student in to a Q and A or upset the student. Example:

Student: “Do fish swim?” Coach: “Yes.” Student: “Good . “ Student: “Do fish swim?” Coach: “Aren’t you hungry?” Student: “Yes.” Coach: “Flunk.”

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, acknowledgement and, as needed, the repeat statement, is flunked. Unnecessary use of the repeat statement is flunked. A poor command is flunked. A poor acknowledgement is flunked. A Q and A is flunked (as in example). Student misemotion or confusion is flunked. Student failure to utter the next command without a long comm lag is flunked. A choppy or premature acknowledgement is flunked. Lack of an acknowledgement (or with a distinct comm lag) is flunked. Any words from the coach except an answer to the question, “Start”, “Flunk”, “Good” or “That’s it”, should have no influence on the student except to get him to give a repeat statement and the command again. By repeat statement is meant, “I’ll repeat the auditing command.”

“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 a flunk. 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 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 acknowledgement. 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 a flunk and the coach must say so.

HISTORY:   Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956 to overcome variations and sudden changes in sessions. Revised 1961 by L. Ron Hubbard. The old TR has 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

NAME:   Preclear Originations.

PURPOSE:   To teach the 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 Supervisor. 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 origination 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 student 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 a flunk.

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.) Flunks are given if the student does more than 1. Understand; 2. Acknowledge; 3. Return pc to session.

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 coach’s remarks about self as “pc” is a flunk.

Student’s failure to persist is always a flunk 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.

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.

As TR 5 is also part of the CCHs it can be disregarded in the Comm Course TRs despite its appearance on earlier lists for students and staff auditors.

TRAINING NOTE

It is better to go through these TRs several times getting tougher each time than to hang on one TR forever or to be so tough at start student goes into a decline.

	L. RON HUBBARD 
	Founder 

LRH:jw.JR:JS:nt.pe.rd 
Copyright © 1961, 1971 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 OCTOBER 1965

Remimeo
All Students

MUTTER TR

NAME:	Mutter TR.

PURPOSE: 	To perfect muzzled auditing comm cycle.

COMMANDS: 	“Do fish swim?” “Do birds fly?”

POSITION: 	Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

TRAINING STRESS:

1. 	Coach has student give command.

2. 	Coach mutters an unintelligible answer at different times.

3. 	Student acknowledges.

4. 	Coach flunks if student does anything else but acknowledge.

(Note: 	This is the entirety of this Drill. It is not to be confused with any other Training Drill.)

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:ml.cden 
Copyright © 1965 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 MAY 1968

Remimeo

COACHING

In order to help you to do the best you possibly can in the course as far as being a coach is concerned, below you will find a few data that will assist you:

1. 	Coach with a purpose.

(a) 	Have for your goal when you are coaching that the student is going to get the training drill correct; be purposeful in working toward obtaining this goal. Whenever you correct the student as a coach just don’t do it with no reason, with no purpose. Have the purpose in mind for the student to get a better understanding of the training drill and to do it to the best of his ability.

2. 	Coach with reality.

(a) 	Be realistic in your coaching. When you give an origination to a student really make it an origination, not just something that the sheet said you should say; so that it is as if the student was having to handle it exactly as you say under real conditions and circumstances. This does not mean, however, that you really feel the things that you are giving the student, such as saying to him, “My leg hurts.” This does not mean that your leg should hurt, but you should say it in such a manner as to convey to the student that your leg hurts. Another thing about this is do not use any experiences from your past to coach with. Be inventive in present time.

3. 	Coach with an intention.

(a) 	Behind all your coaching should be your intention that by the end of the session your student will be aware that he is doing better at the end of it than he did at the beginning. The student must have a feeling that he has accomplished something in the training step, no matter how small it is. It is your intention and always should be while coaching that the student you are coaching be a more able person and have a greater understanding of that on which he is being coached.

4. 	In coaching take up only one thing at a time.

(a) 	For example: Using TR 4, if the student arrives at the goal set up for TR 4 then check over, one at a time, the earlier TRs. Is he confronting you? Does he originate the question to you each time as his own and did he really intend for you to receive it? Are his acknowledgements ending the cycles of communication, etc. But only coach these things one at a time; never two or more at a time. Make sure that the student does each thing you coach him on correctly before going on to the next training step. The better a student gets at a particular drill or a particular part of a drill you should demand, as a coach, a higher standard of ability. This does not mean that you should be “never satisfied”. It does mean that a person can always get better and once you have reached a certain plateau of ability then work toward a new plateau.
As a coach you should always work in the direction of better and more precise coaching. Never allow yourself to do a sloppy job of coaching because you would be doing your student a disservice and we doubt that you would like the same disservice. If you are ever in doubt about the correctness of what he is doing or of what you are doing, then the best thing is to ask the supervisor. He will be very glad to assist you by referring you to the correct materials.

In coaching never give an opinion, as such, but always give your directions as a direct statement, rather than saying “I think” or “Well, maybe it might be this way,” etc.

As a coach you are primarily responsible for the session and the results that are obtained on the student. This does not mean, of course, that you are totally responsible but that you do have a responsibility toward the student and the session. Make sure you always run good control on the student and give him good directions.

Once in a while the student will start to rationalise and justify what he is doing if he is doing something wrong. He will give you reasons why and becauses. Talking about such things at great length does not accomplish very much. The only thing that does accomplish the goals of the TR and resolves any differences is doing the training drill. You will get further by doing it than by talking about it.

In the training drills the coach should coach with the material given under “Training Stress” and “Purpose” on the training sheet.

These training drills occasionally have a tendency to upset the student. There is a possibility that during a drill a student may become angry or extremely upset or experience some misemotion. Should this occur the coach must not “back off”. He should continue the training drill until he can do it without stress or duress and he feels “good about it”. So, don’t “back off” but push the student through whatever difficulty he may be having.

There is a small thing that most people forget to do and that is telling the student when he has gotten the drill right or he has done a good job on a particular step. Besides correcting wrongnesses there is also complimenting rightness.

You very definitely “flunk” the student for anything that amounts to “self-coaching”. The reason for this is that the student will tend to introvert and will look too much at how he is doing and what he is doing rather than just doing it.

As a coach keep your attention on the student and how he is doing and don’t become so interested in what you yourself are doing that you neglect the student and are unaware of his ability or inability to do the drill correctly. It is easy to become “interesting” to a student; to make him laugh and act up a bit. But your main job as a coach is to see how good he can get in each training drill and that is what you should have your attention on; that, and how well he is doing.

To a large degree the progress of the student is determined by the standard of coaching. Being a good coach produces auditors who will in turn produce good results on their preclears. Good results produce better people.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:js.cden 
Copyright © 1968 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 SEPTEMBER 1965

Remimeo
All Students
Saint Hill Courses
All staff

CYCLICAL AND NON-CYCLICAL PROCESS
CONCLUSIONS

A Non-Cyclical Process (i.e. a repetitive process which does not cause the preclear to cycle on the Time Track) is concluded precisely as stated in HCO Bulletin 3 July 1 965.

A Cyclic Process—a repetitive process which does cause the preclear to cycle on the Time Track as in Recall type processes—must be concluded in Model Session as follows

“Where are you now on the Time Track?”

“I will continue this process until you are close to present time.” (After each command ask “When?”) When the pc is in PT, “That was the body of the session.”

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: ml.rd 
Copyright © 1965 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 MAY 1968

Remimeo
UPPER INDOC TRS

Following are the Upper Indoc TRs 6 to 9 inclusive.

Number: TR 6

Name: 8—C (Body Control)

Commands: Non-verbal for first half of training session. First half of coaching session, the student silently steers the coach’s body around the room, not touching the walls, quietly starting, changing and stopping the coach’s body. When the student has fully mastered non-verbal 8—C, the student may commence verbal 8—C.

The commands to be used for 8—C are:

“Look at that wall.” “Thank you.”
“Walk over to that wall.” “Thank you.”
“Touch that wall.” “Thank you.”
“Turn around.” “Thank you.”

Position: Student and coach walking side by side; student always on coach’s right, except when turning.

Purpose: First part: To accustom student to moving another body than his own without verbal communication. Second part: To accustom student to moving another body, by and while giving commands, only, and to accustom student to proper commands of 8—C.

Training Stress: Complete, crisp precision of movement and commands. Student, as in any other TR, is flunked for current and preceding TRs. Thus, in this case, the coach flunks the student for every hesitation or nervousness in moving body, for every flub of command, for poor confronting, for bad communication of command, for poor acknowledgement, for poor repetition of command, and for failing to handle origination by coach. Stress that student learns to lead slightly in all the motions of walking around the room or across the room. This will be found to have a great deal to do with confronting. In the first part of the session student is not allowed to walk coach into walls, as walls then become automatic stops and the student is then not stopping the coach’s body but allowing the wall to do it for him.

History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Camden, New Jersey in October 1953, modified in July 1957 in Washington, D.C., and the commands were modified in HCO Bulletin of 16 November 1965, Issue II.

Number: TR 7

Name: High School Indoc.

Commands: Same as 8—C (control) but with student in physical contact with coach. Student enforcing commands by manual guiding. Coach has only three statements to which student must listen: “Start” to begin coaching session, “Flunk” to call attention to student error, and “That’s it” to end the coaching session. No other remarks by the coach are valid on student. Coach tries in all possible ways, verbal, covert and physical, to stop student from running control on him. If the student falters, comm lags, fumbles a command, or fails to get execution on part of coach, coach says “Flunk” and they start at the beginning of the command cycle in which the error occurred. Coach falldown is not allowed.

Position: Student and coach ambulant. Student handling coach physically.

Purpose: To train student never to be stopped by a person when he gives a command. To train him to run fine control in any circumstances. To teach him to handle rebellious people. To bring about his willingness to handle other people.

Training Stress: Stress is on accuracy of student performance and persistence by student. Start gradually to toughen up resistance of student on a gradient. Don’t kill him off all at once.

History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, England, in 1956.

Number: TR 8

Name: Tone 40 on an Object.

Commands: “Stand up.” “Thank you.” “Sit down on that chair.” “Thank you.” These are the only commands used.

Position: Student sitting in chair facing chair which has on it an ashtray. Coach sitting in chair facing chair occupied by student and chair occupied by ashtray.

Purpose: To make student clearly achieve Tone 40 commands. To clarify intentions as different from words. To start student on road to handling objects and people with postulates. To obtain obedience not wholly based on spoken commands.

Training Stress: TR 8 is begun with student holding the ashtray which he manually makes execute the commands he gives. Under the heading of training stress is included the various ways and means of getting the student to achieve the goals of this training step. During the early part of this drill, say in the first coaching session, the student should be coached in the basic parts of the drill, one at a time. First, locate the space which includes himself and the ashtray but not more than that much. Second, have him locate the object in that space. Third, have him command the object in the loudest possible voice he can muster. This is called shouting. The coach’s patter would run something like this: “Locate the space.” “Locate the object in that space.” “Command it as loudly as you can.” “Acknowledge it as loudly as you can.” “Command it as loudly as you can.” “Acknowledge it as loudly as you can.” That would complete two cycles of action. When shouting is completed, then have student use a normal tone of voice with a lot of coach attention on the student getting the intention into the object. Next, have the student do the drill while using the wrong commands—i.e., saying “Thank you” while placing in the object the intention to stand up, etc. Next, have the student do the drill silently, putting the intention in the object without even thinking the words of the command or the acknowledgement. The final step in this would be for the coach to say “Start” then anything else he said would not be valid on student with the exception of “Flunk” and “That’s it”. Here, the coach would attempt to distract the student, using any verbal means he could to knock the student off Tone 40. Physical heckling would not be greater than tapping the student on the knee or shoulder to get his attention. When the student can maintain Tone 40 and get a clean intention on the object for each command and for each acknowledgement, the drill is flat.

There are other ways to help the student along. The coach occasionally asks, “Are you willing to be in that ashtray?” When the student has answered, then, “Are you willing for a thought to be there instead of you?” Then continue the drill. The answers are not so important on these two questions as is the fact that the idea is brought to the student’s attention. Another question the coach asks the student is, “Did you really expect that ashtray to comply with that command?”

There is a drill which will greatly increase the student’s reality on what an intention is. The coach can use this drill three or four times during the training on Tone 40 on an Object. As follows: “Think the thought—I am a wild flower.” “Good.”  “Think the thought that you are sitting in a chair.” “Good.” “Imagine that thought being in that ashtray.” “Good.” “Imagine that ashtray containing that thought in its substance.” “Good.” “Now get the ashtray thinking that it is an ashtray.” “Good.” “Get the ashtray intending to go on being an ashtray.” “Good.” “Get the ashtray intending to remain where it is.” “Good.” “Have the ashtray end that cycle.” “Good.” “Put in the ashtray the intention to remain where it is.” “Good.” This also helps the student get a reality on placing an intention in something apart from himself. Stress that an intention has nothing to do with words and has nothing to do with the voice, nor is it dependent upon thinking certain words. An intention must be clear and have no counter-intention in it. This training drill, Tone 40 on an Object, usually takes the most time of any drill in Upper Indoc, and time on it is well spent. Objects to be used are ashtrays, preferably heavy, coloured glass ashtrays.

History: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., in 1957 to train students to use intention when auditing.

Number: TR 9

Name: Tone 40 on a Person.

Commands: Same as 8—C (Control). Student runs fine, clear-cut intention and verbal orders on coach. Coach tries to break down Tone 40 of student. Coach commands that are valid are: “Start” to begin, “Flunk” to call attention to student error and that they must return to beginning of cycle, and “That’s it” to take a break or to end the training session. No other statement by coach is valid on student and is only an effort to make student come off Tone 40 or in general be stopped.

Position: Student and coach ambulant. Student in manual contact with coach as needed.

Purpose: To make student able to maintain Tone 40 under any stress or duress.

Training Stress: The exact amount of physical effort must be used by student plus a compelling, unspoken intention. No jerky struggles are allowed, since each jerk is a stop. Student must learn to smoothly increase effort quickly to amount needed to make coach execute. Stress is on exact intention, exact strength needed, exact force necessary, exact Tone 40. Even a slight smile by student can be a flunk. Too much force can be a flunk. Too little force definitely is a flunk. Anything not Tone 40 is a flunk. Here the coach should check very carefully on student’s ability to place an intention in the coach. This can be checked by the coach since the coach will find himself doing the command almost whether or not he wants to if the student is really getting the intention across. After the coach is satisfied with the student’s ability to get the intention across, the coach should then do all he can to break the student off Tone 40, mainly on the basis of surprise and change of pace. Thus the student will be brought to have a greater tolerance of surprise and a quick recovery from surprise.

History: Developed in Washington, D.C., in 1957 by L. Ron Hubbard.

Purpose of these four training drills, TR 6, 7, 8 and 9, is to bring about in the student the willingness and ability to handle and control other people’s bodies, and to cheerfully confront another person while giving that person commands. Also, to maintain a high level of control in any circumstances.

LRH:js.cden 	L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright © 1968 	Founder 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 22 MAY 1971
Remimeo
All Courses &
All Checksheets
where UPPER INDOC	REVISED
TRs ARE DONE.
Franchise
Destroy all copies of earlier issue of same date
of this HCOB.

This Revision removes any inference that a
student is obliged to not use his hands to
enforce his commands.

TR-8 CLARIFICATION

ADDS TO HCOB 7 MAY 68 “UPPER INDOC TRS”
AND ADDS TO EVERY CHECKSHEET AND HAT
WHERE THIS HCOB APPEARS.

In the early development of TR-8 “TONE 40 ON AN OBJECT” and in the years following, the student was required to lift the object (ashtray) manually to obtain execution of his Commands. (HCOB 11 June 57 and Pab 235 Training and CCH Processes).

In later refinements of TR-8 this action was not stated. However, it was not intended that this action fall into disuse.

We will therefore restore this action to TR-8.

The following is to be added to HCOB 7 May 68 “Upper Indoc TRs” as the first sentence under TR-8 Training Stress:

“TR-8 is begun with student holding the Ash Tray which he manually makes execute the commands he gives.”

The Upper Indoc TRs are done TOUGH with all the previous TRs IN.

With the inclusion of this TR-8 data, they are done exactly as per HCOB 7 May 68.

Lt. Cmdr. Joan Robertson 
Training and Services Aide 
for 
L. RON HUBBARD 
Founder

LRH:JR:ne.rd 
Copyright © 1971 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

CYCLES OF ACTION

A lecture given on
13 October 1964

What’s the date?

Audience: 13th of October.

13th of October. Well, that’s a good day. You’re very lucky. The 13th fell on Tuesday this week, didn’t fall on Friday.

All right. Today’s lecture is about cycles of action. Cycles of action. And you’ll find this very fundamental material. And it’s quite good for man and beast. You can put it in tea or coffee, take it without taste; doesn’t leave any aftereffects in an auditing session, can be rubbed on horses, dogs, is only sixpence the bottle. And you ought to buy some. I think it’d be a terribly good idea.

It’s not that I am particularly cross on this particular subject of cycles of action. Nobody has been throwing their hands up in horror over the idea of completing one. And it’s a relaxed moment when it doesn’t happen to be a crisis. So this is one lecture which is given when there is no crisis to prompt it. That makes it peculiar in the field of lectures.

The crisis, by the way, is getting your auditing question answered. And then some of the—some of the wildest goofs I’ve heard in a long time.

“Well, how are you today?”

“Uh . . . I just got my car back.”

“Thank you.”

But this, of course, does too apply to some degree to a cycle of action. A cycle of action cannot go on unless all the elements of the cycle of action being used are common to the cycle of action. Do you follow me?

In other words, you can’t have a cycle of action that goes from white to black, you see, to gray to black. Do you get the idea? A cycle of action would rather have to go from, let us say, black to grad to less gray, to less gray, to less gray, to less gray, to more white, to more white, to more white, to white, don’t you see? Then, possibly, if you wanted a complete cycle of action, less white, less white, less white, less white, slightly gray, grayer, grayer, grayer, black.

Now, what do we mean by a cycle of action? This is probably one of the things that would be the most puzzling word here to collide with: cycle. Because cycle is applied in many different directions. There is one you ride. Also, there’s types that have motors in them. There are wheels that go round so that the cycle of a wheel is the point that the point of a wheel returns to.

In other words, you’ve got a wheel and you’ve got a point at the top; the wheel goes all the way around, and when it has returned to the top, why, it has completed a cycle. Do you see?

I’m just showing you there’s various confusions about this word. You didn’t laugh at the right joke, so that’s all right . . . But the upshot of this cycle of action is that it has many odd and peculiar connotations and is therefore rather difficult to understand or collide with. You follow that? You could have a wheel that turns all the way around and comes back to the same place, see?

Now, a story cycle of action that began in the field of modern story writing, and so on, would be a story something like this (this is a very modern story, you see): And there’s a bum standing on a corner and he is totally degraded and he has just lost his job, you see? And his wife that he wasn’t married to has run off with another man, you see? And he’s standing there and he gets an idea that he might be able to pick himself up out of it and go have a cup of coffee, you see?

So he goes and has the cup of coffee, and it’s cold and it’s very bad coffee. And he reaches in his pocket and he finds out there’s a hole in his pocket and the nickel he had, you see, has—lost. And so he is ejected from the place, but not even dramatically. He’s simply told to go with considerable contempt, don’t you see?

And we find him back on the same corner, in the same position, in the same mood, worrying about the same thing. That is modern story writing.

If anybody wants to steal that plot and sell it with their writing, they’re perfectly welcome to do so.

Now, I remember when this modern school first started up. By the wad the modern school has now become very antique. It’s so old now that a lot of people have heard about it. When it first started up, they had a story, “Big Brother,” and it wasn’t even in English.

But they had a tremendous fixation on the idea that a story had to start and end at the same place in the same situation. And they were trying to give an appearance of no change. So that was what they understood by a cycle that nothing changed. And you’ll find now and then, you go to some arty movie made by somebody down in France who didn’t have any money and didn’t have any film either. (And frankly, they’d have been much better off if they’d shot it with an empty camera!) But you’ll occasionally see these things; you’ll pick them up at foreign theater stands, you know, and it’ll be something like this. And it’ll always begin and end at the exact same place.

So cycle has gotten into the field of art. And cycle is in the field of mechanics—as different from engineering—as a completed revolution. Cycle in the field of art, meaning no change of time, or everything came back the same way, don’t you see? And in mechanics, it is a total revolution.

Now, in engineering and physics, it means something else again. It means the motion between the ending of one wave and the beginning of the new wave. And I think you’ll find out that that is probably a better expressed definition than the usual engineering definition, but that is it. You take the end of the last wave, which is the beginning of the next wave, and it goes on through then to the end of that wave, which is the beginning of the next wave. And that would be a cycle.

And you have that expressed in radio, you see? Radio. All discussions of wavelengths. You have it in discussions of color, and so on. And that’s really what they’re talking about; they’re talking about a sweep.

Now, there is an old, old, old, old definition on this which, by the way, we are indebted to in Scientology, because there’s a philosophic aspect to the word cycle. And they didn’t directly call it a cycle, and pardon me if I seem to be a bit lyrical on the subject, but it is in the Hymn to the Dawn Child, in the unwritten Veda (which has been written and then, therefore, called a type of Veda). But it’s in the oral tradition, you might say (to borrow a musical term), of India.

And it’s the Hymn to the Dawn Child. I've forgotten whether it’s the fourth or the tenth Vedic hymn. But it expresses that there is a nothingness, and then there is a form gradually takes place, and then this grows and this ages and then this decays; and then this goes into a nebulosity and winds up in a new nothingness. Now, that is not a quote; it’s just an effort to interpret that particular action for you. It’s a very short hymn, by the way, and it’s quite interesting. And it is really part of your technology in Scientology.

You see, there have been billions of statements by philosophers and more of them are wrong than right, but in sorting out the field of philosophy—this is sometimes what confuses people. I remember explaining Krishnamurti to somebody or other, a very dear old friend, who said, “But—but Krishnamurti said many of the things that you’re saying in Scientology.”

I said, “Give me a book by Krishnamurti.”

So she handed me a book by Krishnamurti and I went down the line and there, there was one about time that was a direct statement, that same statement that we use in Scientology. See, it was right there, and she showed me that, and she says, “Look it there; Krishnamurti said that.”

I said, “Well, where is the bold face?”

And she said, “What?”

“The bold, the italics, the underscore.”

And she said, “Well, there isn’t any.”

And I said, “All right. Let’s count the number of statements on this page, also about time, which aren’t true—none of which have any emphasis, any different emphasis than this one.” And we counted them up, and there were 132 incorrect statements about time and one correct statement about time. So I don’t think Krishnamurti said anything we said.

See? And I taught her the lesson of the evaluation of importance: Importance assigned to a datum is as important as the datum. And you’ll find that in our Logic’s. In other words, there can be many truths.

Not comparing poor old Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti is mad at us; by the way, because one of our boys went out to India one time or another and next confounded thing you know, he had all of Krishnamurti’s group out in India studying Scientology, and I don’t think Krishnamurti has ever forgiven us. But that’s—happens to be the truth.

Anyway, you get the evaluation of importance here, see? The evaluation of importance of a datum can be as important as the datum, and sometimes more important.

You could have fifty thousand monkeys writing on fifty thousand typewriters for a long time, and sooner or later one of them is going to write E = mc2, see? And then somebody could come along and point out, “Look, those monkeys are as smart as Einstein.” No, they couldn’t be as smart as Einstein, for the excellent reason that when this was written, it was not assigned a relative importance to anything, you see? So its value was not estimated, so therefore it wasn’t peaked up.

And although there are a great many truths in Scientology, some of these are peaked, you see? They’re in bold face, you know, and they’ve got big underscores underneath them. Cycle of action is one of them. And it goes back to the early Vedic hymns.

Now, out of this—out of this we get a great deal of workable, or applied, or applicable wisdom. In other words, we can get very, very full application out of this thing. This thing will work all day and all night. And the cycle of action is, of course, a plot of incident against time—if you wanted to get a definition here—the way we are using it, you see? It’s a plot of consecutive incident against time, a plot against time.

Now, of course we’re in the advantageous position of knowing the source of time, and knowing what time is. Since we got R6, we have known a lot more things than we knew before. And we know that time is a commonly held consideration which is a great, big, cracking, enormous, GPM which has got a lot of root words with an end word connected to it called time.

Therefore, it’s an agreed-upon progress and we’re all making this time and moving it forward. And as a result, from person to person, although the incidents plot against time, you see, at—I better say, plot against time: at zero seconds, the door is opened, see; at zero plus two seconds, the door stands open; at zero plus three seconds, somebody enters the door; at zero plus five seconds, somebody is walking; at zero plus six seconds, somebody sees a chair; at zero plus seven seconds, a motion is made toward the chair; at zero plus eight seconds, the person sits down. Do you understand, now, when I say plotting incident against time? You see?

In view of the fact that we’re all in a present time—see, of course, couldn’t be anyplace else, because there isn’t any. You see? Everybody wonders “How do we move along forward in time?” Puzzled me for a long time. Well, of course, it’s very simple to move along forward in time, because nobody is going anyplace, you see? That’s the whole trick back of time, see?

But the incident, don’t you see, which is plotted forward appears to be a plot against time. And it’s the incident, or consideration of the incident, which plots the time.

And you’ll find that old people (that is, old humanoids) very often have their days go by whiz, whiz, whiz, you know? They just no more than get up in the morning and they go to bed at night, you know? And it’s just bzz, bzz, bzz, bzz, bzz!

This is a commonly held consideration. You go around and talk to some of them and they will tell you, “Well, you know, there used to be a lot of time in a day, but there isn’t anymore, you know?”

In other words, the incident, or interest, or future, you see, is gone to lead them forward in time—so therefore, you see, they have no consideration of time. The incident plots very bang! you see? Well, there’s only a couple of things happen in the day, you know?

All right. Now, we take a little kid, maybe five, six years old, and the day to him is absolutely interminable! Like little Arthur, the other day, was telling me he didn’t have anything to do and that he wasn’t doing anything. And this was just for fun (I think it was the other evening), I rattled off to him what he was doing, and what had happened in the last five minutes in his life. And he didn’t consider this very much. You see, his tolerance of incident was very high. But he sort of laughed about it, and then he still complained that he just didn’t have anything to do; I didn’t make much of an impression on him.

But he had run in and out of the room three times, the dog had taken off one of his shoes and he’d put it back on again, he’d stolen the dog’s bone, the dog had gotten the bone back, he had found one of his toys and thrown it down, and then he’d gone in the other room and inspected his rocks, and . . . In other words, it was all this incident. My Lord, man, the incident which had taken place, you see, in those last few minutes. And he still didn’t think he was doing anything; he was doing nothing, you see?

What he meant to say was he was doing nothing in which he was interested in doing, so therefore time was passing interminably to him. you see, under a very heavy incident impact.

You could be more philosophic about it and reduce it down to tolerance of incident—not tolerance of motion but just tolerance of incident. How much incident does somebody want?

You find out after the war—World War II, amongst my friends and so forth—I found out that life was suddenly moving very slowly for all of them. Life was very dull, see? They couldn’t pick themselves up at all, and so forth. Change of pace was so fantastic, you see? From hurry-scurry, hurry-scurry, bang, thud, crash, bing, gop, bow, dzz, zrrp, woo, bee, theet, tha, out bung, bang, incident, rut, row, boom, bow, crash, all of a sudden, why, they settled down to what had been, just before the war, a normal existence to them, you see? And this normal existence of just this short span of years, regardless of their own considerations, seemed awfully slow. See, it just seemed like nothing was happening at all.

And therefore, what had happened? Well, their tolerance of incident had increased. Even though it was bad for them in numerous cases, they still had gotten up to confronting r-r-r-r-r-r-r type of incident, don’t you see? And then all of a sudden, they don’t have that much incident. So time, oddly enough, started to do funny things for them. It either went terribly slowly or it went by very rapidly. You see, because if you’d learned to plot your incident and time together, in other words, if you measured your time by the amount of incident occurring, and then you didn’t have any incident—see, figure it out—why, you obviously wouldn’t have any time. You follow that?

That’s really what happens to old people. They had the house full of people, and they’re this and that, and their responsibility to so-and-so; and there was Jackie coming back from school, and there was this and that and then the other thing; and all of a sudden, everybody goes off and gets married or does something, and there isn’t enough incident, you see? So therefore the day is going whsht, whsht, whsht, whsht! You got the idea? Amount of incident.

You can’t say, you see, that the more incident there is—you see, it doesn’t come down to an engineering proposition of the more incident there is, the more time there is, or the less incident there is, the less time there is; nor can you say in reverse, you see, that the more incident there is, the less time there is. You see, these things don’t add up.

Well, why don’t they just exactly add up and equate? Well, you’re dealing with a false commodity in the first place, see, so it’s never going to add up. But it’s the consideration of it; it’s a consideration.

Now, we did a lot of this with randomity and that sort of thing, but that is not as full an explanation as I’m giving you here today. But it’s the consideration: Does a lot of incident make a lot of time or does a lot of incident make no time?

Now, you’re going to have somebody around with a lot of incident happening in his vicinity, and he just suddenly starts saying—like I do occasionally, you know—”There isn’t enough time for this incident to happen in,” see? I start getting an emergency on five or six fronts simultaneously while I am doing my research, while somebody is calling on me for a new bulletin, don’t you see? And this is too much incident. So I say, “Well, there isn’t enough time.” You got the idea?

So I grab myself by the scruff of the neck, you see, and—you could get the consideration you are manufacturing the time. All you have to do is “Well, I could confront being that busy.” That’s all you actually have to do. My consideration for this: “Well, all right. I can do something about it,” see? And instantly, you’ve suddenly got enough time! If you say, “No, I can’t do anything about these incidents because of the time,” of course you haven’t got enough time. You got the idea?

And you can actually practically monitor the amount of time you had by simply changing any consideration you have about how busy you want to be, or how much you can handle. Sometimes you can play tricks on yourself this way, see? You can say, “Well, I wanted to be busy, busier than I was, and I sure got my wish!” And the next thing you know, why, you’ve got enough time, you see?

So it’s the consideration of how much incident makes how much time that gives or subtracts time from one’s existence. And that’s pretty deep and pretty profound, and I’m afraid that nobody has ever said it before in the field of philosophy, but it’s quite shaking, if you really take a look at it. It’s how much you decide you can tolerate, see? How much you decide you can confront, or whether or not you are deciding the other way to.

Now, this is all compounded by, also, the very difficult situation that you can get up to a point of where you can consider time long or short without measuring it against incident. Then, you see, by gradient, higher tone, you could get up to a point and you say, “Well, this is going to be a long day,” and it’ll be a long day, see? “Well, night will be here in no time,” and it’ll be there in no time. You practically just turn around and blink and somebody is calling you to supper. But we’re now talking of—in a fairly high-toned action.

Normally, you’re in a position where incident is, to a marked degree, monitoring your consideration of time. But actually, it’s quite the reverse; as you get up, it’s your consideration of incident which is monitoring time. And then as you get up above that, it’s simply a consideration of how much time there is or isn’t.

I don’t know, I think you could get high enough toned as a thetan to consider that a million years was no time, and find yourself a million years up the line. You follow this, see? Or consider that evening was a couple of years away and just sort of almost live a couple of years before evening. You get the idea, see?

So there are three points here that we could consider, three different attitudes: Where the person is the total effect of time and he’s habituated to the incident monitoring his time. But it’s a certain speed of incident monitoring his time, don’t you see, that he’s just gotten used to—just habit, you know? He’s always led a busy life and therefore his time is—he’s the effect of that much time. He’s always led an easy and rather wasteful life, so that’s his consideration of time, don’t you see? And when that pace changes, and so forth, he’ll get a reverse consideration of the situation, see? But that’s all in the field of being the effect of time, you see? One is just total effect: one never does anything about the incidents, one never lessens or increases the amount of incident, one never changes his opinion about the incident, one doesn’t even know that incident has anything to do with time, don’t you see? You got Homo sap; there he is.

All right. Now, let’s go upstairs a little bit, and let’s get into a level of release, or something like this, and one recognizes in some way or another that—well, two different considerations take place. One, “If I get busy, time will go by faster.” And the other, reverse consideration can also be held, “Well, if I don’t do anything, why, time will go by faster.” You can also hold that reverse consideration just as easily as the other, but the first one I mentioned is the commonest. And you sort of get the idea that you could monitor the amount of doingness, and you can get into a point of how much incident you can confront. And you can monitor your time by willingness to confront incident, willingness to confront the amount of action in your vicinity.

You’ve been living in South Peoria amongst the growing sycamores, or whatever they have in Peoria, and life has been drifting by at an 1890 horse-and-carriage pace, and you all of a sudden get on a train or a plane; you go to New York City. The taxicab drivers alone are sufficient to change your ideas of time, you see? Well, you see, that’s a change of pace.

Now, Homo sap would regard that, you see, as simply shocking. You know, he’d just probably voice the fact that he had been affected. That would be his total handling of the situation, you see?

Somebody who’s upscale a bit higher could make the consideration, you see, well, he’s willing to confront New York. And when he goes back to Peoria, well, he’s willing to confront Peoria, see? (South Peoria. I won’t malign Peoria itself.) You see? He’s willing to confront that amount of incident. Well, I’m back home again here, and this is the space in which I live,” and so forth. And he’d find his time would stay in much better balance.

Now let’s take him upstairs above—the state I just mentioned would be someplace between Release and Clear. Now, let’s take him up someplace to where he’s moving into R6 or something like that, and he’ll start getting the spooky notion that he doesn’t have to depend upon the exterior incident to measure his consideration of time, see? So he’s simply up into a point where he’s saying, “There’s lots of time,” see, or “There isn’t any time,” see? He’s waiting for a train: no time, see? No time is elapsing, so of course the train arrives almost at once, you see? And . . . as far as his consideration is concerned, you see?

And he’s at a big party and everybody is having a marvelous time and he’s having a marvelous time, and so forth, so he just changes his consideration to the fact that it’s a long party. And it is. Do you see?

So there are actually these three stages of reaction. Of course, there is a reaction below that I should mention, which is just unconscious. But of course, unconsciousness is not a reaction; it’s an isn’t.

Now we could probably go above that and we get up into OT and so forth, and we probably could get a pan-determined attitude toward time, which would monitor the time of others. Now we’re talking pretty—we’re talking pretty, pretty swami. See, I mean, this is a little bit out of the range of reality, so forth. But it would be by—instead of self-determinism, we’re moving over into pan-determinism, and moving over to separately other-determining, see? Doing an other-determinism, see? And you get up into that zone, why, no telling what you could do, see?

You have an example of it in fairy tales, of the bloke that comes along and waves the magic wand over the sleeping princess, and everybody sleeps for a hundred years. No little child ever thinks to ask, “What happened to the armor and so forth of the guards and the other people around in the castle?” Don’t you see? That one, Sleeping Beauty, is almost a perfect example of pan-determined time, see?

He said, “There’s going to be no incident in this joint for a hundred years,” see? There wasn’t. When you get up that high, you don’t even have to give your postulates in correct English, you know?

So then there is a zone above that, but of course that’s done on the basis of communication. And I don’t care whether the communication has much distance in it or not; you’re now speaking in the realms of telepathy. And you’re speaking in the realms of a telepathy powerful enough so that your consideration is able to induce a reality in the other person, and that’s pretty high voltage telepathy.

You can see this, however; you can see this in lower experimental phenomena in the field of hypnotism, in the field of mesmerism, early stuff back there when they were still experimenting with it, a hundred years or more ago. They knew more about it than they do now; they’ve forgotten most of that technology.

But you could tell somebody, you see, you can tell an hypnotized subject that this has been the span of time, don’t you see, or not been the span of time. Although I don’t know that these blokes ever thought of doing that, particularly. But they’ll get a lot of incident, and they will think a lot of incident has happened and a lot of things have gone by, and that they’ve been out a long time, and their considerations with regard to this would be entirely shifted, don’t you see?

But that, of course, is making somebody the total effect of a direct communication; it isn’t pan-determined up on the upper stages. I’m just showing you that it can be represented experimentally down in the very, very low gutters of the scale.

You can cause incident to occur on a projected basis, in ways that the modern hypnotist has entirely forgotten. I was quite appalled to find out how little is known in the West, really, about hypnotism. I think Charcot must have studied in India, and Mesmer, and so forth.

But this experiment is a fascinating experiment: You put another being into a rapport, which is a total bing-bang, you see, with regard to it. And it isn’t just a physical rapport, because that other being feels and thinks the thought and feeling of the body of the person who has him mesmerized.

Mesmerism is quite different than hypnotism. Later boys have mixed these two terms, you see? You can do this fantastic thing. Somebody can be put into a mesmerized state, and then put your hand behind your back (when you really get out the bottom, why, people will say, “Well, do you believe in hypnotism?” you know? It isn’t anything you believe in—I mean, it’s just an experimental activity) and you can pinch yourself in the back, and the person who’s mesmerized, even though their eyes are closed and so forth, will leap convulsively. And if their back is examined, your fingernail marks will appear on their back. Quite interesting.

In other words, you can produce a physical pan-determinism, you see? See, you’ve determined their determinism. And that is also in an experimental zone.

This, of course, is quite unethical to play around with amongst the poor bloke Homo sap, walking already up to his neck in muck and trouble, don’t you see? And somebody mesmerizes him or hypnotizes him and upsets what little sense of value he has left, because the only thing the poor bloke has got is his own self-determinism, don’t you see? The only thing he’s got left is that tiny, tiny spark of power of choice, don’t you see? Well, when you overcome that, you just throw him into a total effect; then that mud just goes down right up over his head, see? But I’m just giving you an example, just to communicate the idea that that is a low harmonic on an upper state with regard to the telepathy of time and incident, see?

So at a very, very high level—at a very, very high level, not making anybody pushed into the mud or something like this, you get somebody thinking it’s a long day, and everybody in the city begins to agree that it’s a long day, you see? You get the idea?

You could also have this sort of thing going on; it doesn’t even have to do totally with time. It’d be “the actions we’re engaged in are happiness producing actions,” see? That consideration could be added to the cycle of action, you see; it’s a happiness-producing action. And everybody working around there, they’d think they were doing time, you see?

Well, you could produce the opposite effect of “the actions in which we are engaged are misery-producing actions,” you see, and everybody would feel miserable and feel like they were forming overts by doing any action at all. And we’ve got a lot of that in this society in which we live, which is changing people’s attitude toward time.

And the prime criminal in this is the newspaper—the press of Fleet Street. It’s all scandal and it’s all bad and all the employers are bad, and everybody is bad, and there is nobody good, and nothing happy has happened at all, and your actions are not producing any happiness, and the worker is totally walked on and stepped on and ought to shoot everybody in his tracks, don’t you see, because he’s being made to work, you see? You get the idea?

You’re spreading, then, on a pan-determinism basis—but on very finite, low-grade communication lines, you see the idea of a worthless series of incidents. So therefore, this will do something to people’s time. And the amount of doingness of a society is tremendously dependent on whether or not they are being told that their cycle of action—or whether they believe or agree—that their cycle of action should proceed or shouldn’t proceed.

And 80 we move over into the field of the word action, now. Action. We’ve got cycle of action. All right. We got cycle. You know what that is—all right, let’s take up action.

So an action is simply a motion through space having a certain speed. Its speed could be fast or it could be slow, it could move across a lot of space, it could move across a sixteen-millionth of a millimeter, see? But it would be an action.

Now, there’s a lot of bad connotation to the word action in the field of literature. Action stories are supposed to be bad stories, you see? This word in the field of psychology has gotten to be a nasty, spit-in-the-spittoon sort of word.

All these civil-defense blokes in the United States are carefully trained that if anybody gets active during an atomic bombing, they should instantly be incarcerated. I know that sounds psychotic; and it is.

And the psychological (ha!) assistance of civil defense (ha!) which has been organized in the United States at this particular time has been carefully trained to take any individual who is in action and put him out of action fast, with a cop or a straitjacket or something, see? And that’s what he’s trained to do.

I asked the embarrassing question, “Well, what if the fellow was engaged in trying to put out a fire?”

“Well,” they say, “that would all be done by the local authorities, so that doesn’t come into the problem.”

And I found out that a local authority, a local authority (you’ll have to cut that off the tape)—a local authority is not a being which was quite interesting to me. But a being is anybody who isn’t a local authority. And if a person isn’t a local authority and he is active, or in action or is proposing action, or any of these other things, then the job of the psychological assistant, of which they’re breeding lots of them, and the psychiatrist and anybody else (and the cop on the beat is supposed to turn over this person, also)—he’s supposed to be instantly gotten out of the way and strapped down and bang! See, there must be Do action.

It’s sort of interesting to me that this word action, which is primarily and purely simply something which denotes motion and could be said to be, perhaps, volitional motion or intended motion, could become a bad thing, you see? So there’s all sorts of conflict going on about this. Of course, if a fellow, you know, on a soccer team, or something like that, who is supposed to stop the ball from going in some particular direction, just stood there and didn’t move over in front of the ball, why, he’d be terribly booed, don’t you see? But in some other part of the society, you see that’s inaction; inaction, there, is bad, you see? But in some other part of the society, action is bad, you know?

And psychiatry has this so bad that they think a person is cured when they become inactive, and that’s one thing which you, as a Scientologist, have never been able to understand about psychiatry. You think I’m kidding you, or something like that, you know? But that’s merely a misalignment of their intention; there’s something wrong there, see?

If this fellow is active and he’s got something wrong with him—he’s had a label hung on his chest or something like that, and he’s active—then he is unwell and must be restrained, and that is the real action behind an electric shock and a prefrontal lobotomy. It’s the action in which the person is engaged which is the criteria of what treatment he gets. : So a well person is then a catatonic schizophrenic (a very fancy word which means somebody just lies still, stiff, and never moves).

So in the field—in the mental field, this word action is a very bad word; very, very bad word. It fits along with agitated, frenzied, disturbed, see? These are all the same—same thing. See?

So, we’ve gotten this word pulled down here amongst a bunch of brothers it doesn’t go with. And this has thrown the whole field of mental healing, so-called, in the Western world at this particular time, for a loop. You get the idea? It’s not whether or not he went back to his job and did his job. It’s whether or not he was active. And you, talking to a psychiatrist, wouldn’t make any sense at all, because he’d say “active,” meaning crazy, and you’d say “active,” meaning constructive. See, so you wouldn’t be talking the same vocabulary, because of their abuse of this word action, see?

So, you must realize—you must realize—that the prevention of motion is fairly prevalent, particularly in mental-healing circles. The prevention of motion. And therefore, there is something marvelous about the state of inaction.

Now, we are not the only people to comment on the subject of action or inaction, but certainly—although we follow far more traditional areas, such as “man is a spirit, he’s not a dog,” that sort of thing—realize that in the field of mysticism, one of your main complaints about mysticism and one of the bad bugs that there is in mysticism is the image of the wise or totally elevated individual or the finely refined individual as a totally inactive one. See? That’s your little point of argument. You say, “Hey, wait a minute.”

You see, a fireman putting out a fire could be totally calm and collected. He could go about it with a completely apparent effortless efficiency, you see? Well, that’s very high toned. But a fireman who would sit and regard his navel would be crazy! You see the difference?

So, you as Scientologists have seen this for a long time. Now, you’ve even coined a word; I didn’t coin this word. You’ve coined quite a lot of words, you know? Amongst you, I hear you say them, I see them in auditors’ reports; they become prevalent, and so forth. So very often, I start to use them. And you’ve got one called a mystic mystic, you know? A mystical mystic. I’ve heard this word bang around inside organizations and so forth, the mystical mystic. And it’s a case; it’s a case type. It’s a commonly Scientology agreed-upon case type. “This person is a mystical mystic.”

And they’ll process that person in accordance. And by that they mean that the person will be totally reasonable about anything that happens in their vicinity, but not do anything about it; and see nothing but good in anything, including murdering babies. You see? It’s this unreasonableness which you’re protesting—the mystical mystic.

But that’s borne out of the fact that running alongside of a great deal of wise wisdom, some awfully bad wisdom has been carrying forward on the basis that all you would do, if you were really elevated, is you would sit on a mountain top and regard your navel and not look at the world, or not look at anything, engage in nothing, participate nowhere, be effective nowhere at all, engage in no action of any kind, be totally detached, nothing to do with you, be completely aloof, and so forth. And you ask a lot of people what an OT is and they’ll describe that. See? An OT is much more likely to be a ball of fire.

But, of course, this is a self-protective mechanism. People would like to believe this. We have somebody in England who is absolutely frantic every time you mention the idea of OT, and has even come up to me and said, ‘Please, Ron, don’t release these techniques. Please, please, please don’t go in that direction. My God, it’d be worse than the invention of the atom bomb. You realize what is liable to happen if you set these people loose!” and so forth. And he’s really worried! Or he was; maybe somebody got to him, because it’s been a few months ago and there have been a lot of Scientologists around. You can’t ever tell what will happen to somebody’s character in that case. But they probably got him talked out of it.

But there, his fear is that somebody would become powerful or strong, which is fear of somebody causing a lot of action, or somebody getting very active, see, which almost fits back against the psychiatrist’s definition. His fear of action.

“Well, what’s somebody liable to do? Uhh-uhh-uh!” Of course, your best answer to that was “Well, the best solution to that is for you to become OT, too.” There’s no reasoning with such a person; just give them . . . “If everybody’s gonna become wolves, you better not remain a rabbit!” It’s a very good sales campaign.

But it has very little to do with the facts of the case, because the level of responsibility rises and rises and rises, don’t you see, along with it. They lose sight of this sort of thing.

Now, the idea of action, then, is all sullied up and messed up: whether or not things should go forward or not go forward, you see; whether or not time should advance or not advance; whether or not incidents should take place or not take place—just as a general principle, not “should some incidents take place and some incidents not take place?” Well, that’s a sane consideration. But you get this insane attitude toward it which is simply “no incidents should take place” or “all kinds of incidents should take place.”

And then a person eventually pulls out of that into a lower grade of “Well, it’s all going on and it has nothing to do with me.” And I’m afraid Homo Sapiens is walking into that particular category right now at a very, very fast rate of speed. “It’s all going on and it has nothing to do with me. I can do nothing about it,” and so forth. You see a declining society normally holds this. And a society which has a bit of zip left in it, a society which is still rising and so forth, well, everything has to do with everybody. You know, they’ll say, “Ho, ho, ho,” and they take a lot of responsibility for that sort of thing.

Well, you take early nineteenth-century America. I imagine somebody would have walked miles to convince Joe down at Dog Hollow that he was dead wrong to vote for President Fillmore. You know, just really work at it, you know? It had to do with him and it had to do with them. Well, the modern think “Well, what can I do about it?” don’t you see? “It’s life, can’t do very much about it.”

You get a hot, roaring campaign issue whereby a people really does feel challenged or attacked and so forth, they’ll get up and start saying, “Well, it does have something to do with me.” They have to be pushed pretty far back before they begin to say that. Something like that is occurring right at the present moment in the United States.

And a lot of people are just going to go along with the tide; a lot of people are starting to fight. The end product of that, Lord knows what that will be. It might not be in 1964, but certainly you will see the end product of it by 1968. Driven too far, see? So even the fellow who says “It has nothing to do with me” at last has to admit that it has something to do with him.

I remember, I was trying to convince somebody that the atomic bomb had something to do with him. I think I’ve told you this joke before, but I finally moved it on down, I got on down to his wallet and his social security card. And all of a sudden, realized that that would be affected if a bomb went off in his vicinity, and he became per) concerned about atomic fission, see? I just kept cutting the gradients doves, getting closer and closer to him, until he finally got associated with it.

But even killing his children didn’t have anything to do with him. “Well, your children are liable to be killed off, don’t you see?”

“Oh, I don’t . . .” Nothing to do with him!

So, you can approach a person closely enough with action, and he’ll retreat, retreat, retreat; and when he can’t retreat any further, you get the cornered-rat effect, you know? He’ll turn around and go the other way.

Politicians are always making this mistake; they always misestimate the moment. And they’ll see this supine population that is taking everything that is shoveled out to it. It’s being charged 110 percent of all of its income; it’s being made to stand and bow every time a policeman goes by, you see? All this. And they see this totally docile population, and they say, “Well, we can do anything we please,” you see? And they do the “anything you please.” And all of a sudden they do one too many “anything’s,” you see, and all of a sudden they get the cornered-rat effect, see?

All of a sudden it does have something to do with the population, and then there’s no controlling it at all, because these people are rather irresponsible, and their control of action is so foreign to them—they’ve forgotten how to control action, don’t you see?—that their actions just go brow! It’s like a barroom brawl. You really, in a barroom brawl, you never really can identify who started the fight or who’s against you or who’s for you, don’t you see? Just everybody starts slugging everybody.

It’s very interesting to be in the middle of a barroom brawl. I have been, in some of the less seemly places of the world, and emerged with a whole skin. But it’s very interesting to see one blow up. Well, this is amidst a bunch of drunks, and they’re all happy and cheerful, “Who’d care less” and “Have another drink, Bill,” you see?

And all of a sudden one says, “There’s two heads on a dime,” or something.

And the other one says, “There ain’t two heads on a dime.”

And “Yes, there is two heads on a dime; I’ll show you, you see?”

“Well, you can’t show me,” and all of a sudden, wham! See?

All these people that have been sitting there supine, and so forth—bottles are flying through the air. These two fellows start to fight, these two, these, these, these fellows fight those—you’d never know who’s friends of whose, or anything of the sort.

You’d say the best thing to do in a case like that is to back up into a corner and barricade yourself with a table, but let me assure you that that is very unsafe tactics, because somebody else will have the same idea, and he’ll fight with you for the table.

So action also gets the bad connotation, and a thoroughly bad connotation it can get, because it can produce pain! It can produce destructiveness, pain and so forth. So when somebody is overly concerned about being hurt, they’re pretty nuts, you know; they think you only live once and they think they’ve got to preserve the body to the ultimate degree. They think pain is something that nobody can confront, and they certainly can’t confront it because they got so many overts on it, something like that.

When people cannot confront pain of any kind, and so forth, you will find that they also are refusing to confront action. And when they cease to confront action they cease to confront incident and they won’t advance a cycle of action, and their sense of time goes completely bad.

I didn’t say that psychiatry and psychology and so forth had backed themselves—and medicine—had backed themselves into this exact position, because I didn’t have to. I think you could understand that clearly. The only thing a doctor can ever tell you is “Be quiet,” you know, “Take it easy.” Don’t you see? It’s rather bad advice! He’s given the patient a longer time of illness; whether the patient is in bed more weeks or not, illness is now going to move along longer for the patient, don’t you see? What if he said “Well, you can lie there in bed if you want to, but let’s get some things that interest you and let’s get some of this and that, and so forth, and you better have some people come in to see you ‘ and so forth and so on. The guy would have an idea that time is passing very quickly, and this has a remarkable effect upon healing. See? It takes so long to heal, and if you’ve got a lot of time passed, then you’d heal quickly, wouldn’t you? You get the various considerations, how they entangle here.

So there’s these various upsets, then, on the subject of action, the avoidance of action, and then there is, of course, a pugnacity will set in where it’s all got to be action, or it’s 811 got to be destructive action. For instance, Hitler should have had some processing. He had it all won up to the point where he had to have more action. We’re not quite sure why he had to have more action, but of course he went into a faster level of action than he could confront or anybody else could confront, and that was destruction.

So when you get more action than you can confront, you normally get destruction. And this also gives the cycle of action a bad name, because people think that a cycle of action inevitably ends in decay and death. And it’s at that point that we depart from the Vedic hymn of the Dawn Child. They assumed that it was all going to decay and die. Do you see how that doesn’t necessarily represent a cycle of action at all—that it’s all going to go on newly, newly, newly and then peel off and then die, don’t you see?

But we’re taught this on every hand. Every flower apparently is designed this way; buildings are designed this way, and so forth. And you have so many examples of a cycle of action ending in disaster and the completeness of disaster being the total end of the cycle of action, that it makes people quite unwilling to complete a cycle of action.

They say, “Well, if I completed a cycle . . .” I'll show . . . give you a very direct application of this: “If I completed a cycle of action on the preclear why he’d be an old, decayed corpse.” Do you see what he’s cross-associated here? See?

So a cycle of action, philosophically, and in the physical universe, is very often looked on as something which goes from birth through growth to a momentary stability, through decay to death. And that is so built into the physical universe that it is a barrier to people completing a cycle of action.

And somebody is worried about this sort of thing when they never seem to be able to complete a cycle of action on a PC. Never flatten a process, never really go through the auditing cycle and so forth. They are up against something there which prevents their arrival; they mustn’t arrive; they mustn’t get to that final point. They’re afraid to get to that final point, so they will go bzoodle!

So something could be wrong with their concept of the idea of a cycle and something could be wrong with their concept of the idea of action. But certainly, the cycle of action is not being completed with regard to what they are trying to do. And you, in supervising the case or in trying to handle this situation and so forth, can actually beat your brain to a fine feathered froth, trying desperately to figure out “How do I get this guy to complete this cycle of action?”

You call in Joe and you say, “Now, look. On auditing this PC—auditing this PC—get your auditing question answered! Your auditing question answered! I mean, you got that now? Now, what have I just said to you?”

“Auditing question answered. Oh, yes, of course. I know that. Yes, yes. Uh-huh-uh.” Of course he also is saying back there, “It has nothing to do with me,” see?

Oh, yes. So you see this session the next time and you see, “Well, Pete, how have you been today?” “Uh . . . the trees are pretty, aren’t they?”

“Thank you very much.”

You say, “Look, look, even on two-way comm, for God’s sakes, get the PC to answer something that has some relation . . .”

“No, ha . . . Oh, of course. Yes, I know that. Yes, I know that.”

But you see this cycle of action: cycle out maybe, action out maybe, destruction and death being the end of all cycles of action—we mustn’t arrive. So the best way not to arrive is never follow a cycle of action. See? Always just follow a random action that has nothing to do with completing any cycle of action.

And when you run into that too much, those are the things which you will find wrong with the auditor: something wrong with cycle, something wrong with action, and the other thing which I mentioned earlier, that the individual —confrontation of incident.

Well, for instance, you know, an easy-running PC can very often upset some auditors because they change so rapidly, and the auditor, he no more than gets grooved down into auditing whatever the command was, and the process goes and gets flat, and here’s a new incident, see? You’ve got two conditions, then: either the tone arm action has been run out of a process and it is continued, see, because one can’t confront the incident, see, of a change in the PC to this degree; or on the other hand, one stops running the process when there is still a lot of tone arm action going on, because “We know what’ll happen if we complete the cycle of action: we’ll kill the PC. Obviously, so we better not kill any PCs. Ron says not to kill PCs, so . . .”

Anyway, you see that very often you are trying, in trying to get auditing accomplished, and so forth, you very often are trying to get it accomplished against this thing called a cycle of action; and we mustn’t have a cycle of action on the part of the person, and yet auditing depends on the cycle of action.

So it’s all this rather long series of considerations which I have been giving you which complicate the auditing cycle. And it can be avoided by not getting the auditing question answered; it can be avoided by not acknowledging the PC, see? It can be avoided by, well, not asking any question at all—that’s also a solution, you see? It can be avoided by never really getting the PC in session so that you start auditing the PC, don’t you see?

One could go to the extreme and decide that it’s all over anyway, so that it doesn’t matter what one does now. You see? A whole bunch of considerations can occur around it using these various elements of which I’ve been talking to you: considerations of cycle, considerations of action and considerations of the whole cycle of action, which is the fact that it’s liable to end up in death and destruction. So, all of these things will compound and will show up in an auditing session.

Now, where you’ve got somebody with these points very astray and adrift, and who either has got to have too much motion from the PC, or has got to have too little motion for the PC, because his confrontation of the amount of incident, see, is off—when these things are awry, then you have trouble with this thing called the auditing cycle. And the auditing cycle is simply nothing but the broad auditing cycle of a session: we sit down and we start a session and you get the PC in session, and we run the session, and then we run it on through and we end the session. And we continue a series of sessions until we finally have the process that we’re running flat, don’t you see?

Or this PC has come to us to be audited for his lumbosis and we cure his lumbosis, and that’s the end of the situation. See, that’s the broad—the big one.

But that really isn’t an auditing cycle, technically; that’s a session cycle, or an intensive cycle, don’t you see? That’s the cycle of the case, and so forth. What we mean, very precisely, when we say auditing cycle, is simply your TR O to 4. That is very severely, precisely, an auditing cycle, in the finest, purest meaning of the word. It is simply the Pete-Bill, “Hello,” “Okay,” you know? I mean, he says, “Do birds fly?”

“No.”

“Thank you.” See?

And the auditing cycle which goes on the bigger perimeter of “Do birds fly?”

“Uh . . . hm! You know, I used to watch flying birds when I was a boy. Tsh! Yeah, I used to have a lot of fun watching flying birds . . . a boy.”

“Oh, yeah? All right, all right. Now, do birds fly?”

“Uh . . . yeah. Yeah, they sure do.”

“Thank you.”

See? See, that’s really all there is to it. But when you get to throw in the number of cognitions a PC can get, the number of changes a PC can experience, the complexities of various processes right up to R6 - what you’ve got to do in order to do this — this auditing cycle is still very dominant. But it is so overwhelmed and surrounded by the tremendous complications of the auditor’s action that if he hasn’t got it down right he can’t audit. Do you see that? He just going to be all thumbs!

What’s missing is the auditing cycle. And if he hasn’t gotten an auditing cycle in by the time he’s studied up the line pretty fair, well, there’s just something wrong with these points I’ve taken up with you today in this lecture. He’s got some wild considerations with regard to this. He can’t confront incidents, or he’s got to confront too much incident, or, you know, his concept of time is out, or his cycle is out, or his concept of the death and destruction of the situation is out; he’s got the wrong idea of action, you see? It’ll lie somewhere in that direction. And if you then cleaned that up with the individual, you’d find all of a sudden that he found these other processes very easy.

He’s always having trouble, let us say, with a complicated process: He’s saying he has trouble with a complicated process, whereas he’s not having trouble with a complicated process at all. I’ve seen you use the most complicated processes anybody ever dreamed of, don’t you see? And the only thing I’ve ever seen you have any trouble with is the cycle of action. See, that is the cornerstone on which all such actions take place. It’ll be those various elements, and it’ll be those various things.

Now, I haven’t answered one question in this lecture—is, although cycle means various things in various departments and so forth, what does it mean in Scientology? And I haven’t said what it meant in Scientology. And it just means “from the beginning to the conclusion of an intentional action”; that’s what cycle means, in Scientology. As far as we’re concerned, it’s the beginning to the conclusion of an intended action. Intended, see?

Has to be a higher-toned definition than your other definitions. And you can consider it in these other departments, too, at the same time. You see, it’s perfectly all right. But it has something to do with the tone of the person who is using the definition.

“A cycle of action is the moment when my mother looks at me to the moment she whips me.” See? That’s an other-determined definition, see? As we move the definition on up. it’s from the beginning to the end of the intended action. That’s a very loose, wide definition, but it could be that.

The only other thing I’d leave up in the air is how could possibly one go about straightening up these various things with somebody? Well, I’ll give you a very complicated process, and so forth, that I would thoroughly recommend, to take care of this, and that’s just itsa on these subjects. And you’ll find out that, within the limits of all levels, would be the most embracive of these. Okay? 

Audience: Mm-hm. 

Thank you very much.

BASICS OF AUDITING

A lecture given on
29 August 1961

All right. This is the 29th of August 1961. And I’m often gagging about using notes in lectures. But this particular lecture I have some notes for, believe it or not. That’s because this is a very, very tricky subject. And I’m going to talk to you about something that is going to make you more auditing gains in less time as an auditor and make us more Clears than any other single subject we have opened up on in recent times.

Now, this is quite an important lecture. This lecture should be a basic on HPA and an absolute necessity at the level of HCS/B.Scn. And if a D.Scn. is missing these points, we ought to revoke his thetan! But this is quite important, this material—not to give it an overstress of some kind or another, because I don’t think it could be overstressed.

Now, you see, earlier this summer I was confronted with the fact that with all the materials in hand as to how to clear people, very few Clears were being made. Interesting, huh? But every time we have borne down on the subject of auditing and accuracy of auditing, all of a sudden we have people finding their goals and terminals, you see, finding goals and terminals on PCs and we have more Clears being made.

This is very direct. We have had this experience here. We are all, I’m sure, agreed that it was a matter of the rudiments were out. And just as soon as I said “Well, we’ve got some kind of a games condition going here, and the rudiments are out, and you’ll find it in the first 150,” it’s proven true. I think maybe we got, maybe, something on the order of one or two goals out of fifteen cases that are still not found since that was released just a few days ago, right?

Female voice: Yes, two cases.

Just two cases, see? Interesting.

And in every case, the goal was within the first 150, and yet they had assessed for weeks and weeks and weeks after that first 150. See, they’d added it up to a thousand and all gone up and on and on and more and more goals, and longer and longer assessment. And I said, “Well, go back to the first 150 I think that’s where you found them, isn’t it? Interesting, isn’t it?

So that all the time after the first 150, certainly, goals were taken, then the rudiments were out during auditing. Obviously the rudiments were out. The goal was buried. And as soon as the rules were put right, the goal came back in, perked up and pangity-pangity-pang, and everything was going along gorgeously. As my friend Paul said the other day, we were all off at a smart trot.

Now, here’s a point, then. Here’s a point of some interest: that by improving auditing technology and the skill of individual auditors, we then come closer to very broad clearing. It is not case difficulties that are restraining the PC, now, from getting Clear. All the evidence is in, and that’s what it adds up to. All right.

Therefore, the stress must be on auditor technology, the handling of technical aspects of Scientology. Now, the better that is, the more Clears you’re going to make. We’ve got the weapons with which to make Clears. There aren’t any bugs in it. I haven’t written up your last Prehav Scale, but you mostly have it right now. There’s no missing items of any importance that would restrain this from happening. So therefore we come back on auditor technology.

Now, I don’t want you to accept anything I am saying as accusative, casewise, or anything like that. I’m simply going to give you data here, and this data is very well worth having. This data was arrived at the hard way. It would be a withhold from you to tell you otherwise than that it was arrived at, at a hard way, on the hard line. I’ve been getting some auditing. Sessions have been going out. We sat down and analyzed, and we have analyzed, now, all the points where sessions were going out and so forth. I got a good reality on that, and Suzie got a good reality on it, and we were straightening out these points. Because, frankly, we weren’t doing it particularly to find out more about auditing, but it’s just stuff that came up and we analyzed accordingly. And apparently, what it boils down to is not auditing attitude or anything as nebulous as this. It boils down to very concrete data, which you’ll be happy to find out.

Now, as an auditor, perhaps, you say, “Well, there are so many rules of auditing, and which one of these rules of auditing should I be following, and how much memorizing of rules and all of this sort of thing should I do?” Well, basically, first and foremost, if you are worried about the rules of auditing, there is something wrong with your auditing approach.

We can count on that, then, as a stable datum: that if somebody is worried about the rules about auditing and the zigs and the zags and so forth about auditing, and terribly concerned with these things and so forth, then there’s something basically wrong. Because auditing, fundamentally, is simply this—it goes back to the Original Thesis: The auditor plus the PC is greater than the PC’s bank. And the auditor is there to direct the PC’s attention and to keep the PC in session and to remain in control of the session and get auditing done.

Aside from saying what auditing is therapeutically—supposed to be doing this and that, and making Clears and freeing up attention and the various theoretical and technical aspects of Scientology—when you’ve talked about auditing, you’ve said it when you have said that. Auditor plus the PC is greater than the PC’s reactive bank. And the auditor is there to direct the attention of the PC and get the PC in there and get these objects confronted and straightened out and the unknowns off and the bank straightened out and the track straightened out, and so forth, and he winds up at the other end with a Clear. That is what it amounts to with the technical knowledge of what you do with a PC. It all boils down to that. You are there to get auditing done. The less auditing you do which is effective auditing, the more upset your PC is going to be.

Now, let’s take the first object lesson here: The auditor sits down in the auditing chair; the PC sits down in the PC’s chair. What is the contract? What is the understood contract as of that instant? That understood contract is a very simple contract: The PC sat down to be audited.

What does the PC understand by being audited? He basically understands it as getting on toward Clear. What he means “toward Clear,” we’re not sure a lot of the time, but even that: he senses it is there, he senses he’s got a direction to go, he senses that he can arrive at a certain destination, and he’s there to get that done. Now, he’s not there to have ARC breaks run, present time problems handled; he’s not there to straighten out the auditing room; he’s not there to have any of these things done at all that we call rudiments. He is there to get audited toward Clear.

Well, the first observation we can make: that rudiments go out to the degree that auditing doesn’t get done. That’s a direct ratio. Rudiments go out to the degree that auditing does not get done.

Now, this poses you a problem. If you are using no session to put rudiments in—if you use up no time at all to put rudiments in—of course, you’re apparently around the bend as far as handling the PC, because the rudiments are out. You see, here’s a puzzle that we face at once. If you’re not spending any time putting the rudiments in, of course the rudiments are going to go out. But the more time you spend putting the rudiments in, the more rudiments you’ve got to put in. Have you got that?

So, somewhere here there’s an optimum amount of rudiments putting-in, and it’s not very much. It’s on the order of five minutes. You know, five minutes and the rudiments are in: The PC will bear with that, but not much more. And when it goes to a half an hour, his present time problem is actually, basically, the fundamental problem of getting auditing.

Now, he’ll say the present time problem is something else, is something else, is something else, is something else; but his basic problem: is he going to get any auditing? And after he’s had half, three-quarters of a session thrown away on a bunch of things that he didn’t care about, why, of course, now he has a new present time problem called “getting auditing.” In the next session, he comes in with this new present time problem: “Am I ever going to get audited?” because he doesn’t consider any of these other things auditing.

Now, that’s quite fascinating: He doesn’t consider them auditing. So therefore, of course he’s out of session. From a PC’s viewpoint, auditing is a direct press forward, getting himself straightened out so he can get a good Goals Assessment, and finding his terminal—if he knows anything about it at all, this is what he demands—and getting auditing straight along on the road to Clear, and knowing he’s getting someplace and all of that sort of thing. This is what he really settles for. This is by experience. Because if you want to keep somebody in session—they will even hang on for months, as we know now, getting assessed for goals; even though the goals are all invalidated and everything else, they’re still interested and they’ll still go to session, don’t you see? Even though the thing is being run completely crosswise, you see, they’ll still go to session and still be assessed. You got that?

Well, they won’t be run endlessly on general processes that don’t approach them any closer to Clear. They’ll only go for maybe seventy-five or a hundred hours and they’ll leave the HGC. And they take a lot of persuading to get back and they won’t want to be audited by you anymore, you know, in private practice, and so forth and . . . What are all these things from? From the basic present time problem of not getting auditing. So actually your main chance is simply to audit the PC.

If it comes to a question of whether to audit the PC or go through some arduous flipperoo on straightening out some kind of a super relationship, or something, audit the PC first. See? Now, you’ve got to find out what the PC’s attention is on and what he considers auditing, and he very often considers it a chronic present time problem of some kind or another—a long-duration problem. And he judges everything as to whether or not he’s making process by whether or not this problem is getting stronger, getting weaker—the hidden standard sort of thing; he’s got all that sort of thing. Well, he’ll be interested in that. Why? ‘Cause his attention is on it. So that’s auditing.

So auditing could be defined, to the PC, as anything which is handling the things his attention is fixed on. See? That’s what he considers auditing. If his attention is super fixed on it and it’s being handled, he considers that auditing. And of course his attention is super fixed on goals, so you can get away with assessing practically forever. He will stay in there being assessed longer than he will stay in there being run on oddball, bit-and-piece general processes that don’t lead toward Clear. Isn’t that fascinating? That’s an observation that I think you’ll find is quite valid.

Now, if it came to a choice as to whether or not we went about it endlessly, endlessly, endlessly running rudiments to get them in, or auditing the PC, you would always choose what the PC considered auditing. You would always choose what the PC considered auditing, and let the rudiments go to hell. And the next thing you know, they’ll disappear in importance.

Remember, what you validate becomes important. You start handling too many present time problems and ARC breaks too arduously and too long and, believe me, you’ll get more ARC breaks. Why do you get more ARC breaks? You get them simply because auditing itself is a present time problem, because he isn’t getting auditing. In his viewpoint, he is not getting auditing he is not sure he will get auditing; therefore, his contract is violated so he is in disagreement with what is happening in the session. Do you follow that?

Now, a PC will sit there and endlessly run 1A. Why? Well, his attention is stuck on it. His attention is stuck on all these problem points, you see? He considers it auditing as long as you are auditing in the direction of his problems, of course. So he will settle for 1A. It’s amazing how long he will run how many versions of 1A. See? This is amazing, too. If you were to flatten 1A, then, as we already have talked about, and gotten problems and Security Checks totally out of the road, you would find your PC would stay in session and think he was going someplace, and of course he is going someplace. And if you were to flatten 1A, giving the rudiments a lick and a promise, before you did a Goals Assessment, you’d find out your rudiments were in when you were doing the Goals Assessment, because, you see, the PC now can confront problems. You’ve already brought him up to the point of being able to confront the rudiments before you started fooling with the rudiments. You got the idea?

Although you run rudiments every session, although you try to find out what they are, although you try to knock them out, although you do run some havingness on the room and you keep the rudiments in . . . Nobody is saying just forget rudiments, but don’t consider rudiments anything like a session. Don’t ever make the mistake that the PC will think he is getting a session when rudiments are being run.

You’ll find PC after PC, when you ask him, “Do you have a present time problem?” will groan, because he knows now that his session is going to be endlessly chewed up with the “John and Mary” of life, and he doesn’t consider he’s getting anyplace. Why doesn’t he consider he’s getting anyplace? Because he knows he’s getting no place with his wife, and so forth. Well, you say, “Well, that’s a problem,” but he doesn’t consider this the general problem of his case, by any means.

You have found a problem: He is worried about having to write Blitz & Company. And you say, “Well, we’ll have . . .” and you just start to make the motion toward handling this problem of having his attention on Blitz & Company and the letter he's got to write to them, and you get, “Oh, no! My God! (sigh)” You’ve heard him, huh?

Well, why do you get this? He doesn’t consider Blitz & Company auditing. He doesn’t consider Blitz & Company as any difficulty. But he does consider that not getting auditing will produce an enormous difficulty.

The value which a PC assigns to auditing should be appreciated by you. It is terribly highly valued—very highly valued by the PC. And this is a great oddity, because actually, psychoanalysis was never highly valued; hypnotism is not highly valued; psychiatry they spit on. They go back for their electric shocks like wound-up dolls, but you say, “Well, what do you think would happen to you if you didn’t have any psychiatric treatment?”

“Oh, I’d probably be just the same as before. What’s the difference?”

You say, “Well, would you walk across the street for psychiatric treatment?”

“Hell, no.”

Well, that’s an oddity in itself. See? This is an oddity, that you’re dealing with a commodity which is very highly valued and which the society has been trying to put into the field of psychotherapy, but psychotherapy is not highly valued. So what you’re doing, basically, is very highly valued by the PC. So the more you don’t give him of it, the more difficulty you’re going to have with him.

If there’s ever a crossroads of decision as to whether or not we’re going to endlessly get on with this, even a crude remark of this character: “Well, 1 see you’ve got a present time problem, yeah, and you got a little bit of an ARC break. All right. Well, okay. To hell with those. We’re just going to run now . . .” and you give him the process and you go on and run it.

And you’ll be amazed how often the PC will say, “Hey, you know, he’s right in there pitching.” He might grump for a minute, you know, and say, “Well, it’s not according to Hoyle, you know?” But you’ll just be amazed how many times teat will win where the endless handling of rudiments won’t win.

The endless handling of rudiments is a limiting factor in auditing, because it produces eventually the ARC break of obtaining no auditing. So the decision is, audit. You’ll have less ARC breaks the more auditing you do. And of course, if your auditing is flawless from a standpoint of Model Session and if some of these other things I’m bringing up are also present, smoothly, in the session, your days of having ARC-breaky PCs end as soon as you recognize that point: that he is there to be audited, and his basic contract is the basic contract of being audited. And the more you audit him on the things his attention is fixedly on—I mean fixedly on, on the long track basis, you see— and the more attention you give to that and the more you handle that, the more he knows he’s being audited, the less ARC breaks you’re going to get.

It’s amazing what a PC will put up with to get auditing, quite amazing what they will put up with to get auditing. Why make them put up with anything? But, at the same time, go on and audit. So the best, hottest message I can give you on that exact subject is audit! Don’t fool with it; audit! See?

What a PC responds to best: “Oh, well. All right. You’re here to be audited. Good enough. Fine. Now, we’re going to go over the rudiments. All right,” and you rip on down the rudiments line. You notice there’s a bad flick of some kind or another. You say, “What’s that?”

He says, “Well, that’s so-and-so.”

You say, “Good,” and you ask it again. “All right. That’s good, good. It’s still flicking. Is it still worrying you? Anything else about it worrying you?”

“Well, so-and-so’s worrying . . .”

You say, “All right. Good.” Get the next one, bang! The next one, bang! You say, “All right. Now, now let’s get down to business. Now, this is the process I’m going to run, and here it is.”

And he says, “Well, I don’t much care for that process.” (I’ll take this up in a moment.)

And you say, “I don’t care.” You say, “I care for it. Do it.” You know, that kind of an aspect.

And he says, “But so-and-so technically, and it said in bulletin so-and

so . . .’ You say, “Well, all right. I read it, too. Do it.”

And you find the guy doesn’t go into apathy; quite the contrary. He goes spark, spark, spark, spark, spark, and you’ll get good gains.

All right. There are some more aspects in that. But that whole first section of what I want to talk to you about is, for God’s sakes, just audit the PC. Don’t fool with it, just audit. You see? Just go right in there and saw it up and chew it up and push his attention around and get him through to the other end and . . . Well, get 1A all straight and handle whatever you want to handle. I don’t care what you handle, because this would hold, possibly, if 1A ever became ancient history—this would still hold. Run the PC toward Clear, and have minimal chop behind your back, you see, minimal unkind thoughts, minimal ARC breaks, minimal difficulties in sessions. These all just tend to disappear.

Because he might say, “Well, that auditor of mine is a cross son of a bitch, but, jeez, he sure audits!” You know, this would be kind of the idea. You got the idea? “He sure audits.” It might be terribly profane, the opinion, you see? “Well, you don’t do right in a session, she’s a real bitch, that auditor, you know?”—you know, that kind of an aspect and that kind of conversation— “but I’d rather have her audit me than anybody else I know.” You know, that kind, and so on?

The HGC, as soon as an HGC auditor—as soon as that became prevalent in an HGC and as soon as HGC auditors—you just try and change the auditor on the PC. They had this auditor last year, or something like that, and they just—well, they just don’t want to be processed unless they can be processed by the same auditor, because they’re very sure that auditor can audit. But it’s not “can audit,” although they always use “can audit.” The secret is “will audit.” And the auditor who kind of won’t audit, they don’t want. That’s the secret of “being wanted by” as an auditor, is how much you get down to business and how much business you get done.

All right. Now let’s take up something a little more esoteric, here, under the heading of “escape” as a philosophy. This is a very complicated subject.

This is the orientation of an auditor—has to do with his orientation. This is the only point where an auditor’s orientation can seriously get in his road. As long as he follows Scientology and goes on auditing and using the principles of Scientology, this one can get in his road. All those levels of the Prehav Scale that have to do with escape that is, abandon, leave, anything like that—if these are in any way, shape or form hot or if they’re not thoroughly flat on an auditor, you’ll get two aspects. You’ll get the auditor letting the PC escape; he wants the PC to escape, because this is the auditor’s modus operandi of handling situations. And this is as wrong-headed as you could get, because the only way a PC will ever get Clear is by turning around and fighting down the devils that pursue him. And if the auditor’s philosophy is “the only thing the PC should be permitted to do is escape,” the auditor will never control the session. And this is why an auditor doesn’t control a session when the auditor doesn’t control a session. He thinks he’s being good. He thinks he’s being nice to the PC.

Now, let’s go about this on a little wider basis. And oddly enough, under that same heading comes case reality necessary in an auditor. And we’ve got the same heading: It’s escape as a philosophy. Case reality is necessary in an auditor.

Exactly what is this that we are looking at when we find that a Scientologist has never seen or gone through an engram, when we find that a Scientologist has never collided with a ridge, when a Scientologist is not aware of the thenness of incidents? If the Scientologist is not aware of those things, he will continue to make mistakes, and no amount of training will overcome it. Knowing this—just knowing this—will overcome it, because it all of a sudden sees lots of light. Lights begin to Rash in all directions.

If a Scientologist has never been through an engram, if a Scientologist has never been stuck on the track, if a Scientologist has never seen ridges or any of the other mental phenomena, it is because his basic philosophy in life is escape. Now, there is all the wisdom there is in it. I will B° ahead and tell you all about it, but there is all the wisdom there is in it.

Of course, if he’s never seen an engram, what is he trying to do? He’s trying to escape from engrams. So he escapes so hard from engrams that he sees a little flick of a picture and he’s sway, man, he’s away. He’s off like a rocket. He’s off like the Russian never went. See, he’s over the hills and past Arcturus. There’s a little twitch of a somatic and pshew! he’s gone. Why?

His basic philosophy is that if you can run fast enough you never get bit. So, of course, he doesn’t have what we call case reality, because of course he’s running from his case. His basic philosophy is “The best way to handle a case is get out of it,” so that’s all he ever does with the PC: takes the PC out of his case. So therefore a PC will never be in session with him.

Oh, lights begin to dawn, huh?

It is pure kindness. This auditor will find the PC getting interiorized a little bit and he’ll know that this is the wrong thing to do. So he will take the pigs attention out of session. Some of them do it very flagrantly and some of them do it very pleasantly. It is nevertheless true. One of the ways of doing it is to change the process. Another way of doing it is Q and A.

PC says, “I don’t want to be here.”

The auditor says, “Of course, you dear fellow; you do not want to be there. Let’s be somewhere else at once.”

PC shows the slightest inkling of digging into it in the bank and the auditor pulls him out. The auditor is selling him freedom. At what cost? The cost of never getting Clear. But the auditor sells him freedom, and it’s a good thing. It’s kindly meant.

This same auditor well might have a penchant—doesn’t necessarily, but might have a penchant for going around opening all the canary-bird cages in the world. But then, by George, never follows up the fact that the canary birds are inevitably eaten by cats or killed by hawks, promptly and at once. Don’t you see?

The auditor is saying, “Escape, escape, escape.” The auditor is actually saying, “Don’t confront it, don’t confront it, don’t confront it, don’t confront it, don’t confront it.” The processes he’s running are saying, “Confront it, confront it, confront it,” don’t you see? But the auditor, with his auditing technology, prevents the PC from confronting it, and so therefore runs rudiments forever, does other things, doesn’t quite let the PC go into session, “makes mistakes,” “changes the process often,” “ends the session irregularly,” does something odd. And all of these oddities could be said to be backed up by this one philosophy, the philosophy of escape: The kind thing to do is to let him out.

The guy is settling down on the track in some fashion or another and he’s going out of present time—oh, let’s not let him do that, because that’s the wrong thing to do.

Now, this is compounded; this is a complex subject, which is why 1 said this—earlier in the lecture, it was. The auditor who has no case reality of course dramatizes this point. You cannot see engrams while you’re running from them.

Let’s take a model engram that this person is in, and let’s take some of the things that this person has happen to them. The model engram he is in—he’s being whipped. The Jesuit fathers, or something of the sort, have decided to really lay it into him on the backtrack, you see, at some time or another. And they’ve got him tied to a post, and he’s being whipped. So he cannot leave that post, so he fixes his attention on a section of sky and says, “It isn’t happening.” That’s escape, isn’t it? So what does he find when he gets into that engram? He finds an invisibility called sky. He doesn’t find any whiplashes, he doesn’t find any post, he doesn’t find anything—he finds a section of sky. That is the final mechanism: escape.

Now, he escapes mentally. He doesn’t just run away; he escapes mentally. Don’t you see? All right. So that worked; he didn’t feel them after that. So it was a workable philosophy, perfectly workable philosophy. Unconsciousness is also a workable philosophy.

So he’s being tortured on the rack—ah! he fools them all: He goes unconscious; he can’t feel it anymore. We don’t have, then, an engram of the rack; we have a period of unconsciousness. You see that? He’s actually in the incident, but he’s only unconscious.

All right. Now, let’s go a little bit further here, and let’s take a look at this—a little bit further—and we’ll find this person has odd somatics and odd difficulties that he cannot account for. And if he never sees any engrams or sees them very rarely, of course he can’t account for these difficulties at all. In Book One, it says they’re all contained in pictures, and he doesn’t see any pictures, and yet here are the somatics, and there’s no pictures. Of course there’s no pictures, because his attention on any given point is the solution “escape.” Escape mentally: escape mentally by forgetting it; escape mentally by looking at nothing; escape mentally by saying it isn’t there, you know?—the various mechanisms of not-is.

Yet the somatics have not been not-ised. And this person, every time he “contacted an engram,” actually contacted a nothingness and then was left with a nagging somatic or a sensation that he could not then account for and which seemed to be very mysterious to him, and therefore didn’t connect any of these sensations much with his bank—don’t you see?—and knows he feels uncomfortable, but can’t really connect it with any given engram. Got it?

All right. Let’s take an actual case in point. Person does, in running on the track, contact an engram, and there it is, all 3-D and so forth: people standing on the bank throwing a spear. All right. Spear comes across the river, goes through the PC’s ribs, and the PC has a hell of a somatic and that is the end of the picture as a PC.

This person, now, auditing, says, “Well, why doesn’t this PC handle incidents like that? Well, nothing to it. Spear went through you and of course phssst—momentary, you know? Tsk! Flat and gone and you’re out of it, and that’s it. Now don’t get this idea of being stuck on the track,” you see? “Hooh! Nobody should be stuck on the track. Why doesn’t this PC just flick his attention out, you know? Well, I’ll fix this PC up so he can flick his attention out. I’ll pull this PC’s attention out.” Don’t you see? This is the best mechanism.

You ask this same person (this is an actual case) . . . You ask this same person—you say, “Do you ever have a somatic in that area you just indicated that the spear went through during that incident?”

“Oh, yes, all the time.”

“Well, does it have anything to do with that spear?”

(Person didn’t say “all the time”; person said, “Yes, very occasionally.”)

But, “Does it have anything to do with the spear?”

“No, uh . . . well, uh . . . or does it?”

“Well, do you have a lot of odds and ends of somatics of this particular character?”

“Well, yes, I do.”

“Are they connected with pictures?”

“No.” (Actual conversation that took place.) “But I thought all that went out with Dianetics, and in Scientology you no longer had to confront all of these things.”

Well, here immediately, of course, you have the tag end of every engram that the person has contacted—is just stuck, stuck, stuck, and where are they all? They’re all in PT. So what is PT to this person? PT is certainly just PT, but actually it’s a jam of engrams; so therefore the PC should be in PT all the time—because the auditor is. The auditor is never out of PT, so therefore the PC is never out of PT.

And this auditor will not actually guide the PC’s attention through an engram, because there’s no reality on it. The best thing to do is to yank the attention out of the engram. So the auditor will not control the PC’s attention, because escape is the better philosophy. Don’t you see why this is? So there’s reality.

Now, there’s a direct cure for this, and if you wanted to get anybody who didn’t have “any reality on the past track,” “no reality on engrams,” no reality on this and that as far as these things are concerned. and was thinking people are being unreasonable who go into engrams and get stuck and whose attention are not in present time—this person, then, is not operating on a reality. They can’t quite tell what the PC is doing, don’t you see? So they’re always worried about what the PC is doing because they themselves have never been in this identical situation; they get a little bit impatient with the PC, don’t you see? So they’re not actually doing a guided tour of a bank; they’re doing a guided yank of a bank.

And if you were to run this process on that unreal case—it’s just one process, a one-shot process—you would suddenly find that they would have an enormous shift of reality on what we’ve been talking about all these years. And the process is “What unknown might you be trying to escape from?”

That’s the process. And at first glance, that’ll become a very brutal process, of course, because it’ll just start unstacking this. And one of the first things this PC would see, who had this brilliant reality on the people on the bank who threw the spear, would be to find out the water was cold. And the PC, I happen to know, has cold feet all the time. Of course. There’s that piece of that engram, see? So that piece of that engram would be contacted.

And you just keep contacting these pieces of the engram, because of course you’re running the reverse mechanism now, not the philosophy of escape. But the only philosophy that works in Scientology is “confront it.”

It isn’t that you have to erase it; it is only that you have to become familiar with it. All you have to establish is familiarity with the bank; you don’t have to establish an erasure of the whole bank. It would take endless time to do that.

And all of a sudden, this auditor who’s been having trouble guiding a PC’s attention will not have that trouble anymore. They will recognize at once, “Oooh-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho, I’ve been trying to get the PC—oh! Hm! My—my— pardon my red face! Oh, boy, is this what it’s like down here!” You know? “Huh!”

Now, what happens is every time this auditor yanks the PC’s attention, the auditor is not aware of the fact that he has got the PC in one time stratum, called engram time, and is pulling the PC’s attention to present time, and locks the incident the PC was in, in present time, by an attention shift. Any kind of a mechanism, whether you call it faulty technology, changing the process, changing one’s mind, doing something of the sort—whatever you want to define it or whatever rationale went with it, this is actually occurring. And, of course, it is painful to the PC to have this happen, so the PC of course protests and this is a basic difficulty with ARC breaks. You get a basic difficulty at once, because the PC was there and now he’s here, only he’s not here and he’s not there and where the hell is he?

It isn’t that a PC should be regressed on the track and totally impressed by this past-time incident to a total point of overwhelm; but the PC is in another time stratum, usually, when he’s being audited, even on a conceptual or permissive process. PC appears to be sitting in present time, and the PC is not in present time. So of course the PC can neither be talked to nor handled as a person would be handled in present time. It is not a social tea party, auditing isn’t. The PC is not there, really; the PC is in another time stratum. And if you practice the philosophy of escape on somebody who doesn’t have to escape but is trying to do the bank, the auditor’s goal is different than the PC’s goal. And the PC is saying, “Well, I’m confronting it and I’m getting familiar with it, and here it all is.”

And the auditor is saying, “Come away, come away, come away; it’s dangerous.” Reactively, this is what is happening.

So the auditor is saying, “Come away,” and the PC is saying, “Let’s stay here,” and between the two you get ARC breaks and arguments. You would inevitably, wouldn’t you? And as soon as the auditor takes a guided tour of this thing called an engram bank, you see, with the spears whizzing from both banks of the river... This auditor has never—this particular person has probably never noticed that not only were there spears coming from one side of the river, but that probably there were whole volleys of arrows coming, too. Those somatics haven’t appeared yet. You got the idea? There’s other things missing in all this, and of course it all looks very mysterious. But the person gets down there, they’re trying to escape from it; that would be their first action. Spear goes through them: they say, “Escape.” Boom, “Let’s go.”

Well, it’s one of the basic thetan mechanisms. It’s why he never as-ises much track; it’s why he doesn’t become familiar with his bank. So look how prevalent this thing is. Very prevalent.

A thetan would be in a bad way if, when you killed his body, he couldn’t exteriorize, see? So it’s an absolute survival mechanism for a thetan. So, you see, it’s not a bad thing to have escape philosophy or to be able to escape. But let me tell you, when a person is compulsively escaping, he of course never escapes. And when you get a PC that you’re getting to escape all the time, of course he never escapes, and his case just winds up in a little black ball. You got the idea?

So therefore we can say that escape as a philosophy very much gets in the road of auditing when the auditor has this as a total philosophy, you see? And we can say also, then, that a case reality is very necessary in the auditor. But, of course, what do we mean by a case reality? Well, a case reality is willing to stay there and take a look, you see, instead of running out on the incident when it comes up.

These two things, then, are under the same heading and they are the same subject. A person who doesn’t have a reality on the bank has consistently escaped from the bank, and then that person of course does odd things in auditing. And then we say, “Well, that person is a bad auditor,” “That person is not so good,” or “That person doesn’t get results,” or something like that.

Well, we can say that much more succinctly and much more kindly now, much more effectively. We can simply say, “Well, this auditor has escape as a philosophy and hasn’t got much reality on the bank. So therefore, when he audits a PC, he doesn’t know what the PC is doing.” And when the auditor doesn’t know what the PC is doing and can’t fathom what the PC is doing and the auditor thinks that the PC shouldn’t be looking at all that stuff, too, of course we don’t get any clearing, because clearing depends on a familiarity with the bank. I’m not telling you, you all stick on the track; I’m merely saying that it’s necessary to have a familiarity of what can happen. You know, there you are in the middle of the river and the stuff is coming from all directions, and you’re confronting it and you’ve got it and you’ve got a sensation of fear or something, or confusion, already that’s going with it, and all of a sudden the auditor says, “Well, that’s the end of that process. Let’s run something else.” God, you don’t know whether you’re on the track or in present time or something like that. You’ve been betrayed, in other words.

But you could educate this auditor endlessly—just endlessly—without producing a single change in that philosophy, unless you hit the philosophy itself. Got it? You cannot educate an auditor who has that as a philosophy into giving what you would consider a smooth session of keeping the PC in session and his attention on his bank. Do you follow that?

So that’s exactly where that button sits, and that’s exactly what button you press. And when an auditor makes consistent mistakes, when an auditor yanks the PC’s attention or the auditor is doing a lot of Q and Aing—there’s more about Qing and Aing—but when he does a lot of this, a lot of shift, we just assume that: that the auditor has a total philosophy and fixation of escape, and therefore is letting the PC escape.

And he isn’t being vicious, he isn’t trying to cut the PC to pieces. He knows what’s best for the PC: Get out of there, man! Not even “Get rid of it,” just “Get out of there.” PC starts to look a little bit indrawn, go into session, the auditor will pull him out every time.

You probably couldn’t even list the number of mechanisms auditors use to effect this, so there’s just no sense in putting up counter-laws to each one of these mechanisms that’s used, is there? There’s no sense in doing that, because we have the basic mechanism for it.

All right. Now, let’s go a little bit further here. Here’s another subject on this. Responsibility for the session: in the Original Thesis, way, way back when, you had the rules, the laws, the basic laws, of auditor plus PC greater than the PC’s bank; PC less than PC’s bank. Obvious—a PC must be less than a PC’s bank or the PC would never be troubled by the bank, don’t you see?

So that’s why self-auditing doesn’t work, by the way: the PC is less than his own bank. Also, he never can get in session, because a bank won’t go in session. You can audit valences and that sort of thing. Oh, don’t mistake me; I mean, you can’t say that self-auditing does not produce a result. It does produce a result but the result is quite minor.

And actually all self-auditing is, is remedying havingness on auditing. Self-auditing always, always, always begins on scarcity of auditing. A PC would always rather be audited than self-audited, but they could get to a point finally where it is—auditing is so scarce... You know, people have been “auditing them” without auditing them, and auditing thereby gets scarce; so PC starts auditing and can come up to a point where the scarcity becomes so great that they begin to assume virtues, like the fox who loses his tail, you see? The great virtues of having no tail: the great virtues of self-auditing. Simply the lack of havingness of auditing can result to the fact where self-auditing can become quite a virtue.

Occasionally, you’ll find—once in a while, rarely, you’ll have somebody say, “Well, I want to do it myself,” as far as self-auditing is concerned; “I . . . I really want to make the grade myself.” And you look back over the history of the case and you’d find out they didn’t feel that way a year before. They just didn’t have auditing.

So you can actually have somebody sitting there, and an “auditor” there, and the person getting no auditing, don’t you see? And this denial of auditing, denial of auditing—by being yanked off the track, by endless rudiments, by never getting anything on the road, by never really getting in there and pitching, you see, one way or the other, the person is being denied auditing. And the person will be denied auditing to a point where they self-audit. That’s what self-auditing is.

You find a PC self-auditing, you can be sure that the PC has such a scarcity of auditing that your auditing is having considerable difficulty arriving. You don’t have to do anything about it except just reestablish the PC’s confidence in the fact that he is being audited and will be audited. That’s basically what you do, is just audit, and the PC will come out of this. But it requires auditing.

But the PC less than the PC’s bank—otherwise the bank would never be giving him any trouble. Yes, I know he’s creating the bank, on how many vias and that sort of thing. But he’s created a Frankenstein monster—and it’s about to eat up Frankenstein, you see—called a bank. And the Frankenstein’s monster inevitably will eat up Frankenstein. He’s created a bank. He’s created all these various valences and that sort of thing. He’s denied full responsibility for having done these things, and so on, and the result is that he’s having difficulties with a bank.

This is not self-auditing, now; I’m just talking about PCs in general. I’m talking about Homo sap, I’m talking about the farmer that’s walking down the road and I’m talking about this guy and that guy and the other fellow, you see? And these chaps are all in this sort of a state of less than the bank. When we say a man is aberrated, we say he’s less than the bank. And when we say somebody is psychotic, of course this person is not just less than the bank; this person is nonextant and s the bank. You see, there’s a total overwhelm, and that’s all psychosis is: total overwhelm by own bank.

Now, the gradients of cases is the degree to which a person is overwhelmed by the bank. Now, recognizing this, that you’re auditing somebody who is a bit overwhelmed by his own bank, and recognizing these laws in Original Thesis (simple and elementary as they are, nevertheless they’re very sweeping in their truth in auditing), we get this kind of a condition, here: The auditor has got to be cooperating and running the PC’s bank, you see, and running the PC at the bank in order to get auditing done, inevitably. When the auditor withdraws from doing this, he collapses the PC’s bank on him. You see?

When an auditor is auditing and suddenly stops auditing—like, you know, a shift of attention, spills the water glass, tips over the ashtray, something of this sort—he of course has to some degree withdrawn his control of the PC’s bank, and you get a minor collapse.

But there is a way to get a major one, and this has never been articulated before in Scientology, and it’s terribly important: When ever you take a direction from a PC and follow it, you collapse the PC’s bank on him.

These poor guys—I know two or three fellows who will only let some very, very weak auditor audit them, you see, and give the auditor all sorts of directions as to how to audit them. And of course this is just a self-audit. They don’t make much progress. They make some, but they don’t make very much progress. They’re usually in misery. They’ve set up a booby-trap situation here, because of course the auditor is taking directions from the bank and following them. That’s part of it. And the other part of it is, you see, the auditor subtracted himself from the basic equation of auditor plus PC is greater than the bank. You see?

So, when the auditor takes the PC’s directions, then it looks to the PC at once as though only the PC is confronting the bank; and he loses the illusion of the auditor’s confronting the bank, and of course the bank then collapses on the PC. Do you follow this carefully? It’s one of these simple arithmetical propositions. It’s one plus one is greater than one and a half, but one is not greater than one and a half. And what you’ve done is subtract a one from the one plus one, and of course you get immediately the one and a half greater than the one. You’ve only got one left, you see?

You haven’t got a PC sitting in the PC’s chair; you’ve got an auditor sitting in the PC’s chair. So the PC is now both the auditor and the PC, only it doesn’t add any ones. So instantly and immediately you of course get the bank greater than the PC, and so therefore the PC is promptly and instantly overwhelmed.

PC says, “I think you really ought to ask about that present time problem another time.” Oh, yes, PCs can do anything they like and they will say things like this, you see, in a perfectly good situation. They have sort of taken over—because of anxiety for auditing and other things—they’ve taken over the idea of auditing and they’re afraid some auditing is not going to occur. And so they sort of merge up and something in the bank is this and that and they sort of say, “Well, I think you ought to ask about that one more, because I think there is one . . .” and the auditor does ask that one more. And instantly, pshew!

The bank collapses promptly and instantly on the PC.

Got an ARC break. You never notice it, because it takes an hour or so to swell up, but the PC thereafter is running on auto. All you’ve got to do is take one direction from a PC and you collapse his bank on him. You must understand exactly how that occurs, you see?

Here’s the PC and the auditor and the PC’s bank, and the auditor plus the PC are greater than the bank. Now, of course, the moment that the PC becomes the auditor, even to any tiny degree, you no longer have the equation of auditor plus PC: You have the equation of PC plus PC-being-auditor, which of course still adds up only to one person—the PC—and of course this is not greater than the bank. So you get a collapse of the bank. And I do mean a collapse of the bank. You can make the bank go pshew!—just hit him in the face. Blango!

Now, just look this over, because it’s the first time we’ve ever examined this mechanism, in spite of the fact the laws are some of the oldest laws we have. I think the only two laws earlier than that is Survival is the dynamic principle of existence, and the purpose of the reactive mind, purpose of the analytical mind; those are the only laws that are earlier than these laws—I mean, in terms of time and development.

So, let’s take another example: Auditor says, “Do you feel all right now, and uh . . . or do you feel too tired to go on?”

The PC says, “I feel too tired to go on.”

And the auditor says, “All right. We won’t go on.” At that exact instant, you’ve collapsed the PC’s bank on him. I mean, it isn’t a simple thing, that the PC is suddenly dismayed or goes out of session or something like this. An actual mechanical fact happens: Whether the PC perceives it or not, the bank collapses on the PC, of course, because the bank is being held out, basically, and the PC is being held in position and the bank is being held in position only by the equation of auditor plus PC. And the second the presence of the auditor drops and the auditor ceases—that’s what we mean by “ceases to take responsibility for the session.”

Now, that’s an esoteric statement; it hasn’t any mechanics with it that give you any explanation, but that is the primary method by which the auditor does not take responsibility for the session. And that is the exact mechanism by which an auditor gets into trouble—the exact mechanism. It’s down there to a hairline. All the auditor has got to say is “Is it all right with you if we uh . . . um . . . is it all right with you if we uh . . . run this uh . . . an hour and a half?”

And the PC says, “No, I don’t think so.”

And the auditor says, “Well, all right. Then we won’t.”

Well, on the surface of it, it is the socially acceptable, kindest thing you can do: The poor fellow feels tired, so we just won’t go on with it. And at that moment, we just picked up the stewpot and hit him in the face with it. See, we collapsed the bank on him. The bank will collapse—can be counted on collapsing—instantly that this occurs. He’ll get a reaction from the bank, bang!

That means actually, probably, that the Model Session should be rephrased, on a discovery of this magnitude. Don’t worry about it until you see it in an HCOB, because it may be and it may not be, because basically the Model Session is written up just to get the illusion of courtesy.

I say, “Well, is it all right if we end this session now?”

And the PC says, “No, it’s not all right. I’m having a great deal of trouble here and I’m struggling around,” and so forth.

I say, “Well, all right. I’ve made a mistake, and we’re now going to end the session.” It’s always all right with the PC. I decided to end the session. If I decide anything else now, merely because the PC told me something else, I’ve had it, because the bank just will go splat! Now if I don’t want this PC to be butchered up, I certainly better stick by my own ideas of what I should be doing, no matter how wrongheaded or inopportune or upsetting those ideas may appear to be.

So you just have to take fate in your own two fists on such a situation. You say, “Is it all right if I end this session now?” It’s courtesy.

And the PC says, “Well, yes, it’s all right. Uh . . . except uh . . . I’m pretty far back on the track.” All this is, is a comment to the effect that “Well, you knucklehead, you didn’t ask me where I was on the track before you sprung this other one,” don’t you see?

Well, if you now say “Well, all right. We will run it ten minutes longer in order to get you up to present time,” you’ve had it at once! You’ll never get him to present time. Why won’t you ever get him to present time? Because you just collapsed the whole track on him, that’s why! And then you probably didn’t do anything to reassume the control of the session. Do you see what happens?

So you just never, never, never, never do what the PC says. You just never do what the PC says. I don’t care how logical it is, I don’t care how wrong you are. If you’ve given him a totally wrong, upside-down, incorrect instruction, you can do something more wrong than that.

You know, English doesn’t permit the deepening of the word wrong. You can’t be “wronger,” apparently, according to English. But boy, I’m telling you, you can be wronger. It doesn’t matter how idiotic the auditing direction was, how noncompliable the auditing direction was—it just doesn’t matter. If the PC now gives you some advice concerning it and you take that advice, you are promptly and at once wronger. You have just lost the control of the session, but that isn’t what’s important. Mechanically, you’ve collapsed the PC’s bank on him.

So you just must never do it! That’s just something an auditor must never do. He says, “All right if I end this session now?”

And the PC says, “No, it isn’t all right. I’m stuck down the track.”

And the auditor says, “All right. I’ll run the process for ten minutes longer.” Why, this is the kindest, most sensible, decent thing you can do, isn’t it? And it winds you up every time in the soup. Then you probably will spend the next five hours trying to end that session.

Why? Because you are no longer auditing the session; the PC is. You haven’t got an auditor plus PC greater than the PC’s bank, so the PC of course can’t come up to present time, so he just struggles. See? The mechanics are just dead against it. That’s the way the reactive mind is, not the way I think it is.

So that is a primary method of getting into trouble. A primary method is to violate that original equation. Auditor plus PC must both be there in order to be greater than PC’s bank, and when the PC says to the auditor, “Advice, advice,” and the auditor takes it, of course then at once, immediately, instantly, then, the PC becomes easily the auditor: He is running his own bank on a via, he’s no longer greater than the bank—it only takes a split second to happen—he’s in the soup. Got the idea?

Well, it isn’t that PCs mustn’t give advice to auditors. By all means, as a PC, give the auditor all the advice in the world. You understand? Give him all the advice in the world. If he takes any part of it, he’s a lousy auditor, that’s all. Because he at once passes over control of the session. It’s something tantamount to walking out in front of the troops and handing your sword over, see? I mean, it’s something of this order of magnitude. Promptly and at once you’ve lost the war, and that is it. There’s going to be reparations charged and the United States will be sending three quarters of the national income over to rehabilitate the country. But if the United States doesn’t hear about it, then nobody is going to rehabilitate anything.

Now, there’s the whole situation in controlling a session. And there is the primary difficulty an auditor runs into. Once more, it looks like pure kindness and it turns out to be total viciousness.

All right. Let’s take up one more point here. You can also put a PC at responsibility for the session by a bunch of “PCs ought to,” and individual considerations about what ought to be going on. This is a little more esoteric, but becomes less so when I say something like this (this also comes under escape as a philosophy): “Well, he ought to be able to get out of that very easily.” See, the auditor says, “Well, he couldn’t be in any great trouble. He ought to be able to get out of that very easily.”

Well, you see, what did he do? Even if he did it silently to himself, he says immediately, “Well, the PC is responsible for the condition he’s in.” And you will find the one-plus-one-greater-than-the-bank also operates. That promptly operates, and the bank will cease to behave. It’s quite esoteric, it’s quite odd.

You say, “Well, PC shouldn’t be in that much trouble.” “A man—a man of that age uh . . . shouldn’t have all of those difficulties with women. After all, after you’ve lived for forty or fifty years, you certainly should know something about women.” You know, something like this. You have some kind of a little unkind thought of this character, but it’s an ought-to-be, you see? And you have just shifted responsibility for the session over to the PC, just as neatly as though you’d suddenly crowned him with laurel wreaths. You see how you’d do that?

The PC “ought to,” the PC “shouldn’t ought to.” Now, here is a whole class of things, you see? “The PC shouldn’t be screaming at me.” Well, that would be the best way in the world to bring the scream up four more decibels. Don’t you see? That would operate at once to put this PC at cause, so of course immediately eliminates and deletes the auditor plus PC over bank—it eliminates the auditor and, of course, collapses the bank on the PC. You get how this would work, you see? The PC “ought to,” “shouldn’t ought to.”

“Well, men are always like that.” That isn’t so bad, that type of consideration; it just denotes an inability to do something about it, so an apathetic acceptance of a condition which one is confronting. Well, this merely lowers control over the PC’s bank slightly; it’s not a very great thing. Well, that doesn’t amount to a great deal. It’s when you really drop it out—when you really say “Well, the PC should be” or “the PC shouldn’t be,” or something of this sort— bang! You see, you’ve gone into the same old violation of this original rule.

No, a PC is doing what the PC is doing, and the PC ought to be doing what the PC is doing. You see? And the PC oughtn’t to be doing the things the PC isn’t doing. And the PC does what the PC does. You get the idea? And considerations as to what the PC should be doing, up on top of this, of course interrupt responsibility for making the PC do something. You get the idea?

Now, of course, as long as your intentions are totally wrapped up in what the PC ought to be doing with inspecting pictures and so forth, you of course are making this occur! You are doing this, you see, so it isn’t an ought-to-be or a shouldn’t-be or something like this, see? The PC is going up and down the track and around the bank: Well, he ought to be doing these things, you see? And you know that he should be doing these things; he knows that he should be doing these things. He should be following the auditing command, and you know that he should be following the auditing command, and all that sort of thing.

I’m not talking about that class of thing. I’m talking about another class entirely: that instead of making the PC do or become what you want the PC to do or become, you add this sneak one into it, you see? The PC “ought to,” you know, and you sort of said faintly to yourself, “Well, I’m not doing anything about it, and he shouldn’t really be upset about that ARC break. That’s really nonsense; he shouldn’t be upset about it. He shouldn’t be—oh, well, it’s a . . .” “Well, he shouldn’t have that present time problem, not now. We’ve only got two hours here and, God, he shouldn’t have this present time problem now. No. Heavens on earth.”

No, the PC has got what he’s got, don’t you see? You just look at what the PC’s got, and then you can go ahead and you and the PC can make him “got” something else, don’t you see, with greatest of ease. But if the PC “ought to” without any further action on your part, of course what do you wind up with? You wind up with a collapsed bank. Is that clear to you? That is not as serious or as general as the other.

Now, Q and A, Q and A: Every time the PC says something, you follow it, is the most prevalent method of Q and A.

You say, “Well, how’s that about your mother now?”

And “Well, it’s not my mother now, it’s my father.”

“Well, how about your father?”

“Well, it’s not my father so much, it’s . . . uh my father’s okay, but it’s actually my aunt . . . uh . . . uh . . . my aunt Bessie.”

“Oh, well. Well, all right. Now, what—how does that apply to your aunt Bessie?” And by the time you’ve done this, of course, you of course are doing two things: You’re letting the PC spot what you ought to be auditing—you’ve dropped responsibility, then—and you of course permitted him to escape Tom the original questions and you haven’t followed it through. You’re permitting the PC to escape, and the PC will go along a whole sequence and series of escapes; and if you follow along this sequence of escapes without ever once saying “Whoa, now, PC! I asked you about Pop. I want to know about Pop and I’m not interested in Aunt Bessie. Now, Pop!” You can say it as rough as you want to; it won’t affect the PC, because he knows confoundedly well that’s what he ought to be doing.

And he says, “Oh, oh, oh, I—ha-ha-ha-ha. Fly cops are on my trail. I didn’t get a chance to duck up that alley. Well, I guess I just better not do that and I better come back here and uh . . . take a look at Pop. Okay. Well now, what did you want to know about Father?”

You say, “Well, all right. I just wanted how—to know how that was about Father?”

“All right. Well, it’s all right about Father.” Now, what else about this?

“Yeah, well, how is it all right about Father?”

“Oh, kill the son of a bitch as quick as look at him, that’s how all right it is about Father,” and so forth, see?

“Oh,” you say, “well, all right. Now, you got a picture there or some “Well, sure I got a picture there! What else do you think I have?”

“You’ve had a picture there?”

“Oh, yes, of course I’ve had a picture there!”

“Well, all right. Now, what don’t you know about it?”

“Well, I don’t know this and I don’t know that and I don’t know that and I don’t know that and don’t know that and don’t know that, there, there, and . . .”

“What else don’t you know about it?”

“Well, I don’t know so-and-so.”

“All right. That’s fine. Now, you still got a picture there of your father?”

“No.”

“All right. Now, how about your father?”

“Well, all right. Take him or leave him.”

“Okay. All right. Nova, we’ll go on to something else.”

Got the idea?

The PC never wants to handle what you want him to handle. You can just put it down: He never wants to handle what you want him to handle. I don’t know a PC yet that’ll handle exactly what you want him to handle!

When a PC sits there smiling sweetly, I get very, very suspicious. I say, “What are you looking at?”

He said, “The same incident you told me to look at.”

“Yeah, well, what incident was that?”

“Oh, this incident about picking these flowers out here in the field.”

And I say, “No, we had an incident there about burning down a house. What happened to that?”

“Oh, you caught me. Oh, well, all right. Burning down a house . . .” and so forth, and somewhat grumpily they’ll go back in and look at it. But they don’t like you when you let them escape, because they know way down deep that it’s wrong. They know way doves deep that it’s wrong. They know the road out is the way through, and the road out is not a bounce.

The guy has been running away for two hundred trillion years, and he’s looking for somebody to stand and hold the ground and say, “All right. Let’s pick up these devils one by one and fight them down.”

He will say, “That is the most horrifying, shuddering thought that anybody has ever pushed in my direction. but I know damn well he’s speaking sooth.”

Now, it actually hasn’t worked for the last two hundred trillion years, running away. So, he says, “Well, here’s a picture.”

And you say, “Good. Got any other pictures?”

“Uh. . . (These guys are gonna let me run away.) All right. Yeah, I got some other pictures.”

“Good, you got any other pictures in there?”

“Oh, yes, I’ve got some other pictures in there.”

“Oh, yeah. Well, how’s your mother?”

“All right, Eme.”

“And how’s your father?”

“Okay. Fine. Oh, yes,” and so forth. And the fellow says, “Well, it wasn’t my mother I was thinking about, actually. It was my aunt Bessie.”

“Oh, well, how’s your aunt Bessie?”

And the PC right at that time says to himself, way down deep someplace, “That’s all we’re going to do now is escape, and I know that it isn’t the road out.” So he has ARC breaks because he knows he’s not getting auditing.

It’s a very funny thing. Not overwhelming a PC, not pounding him down: PC says, “I have to go to the bathroom.”

You say, “You damn well sit there and don’t go to the bathroom,” and so forth, and the PC says, “Well, I have to go to the bathroom; it’s a present time problem,” and so forth.

And you say, “Well, I’m not going to let you go to the bathroom till 4:35; that’s the end of session—and that’s the end of it,” and so forth.

Well, you keep this kind of thing up forever and eventually the PC gets an overwhelm. He’s pounded into a position. See, all of this stuff is moderated with reason, don’t you see?

That isn’t any kind of a session direction. PC says he has to go to the bathroom. All right, say, “Go to the bathroom.” All right. Now go into session. You’ll find he’s slightly out when he comes back. So put him into session again; put him into session again with a crunch.

But five minutes later he says, “I have to go to the bathroom.”

You say, “I’ve heard that before; we’re now going on with the session.” He’ll be back in processing again.

Invalidation is the basic overwhelm. The PC says, “Oh, it was my father doing all this.”

And the auditor says, “It couldn’t possibly have been your father.” You get the idea? Now, there’s where overwhelm comes from: invalidation.

PC says, “I—I think it’s . . . I think it’s an automobile mechanic. I think it is.”

“Couldn’t possibly be an automobile mechanic,” you know?

You could run a whole case, possibly, by saying, “Who’s been invalidated?” See, what’s death? Death is invalidation—invalidation of a terminal. What’s sickness? Invalidation of a terminal. What’s punishment? Invalidation of a terminal. I mean, all things add up more or less to the invalidation of a terminal, don’t they? And as a result, why, you’ve got a button there that you’ve got to lay off of, which is just invalidation.

PC says, “It’s made out of green soup.”

You say, “All right. Solid green soup.” As far as he’s concerned, that’s the way it is. It’s just that’s the way it is.

And this sort of a matter-of-fact situation is, in a few minutes the PC says, “I made a mistake. It is not green soup.” The wrong thing to do is to tell him “Why, I could have told you that earlier.”

You’re taking him on a tour of a bank; you’re getting him familiar with various things by various mechanisms: He’ll wind up in the other end not afraid.

Now, what, basically, then, would best answer up these conditions? Certainly not escape. Don’t let him escape. Make him face it up. You’re always safe.

PC starts using rudiments for escape—omit them. Always the better choice is to audit; always the better choice.

If the PC gives you directions as to what you ought to be doing in the session, give him the cheeriest acknowledgment he ever received and go right on doing what you were doing. Don’t ever shift. Now is the time not to shift, because you’ve run into some kind of a valence or a machine which tells you “Change, change, change, change”; and you start going change, change, change with the PC, it’s a Q and A, and of course you’re going to get no place at the other end.

Now, these are very important considerations in auditing, and if an auditor were to do these things, pay attention to them and handle those things, he actually could be quite ignorant of some other facets of technology and he’d still win. He’d be right in there pitching.

No, there is no substitute whatsoever for having a reality on the bank. There is no substitute for it at all, because now you know what’s happening to the PC, you know where his attention is, you know where he’s going, you know what he’s doing. And you don’t make the mistake of believing he’s in present time and this is all a social chitchat that we’re indulging in. We’ve known auditors who’ve thought auditing was that, and they always of course wound up with PCs with no gain and tremendous ARC breaks and rudiments out all the time and that sort of thing, because the PC’s attention was never in session.

The basics of auditing, however, require that the PC feel able to talk to the auditor, so you don’t necessarily shut the PC off about things like this or directions like this; you let the PC tell you. But it’s a great oddity that when the PC has told you that the process is wrong and that he’s having difficulty answering it—it would be a great oddity if, when you acknowledge this and you say, “All right. I’m sorry, but that’s the process we cleared, and here is the next auditing command,” the PC will say, “Oh, hell,” then he’ll go on and audit it, and you’ll wind up, oddly enough, without any much of an ARC break.

But you say, “Well, now let’s see, let’s just shift the process. He says he can’t answer this, so let’s change the wording of the process.” And, of course, don’t be amazed that for the remainder of the session, and maybe for the next couple of sessions, you get absolutely no change of case. Why? There’s no auditor there. Why? Because the PC did the auditing.

So these various considerations are right there amongst the fundamentals, and they’re things to pay a great deal of attention to. And if a PC is moving through a bank, you should have some idea that people can get stuck on the track, and you’ll get an idea of other-timeness than here and that things can happen, and that somatics, and so forth, are directly connected with pictures —which they are—and that sort of thing. There’s no substitute for that sort of thing.

And in training auditors, one of the things you should always ask an auditor is “Well, do you have any reality on an engram? Do you know what an engram is? Have you ever seen one? Have you ever had a somatic out of one?” Not necessarily “Have you ever had sonic?” or something like this, but “Have you ever seen one of these engrams?” and so forth. “Well, have you ever had a moment there when you were—on the track when you did not quite know what was happening?”

“Uh . . . oh, yes. Yes, yes, I have. Yeah, ooh-ooh, yeah, ooh, well, sure, yeah. I was runnin’ this one about elephants and these elephants were walkin’ all over me. Goddamn it. And uh . . . I don’t think it ever got flattened. Feel an elephant’s footprint on my chest right now.”

Ah, this is a safe auditor. Why? He’s not running a big philosophy of “escape, escape, escape is the road out,” don’t you see?

If you asked this auditor—you say, “well now, have you had any reality on the track?”

“Well, I’ve read about it in Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health.”

“Well, have you ever run into an incident? Have you ever run into an engram?”

“No. No, I know they exist, intellectually. I have good intellectual reality on them. Ron wouldn’t lie to me about that.”

No matter how kind this auditor appears, this auditor is not safe as an auditor. Why? Because this auditor practices escape. That is the only reason why the auditor has never seen an engram, you see? So if they’ve practiced the escape from the bank, they have practiced the escape in auditing. and they u ill yank PCs out of session. Okay?

These various considerations are very pertinent to training. to auditing. to understanding, and I give them to you at a time when they’re easily remediable. There is no difficulty with these things. I am not citing you any 120-foot board fence that you have to climb over with your fingernails. That process which I gave you is the most revealing process to somebody who has no reality on the track. That is most revealing. They say, “Ooh, wow,” you know? “This is what I’ve been pulling people out of—and it was a good thing I did, too! “

Okay. Well, possibly many interpretations could be made of this particular lecture. But just remember that it, too, just means exactly what it says, which is do the auditing, get the show on the road, get the most auditing done in the least time that you can. Your PCs will be very happy with you and they won’t ARC break, either.

And you’ll be amazed how seldom you have to put the rudiment in. When you come into session, you bang yourself down in a chair, you move the PC’s chair slightly, you tell him, “Sit there; hold the cans. All right. We are now going to start a session. Start of session. Good. Now, process we left unflat yesterday was so-and-so and so-and-so. The first auditing command is. . .” Bang!

The PC will say “(pant, pant, pant).” He’ll say, “But w-wait a minute. I’m not even in session. You haven’t run any rudiments. You haven’t done any this or that and so on.”

“The first auditing command is . . .” Bang! “Answer it, answer it, answer it. Answer it!”

The PC says, “Well, let’s see. What is it again?”

“You heard it. Answer it.”

“Ohh-uh . . . Yep, what unknown stomach? What unknown stomach . . . ?”

You say, “Good. What unknown stomach don’t you know nuthin’ about?”

The PC answers the auditing question, chops back at you maybe a little bit here and there says, “Boy, this is rough, man. You’re rough, rough, rough, you know? You... Do you realize I’m stuck all over the track here, I got everything all messed up, I don’t know whether I’m going or coming, and you just keep pouring these auditing commands at me?”

You say, “Good. Here’s the nest one.”

PC, at the end of twenty-five hours—he may or may not tell you anything about it—goes around and tells the D of P or another student or somebody like this, “My God, that person certainly gets a lot of auditing done! We’ve certainly had a lot of auditing done. Yes sir, that person really will audit.” And the whole aspect of the thing changes.

Now, I’m not recommending that you let the rudiments be out; I’m not recommending these various things. I’m just giving you the frame of mind in which sessions run well. And they do run well when they do that.

And the PC says, “I think I ought to be running something else,” you say, “You probably should be. But right now we’re running so-and-so.”

PC is all ARC breaky about not running something else: “But my last auditor—but my last auditor was running a five-way bracket on Mother, and it was never flattened. And I just keep telling you this, that it was never flattened.”

You say, “Well, all right.” And at this point you might think to yourself, “Well, maybe I ought to ask what part of it isn’t flattened. “What was the auditor’s name?” something of the sort. And, man, you are handling a twelve inch stick of inch-thick dynamite with the fuse lighted. This is a booby trap. Don’t fall for it.

You say, “Well, good. Good.” Even cheer him up: say, “Well, I hope it gets flattened someday.”

I think you’ll find that this is the winning card. And if you look this over and you follow some part of this and you get an understanding of this, why, I think you will get some fantastic auditing gains, and your days of loses will simply be in the long-distant past. Okay?

Thank you.

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 programme 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 programme 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 ©1964 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 MAY 1969
Issue IV

Dianetic Course
(HCO BULLETIN 21 SEPT 1965 EDITED
FOR USE ON THE DIANETIC COURSE)

THE FIVE GAEs

The five Gross Auditing Errors (GAEs) are:

1. 	Can’t handle and read an E-Meter.

2. 	Doesn’t know and can’t apply Technical data.

3. 	Can’t get and keep a pc in session.

4. 	Can’t complete an auditing cycle.

5. 	Can’t complete a repetitive auditing cycle.

These are the only errors one looks for in straightening up the auditing of an Auditor.

If you look for other reasons, this is itself a gross goof. There are no others.

LRH:cs.rd							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright o1969						Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 APRIL 1969

Remimeo 
Dianetics Checksheet

AUDITOR TRUST

A pc tends to be able to confront to the degree that he or she feels safe.

If the pc is being audited in an auditing environment that is unsafe or prone to interruption his or her confront is greatly lowered and the result is a reduced ability to run locks, secondaries and engrams and to erase them.

If the auditor’s TRs are rough and his manner uncertain or challenging, evaluative or invalidative, the pc’s confront is reduced to zero or worse.

This comes from a very early set of laws (Original Thesis):

      	Auditor plus pc is greater than the bank,

      	Auditor plus bank is greater than the pc,

	Pc minus auditor is less than the bank.

(By “bank” is meant the mental image picture collection of the pc. It comes from computer technology where all data is in a “bank”.)

The difference between auditors is not that one has more data than another or more tricks. The difference is that one auditor will get better results than another due to his stricter adherence to procedure, better TRs, more confident manner, and closer observance of the Auditor’s Code.

No “bedside manner” is required or sympathetic expression. It’s just that an auditor who knows his procedures and has good TRs inspires more confidence. The pc doesn’t have to put his attention on or cope with the auditor and feels safer and so can confront his bank better.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:cs.ei.rd 
Copyright © 1969 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

B O A R D  P O L I C Y  L E T T E R

25 JUNE 1970 RA

Remimeo                                        REVISED 11 SEPT 1974
OES
Qual Sec                                 Cancels HCO PL 6 Apr ‘70 Issue II
C&A                                          Scientology Release Attestation
C/Ses                                        Form which referred to cancelled
                                                         (HCO PL 14 Mar ‘68.)

EXPANDED LOWER GRADES

CHART OF ABILITIES GAINED

Ref: C/S Series 93 New Grade Chart

	This chart is used by the examiner when a pc is sent for “Declare?” on a grade. 

	The examiner first checks the pc’s auditing folder to see that every process of a Grade being attested to has been run to true End Phenomena for each process. 

	He then puts the pc on the meter noting TA and needle behaviour. 

	The PC then makes a statement to the examiner which indicates that the pc actually made the end result of a Grade. 

	The examiner gets the pc to state what ability he has attained. 

	The pc may not state the exact wording on the Grade Chart but must attest to the ability gained as written as well.

LEVEL                             			ABILITY GAINED

GROUP PROCESSES                   		Awareness that change is 									available

LIFE REPAIR                       			Awareness of truth and the way
                                  				to personal freedom

ARC STRAIGHTWIRE                  		Knows he/she won’t get any 									worse

DIANETIC CASE COMPLETION		A well and happy human being

GRADE O COMMUNICATIONS  		Ability to communicate freely
RELEASE					with anyone on any subject

GRADE I, PROBLEMS RELEASE		Ability to recognize the source
                                  				of problems and make them 									vanish

GRADE II, RELIEF RELEASE         	Relief from the hostilities and
                                  				sufferings of life

GRADE III, FREEDOM RELEASE 		Freedom from the upsets of the
                                  				past and ability to face the future

GRADE IV, ABILITY RELEASE      	Moving out of fixed conditions 								and gaining abilities to do new 								things

Revised by 
Training & Services Aide

Approved by

L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER

BDCS:LRH:RS:rs	for the
Copyright © 1971, 1974	BOARDS OF DIRECTOTRS
by L. Ron Hubbard	of the 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 JUNE 1970
Remimeo
(Reissued & corrected 3 Oct. 71. Only change—
[page 79] word “arrived” corrected to “aimed”.
Correction in this type style.)

C/S Series 6

WHAT THE C/S IS DOING

In Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health considerable stress is placed on the words and phrases in engrams. This is still functional. However as I did further research I found that (a) many pcs were unable to get the words in the engram and (b) the apparent force of the words was derived wholly from the pain, emotion, effort contained in the engram. In Standard Dianetics the words in an engram play no major role in the auditing.

The use of the words to de-aberrate and concentration on phrases in engrams is valid but junior in force to the pain, misemotion, etc in the engram. Thus if you run out the force the words drop into insignificance. This is often how the pc gets cognitions: the words and meaning concealed in the engram are changing value and devaluating. The pc can then think clearly again on a subject previously pinned down by the force. Get the force out and the words take care of themselves and need no special handling.

The meaning of things plays a secondary role in processing to forces.

Thetans find counter-forces objectionable. Almost all chronic (continual) somatics have their root in force of one kind or another.

In that the handling of things with bodies involves force to greater or lesser degree, incapability and derangement of mental values is proportional to the thetan’s objection to force.

This objection descends down to a wish to stop things. It goes below that into overwhelmedness in which propitiation and obsessive agreement manifest themselves.

LOW TAs

The low TA is a symptom of an overwhelmed being.

When a pc’s TA goes low he is being overwhelmed by too heavy a process, too steep a gradient in applying processes or by rough TRs or invalidative auditing or auditing errors.

A low TA means that the thetan has gone past a desire to stop things and is likely to behave in life as though unable to resist real or imaginary forces.

HIGH TA

Chronically high TAs mean the person can still stop things and is trying to do so.

However, all one has to do is restimulate and leave unflat an engram chain to have a high TA. High TA is reflecting the force contained in the chain.

An “over-run” means doing something too long that has engrams connected with it which means an engram chain with too many engrams on it being restimulated by life or auditing. Hence Over-run.
If this overrun persisted unhandled eventually the pc would be overwhelmed and one, in theory, would have a low TA.
MENTAL MASSES

Mental masses, forces, energy are the items being handled by the C/S on any pc.

If the C/S loses sight of this he can wander off the road and go into the thickets of significance.

Engrams, secondaries, locks all add up to mental masses, forces, energies, time, which express themselves in countless different ways such as pain, misemotion, feelings, old perceptions and a billion billion thought combinations buried in the masses as significances.

A thetan can postulate or say or reason anything. Thus there is an infinity of significances.

A thetan is natively capable of logical thought. This becomes muddied by out-points held in by mental forces such as pictures of heavy experiences.

As the masses and forces accumulated and copied from living build up, the logic potential becomes reduced and illogical results occur.

PC SEARCH

The pc is continually searching for the significance of a mass or force—what is it, why is it.

The C/S is easily led astray by this.

All forces in the bank contain significances.

All forces can be unburdened and lightened up by the various procedures of auditing.

The search of the pc is for significance.

The action of the C/S is reduction of forces.

THE E-METER

The E-Meter records what force is being discharged in every slash, fall and blowdown. The amount of TA per session is the C/S’s index of gain.

Note that a discharged process no longer gives TA and gives case gain.

The amount of significance recovered or realized by the pc only shows up as cognitions.

As the TA works off the case, then one has two indicators:

1. 	There is needle and TA action.

2. 	The pc cognites.

One shows that force is coming off. Two shows that thought is releasing from force.

BACKWARDS C/Sing

If a C/S processes toward significance only he will get cases that do not progress.
The needle action detects not so much significance as where the force is.
Diving toward significance the C/S winds up shortening grades, looking for “magic one-shot buttons” and overwhelming cases by shooting them on up the grades while levels remain loaded with force.
RELIABLE INDICATORS

When a pc gets no more TA action on Level I he will have made Level I and will know it. He will therefore attest to “No problems”.

The reliable indicators are TA action and cognitions while a level is still charged.

Diminished TA action and cognitions mean the purpose of the level has been reached.

A feeling of freedom and expansion on a subject is expressed in a normal TA and a loose needle.

The pc will now attest to an ability regained.

F/N ABUSE

To process only to F/N and even chop off the cognitions on a process abuses the indicator of the F/N.

You can find many pcs who bitterly resent F/N indications. They have been:

A. 	Not run on all the processes of a level;

B. 	Still have force on the subject;

C. 	Were chopped off before they could cognite.

The ARC Break in this is UNFINISHED CYCLE OF ACTION.

The proper End Phenomena for a process is F/N Cognition VGIs. Now look at that carefully. That is the proper end phenomena of a PROCESS. It is not the end phenomena of a LEVEL or even of a TYPE of process.

Let us say there are 15 possible Scientology processes for orienting a pc in his present location.

To run one of these 15 and say, “F/N that’s it. You’re complete,” is a Quickie impatient action that rebounds on the pc eventually. If there are 15, run 15 !

Possibly the pc on no. 12 will cognite he’s really right where he is. Only then could you cease to work at it.

An F/N Cog VGIs tells you a process is finished, not a whole class of actions!

Thus 2l/2 minutes from 0 to IV is not only impossible, it is murderous. It will result in an overwhelm, a low TA or a high TA eventually.

Level I says, amongst other things, “Problems Processes”. There are certainly half a dozen. Each would be run to F/N Cog VGIs. When these and the other processes of the Level are run, the pc will come to have no further reaction to problems and will be able to handle them.

A cognition in lower levels is not necessarily an ability regained. Thirty or forty cognitions on one lower level might add up to (and probably would) the realization that one is free of the whole subject of the level.
It is safe to run more processes. It is unsafe to run too few.

PC ABILITIES

It is not enough for the pc to have only negative gains of deleting force. Sooner or later he will have to begin to confront force.

This comes along naturally and is sometimes aided by processes directly aimed at further confront. “What problem could you have?” sooner or later is needed in one form or another.

What force can the pc now handle?

All auditing in a body—and any living in a body—makes a being vulnerable. Bodies break, suffer, intensify pain.

Sooner or later a pc will go Exterior. The Interiorization Rundown must be ordered as the next action or you will have a pc with a high TA. 2-way comm Ext-Int must be given in a following session (not the same one) so the full cognitions will occur.

After this the pc is less subject to the body and his ability to confront force will improve.

Do not be too worried or surprised if after this the pc has some minor accident with the body. Exterior he forgets its frailty. However, such things are minor. He is “learning how to walk” a new way and will run into chairs! He gets this figured out after a while.

Pcs sometimes improve their ability to handle force while interior so as to have mysterious headaches or new body pressures. Inevitably they have been exterior and need Interiorization run. They were just using too much force while still inside !

Thus force is the thing, significance very secondary.

Force of course is made up of time, matter, energy, flows, particles, masses, solids, liquids, gasses, space and locations. All this gets inherently handled in processes published long since.

The pc tends to dive for the thought imbedded in the force. He will tell you he’s being processed to find out who his parents were or why he is sterile or who did him in, etc, etc. The C/S who chases after this is a deerhound illegally chasing mice!

C/S PURPOSE

The C/S is there to make certain that the pc makes gains and attains the actual abilities of the level.

The C/S is for the pc.

C/S auditor control exists only to keep the auditing standard, the TRs good, the processes ordered done and to End Phenomena each one.

No other reasons for C/Sing exist.

	L. RON HUBBARD
           					Founder
LRH: nt.rd 	
Copyright © 1970, 1971 	
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 FEBRUARY 1959

ANALYSIS OF CASES

A primary skill required of an accomplished auditor would be analysis of a case. The basic error is overestimating the case’s ability. All failures stem from a failure to undercut the reality of a case. If that reality level is reached, the case will improve. If not, the case remains stagnant.

RESULTS DEFINED: Case achieves a reality on change of case, somatic, behavior or appearance, for the better.

BETTER DEFINED: Negative gain. Things disappear that have been annoying or unwanted.

ABILITY GAIN DEFINED: Pc’s recognition that pc can now do things he could not do before.

INTELLIGENCE GAIN DEFINED: Loss of restimulation of stupidity by reason of attempts to confront or experience the problems of life. (Intelligence appears when stupidity is keyed out or erased.) Intelligence is a confronting ability.

FAMILIARITY: or familiarization permits intelligence to manifest. Reaching and withdrawing are more possible when stupidity is keyed out or erased. Increasing ability to reach and withdraw increases intelligence.

It can be seen that when attention is fixed, the ability to reach and withdraw decreases, therefore intelligence decreases, therefore the ability to change decreases, therefore no “case gain”.

Unfixing attention is done in various ways. As hypnotism is done by fixing attention, a parallel observation is that a person wakes up, receives less fixed effect, when attention becomes unfixed.

Unfixing attention must be done by increasing ability to reach and withdraw from the specific thing or person on which attention is fixed in the bank. The bank merely expresses a recording of past attention fixations.

Shocks of various kinds can unfix attention but always lead to a decrease in ability over a period. Unfixing attention by violence throws a case downscale. As the case goes upscale the attention refixes on things violence unfixed it from.

Clearing is a gradient process of finding places where attention is fixed and restoring the ability of the pc to place and remove attention under his own determinism.

Case Analysis consists then of the determination of where pc’s attention (at current state of case) is fixed on the track and restoring pc’s determinism over those places.

This is done by:

	1. 	PT Problem running.

	2. 	Dynamic survey and remedy of fixed points.
3. 	Selected items and persons survey and unfixing other-determined attention at those points.

The auditor’s skill in locating where attention is now fixed is even greater now than the auditor’s ability to remedy the fixation of the pc’s attention since this latter problem is fairly well in hand.

There are many ways of doing a survey to determine what the pc’s attention is fixed upon now. The E-Meter and interrogation of the pc are the main methods.

“What has your attention been fixed on lately (or ‘in this Life’)?” would elicit a reply that could then be used in the questions

“Recall a time when you did something to (item or person so located).”
     “Recall a time when you withheld something from (item or person so selected).”

If you find the exact item or person on which attention is fixed, you achieve immediate case gain, which is to say reality, which is to say interest, in-sessionness, success.

If any pc you are running has not manifested case gain, reality, interest, in-sessionness, then one of two things is true:

1. 	You haven’t found the item or person on which pc’s attention is other-determinedly fixed and haven’t run it yet, or

2. 	Pc is gone-man-gone.

I trust this may be of some small assistance in learning how to analyze a case.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:-.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Clearing 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.

As auditing TA for a 21/2 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.

LRH :jw.rd 							L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright ©1964 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

B O A R D   T E C H N I C A L   B U L L E T I N

18 November 1968R
Remimeo     	REVISED & REISSUED 9 JUNE 1974 AS BTB
All Auditors
CANCELS

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 NOVEMBER 1968
SAME TITLE

MODEL SESSION

(Note: If a Dianetic - Level II Auditor is not trained in flying Rudiments, he would have to get a Level III (or above) Auditor to fly the PC’s Ruds before starting the Major action of the session.) 

	The first thing the Auditor does is to make sure the room and session are set up. This means, in other words, that the room is as comfortable as possible and free from interruptions and distractions, that the Auditor’s meter is set up and that the auditor’s report form and work sheets are ready, that any correction lists, forms, or references that might be needed are at hand. 

	The PC is seated in the chair further from the door and is asked to pick up the cans (from now until the session ends the PC stays on the cans). 

	The Auditor says: “This is the session”. (Tone 40). 

	If the needle is floating and the PC has VGIs, the Auditor goes directly into the major action of the session. If not, the Auditor must fly a Rud. 

	The first Rudiment question is: 
	“Do you have an ARC Break?” 

	“If there is an ARC Break you get it, use ARCU and CDEINR, indicate, then if no F/N you follow it earlier, get ARCU CDEINR, indicate, if no F/N you get an earlier one on and on, always with ARCU CDINR until you get an F/N.” LRH 

	The second Rudiment question is: 
	“Do you have a Present Time Problem?” 

	“If you get a PTP you follow it earlier earlier earlier until you get an F/N. “ LRH 

	The third Rudiment question is: 
	“Has a Withold been missed?” 
     
	“If you get a withold you find out WHO missed it  and what he/she did to make the PC think he/she knew - or nearly found out, then another and another using suppress.”

	If protest you put in False. You will find these W/Hs also
go earlier like any other chain but they don’t have to.” LRH

	On any Rud “If it didn’t read you check suppress. 

	If it read but is in any way protested you clean False” LRH

FALSE

	“Has anyone said you had a . . . . . when you didn’t have one?” is the answer to protested Ruds. 

	If he can’t get a Rud to fly, the Dianetic - Class III Auditor ends session and sends the PC folder to the C/S . Class III Auditors and above may do a Green Form. 

	When the PC has F/N, VGI’s you can go into the major action of the session. 

	The Auditor says: “Now we are going to handle . . . . “

	The Auditor clears the commands per BTB 2 May 1972 “Clearing Commands” . 

	After completing C/S Instructions to EP, or when EP occurs on the major action, the Dianetic auditor allows the PC to finish what he was saying, gives the R-factor that he will be ending the session, and then gives the PC a “That ‘s it .” ( Tone 40 ) . 

	For Auditors Class 0 and above, when the Auditor is ready to end session, he gives the R-factor that he will be ending the session. 

	Then he asks:
	“Is there anything you would care to say or ask before I end this session?” 

	PC answers. 

	Auditor acks and notes down the answer. 

	If the PC asks a question, acknowledge and say: 
	“I will note that down for the C/S”

	Then the Auditor gives a “That’s it.” (Tone 40). The data that the C/S will get from this patter will help the C/S in paralleling the mind. 

Revised by 
Training & Services Aide

Approved by

L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER

BDCS:LRH:RS:rs	for the
Copyright © 1971, 1974	BOARDS OF DIRECTOTRS
by L. Ron Hubbard	of the 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

B O A R D  T E C H N I C A L  B U L L E T I N

2 MAY 1972 R
REVISED & REISSUED 10 JUNE 1974 AS BTB
Remimeo 
All auditors
CANCELS
HCO BULLETIN OF 2 MAY 1972
SAME TITLE

CLEARING COMMANDS

(Amends HCO B 14 Nov 65 “Clearing Commands” and
HCO B 9 Nov 68 “Clearing Commands All Levels”)

Ref:   HCO PL 4 April 1972, Revised 7 April 72 “Ethics and
	Study Tech”. 

The rules of clearing commands are: 

1. 	Always have a good dictionary in the auditing room. Have a copy of the Scientology Dictionary and any other materials necessary to define Scientology terms.

	If the PC’s native language is not English, have a dual dictionary for that language and English. A simple grammar book may also be required. For a foreign language case one should also have a dictionary of the foreign language itself. 

	Eg. English “apple” -  looks in English/French, finas “pomme” - looks in French dictionary to define “pomme”. So for the foreign language case 2 dictionaries are needed - (1) English - to foreign language, (2) foreign language itself.

2. 	Clear the commands (or questions or list items) by first clearing in turn each word in backwards sequence of the words in the command. (Eg. if command is “Do fish swim?” clear “swim” then “fish” then “do”). This prevents the PC starting to run the process by himself while you are still clearing the words. 

3. 	What a word reads when clearing an assessment or listing question does not mean that the question has read. Misunderstood words read on the meter. 

4. 	F/Ns obtained on clearing the,words does not mean the process has been run. 

5. 	Next, clear the command itself. Auditor asks the PCs “What does this command mean to you?” LRH. If it is evident from the PC’s answer that he has misunderstood a word as it is used in the context of the commands. 

	a. reclear the obvious word (or words) with the dictionary. 

	b. have him use each word in a sentence until he has it. (Clear all definitions of a                 	misunderstood word.) 

	c. reclear the command. 

	d. If necessary, repeat steps 2 & 3 to make sure he understands the command. 

	e. “Under no circumstances is the auditor to evaluate for the PC and tell him what the                 	word or command means.” LRH
6. 	You clear the first command (or bracket) that you are going to run, then run it. Then clear the second command (or bracket) and run it etc. Don’t clear more than one command (or bracket) at a time. 

7. 	When,clearing the command, watch the meter and note any 	read on the command (per HCO B 28 Feb ‘71 C/S Series 24 “Metering Reading Items”) 

8. 	Have the PC on the cans throughout the clearing of the words and commands - except when the PC is doing demos as needed. The Auditor holds the dictionary ,for the PC. 

9. 	As it is difficult to clear all the words of a correction list on a PC over heavy by-passed charge, it is standard to clear the words of an L1C and Ruds -  very early in auditing and to clear an L4BRA before commencing listing processes or an L3RF before running R3R. When the need for those correction lists arises one does not then need to clear all the words as it has already been done, thus such corrective lists can be used when needed without delay. 

	“ARC breaks and lists should be word cleared before a PC gets into them and should be tagged in a folder, on, a yellow sheet as cleared.” LRH

	It is also standard to clear the words of the Word Clearing correction list early in auditing and before other correction lists are cleared. This way, if the PC bogs on subsequent word clearing, you have your Word Clearing Correction list ready to use.

10. 	However, if, for example, your PC is sitting in the middle of an ARC Break (or other heavy charge) and the words of the L1C (or other correction list) have not been cleared yet, you go ahead and assess the list to handle the charge. “Don’t clear first. Just verify by asking afterwards if he had any misunderstoods on the list...(otherwise it’s auditing after an ARC Break).” LRH 

	All the words of the L1C (or other correction list) would then be cleared thoroughly at the first opportunity - per your C/S’s instruction. 

11. 	Do not re-clear all the words of assessment lists each time the list is used on the same PC. Do it once, fully and properly the first time and note clearly in the folder, on a yellow sheet for future reference, which of the standard assessment lists have been cleared. 

12. 	These rules apply to all processes, listing questions and assessments.

13. 	The words of the platens of Advanced Course materials are not so cleared. 

__________________

	Any violation of full and correct clearing of commands or assessment questions, whether done in a formal session or not, is an ethics offence per HCO PL 4 April 1972 (revised 7 April 72) “Ethics and Study Tech” section 4, which states: 

“ANY AUDITOR FAILING TO CLEAR EACH AND EVERY WORD OF EVERY COMMAND OR LIST USED MAY BE SUMMONED BEFORE A COURT OF ETHICS. 

The charge is OUT-TECH.” LRH

Revised by 
Training & Services Aide

Approved by

L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER

BDCS:LRH:RS:rs	for the
Copyright © 1971, 1974	BOARDS OF DIRECTOTRS
by L. Ron Hubbard	of the 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

B O A R D  T E C H N I C A L  B U L L E T I N

9 OCTOBER 1971 R
REVISED & REISSUED 10 JUNE 1974 AS BTB
ISSUE III

Remimeo	CANCELS
Auditors	HCO BULLETIN OF 9 OCTOBER 1971
Level I	ISSUE III
Checksheets	SAME TITLE
SH Orgs
Auditors Drills Series 3R
DRILLS FOR AUDITORS
LEVEL 1 DRILLS

PURPOSE: To improve the quality of auditing by familiarizing auditors with the exact procedure of each auditing action through the use of drills.

HOW TO USE: These drills are in order by levels. The First number indicates the level taught on. Those that begin with TR-100 are level I drills. Unbullbaited drills end with odd numbers, and bullbaited drills end in even numbers.

The drills are done within the basic format of the bullbaited and unbullbaited drills as in the front of this issue.

Simply start with the first actions and work through the pack applying the drills unbullbaited and bullbaited until you are thoroughly familiar with each separate auditing action and can apply it flawlessly even with distractions.

If a student has trouble on a drill cut back the gradient. On a bullbaited drill this could mean returning the student to the drill on a doll or even to TR 0-4.

IMPORTANT: ALSO CHECK THAT THE STUDENT HIMSELF HAS NO MISUNDERSTOOD WORDS 0N THE HCOB OR DRILL AS THIS WILL CAUSE HIM TO ALTER—IS AND HAVE DIFFICULTY. ALWAYS COACH ON A GRADIENT AND BUILT THEM UP TO GET TOUGH!

NOTE: If coach upset occurs because of restimulation, fruit words should be inserted in the place of the process Key Words,  for bullbaited drills only.

FORMAT FOR UNBULLBAITED DRILLS

NAME:  Auditing on a Doll unbullbaited.

COMMANDS: As for each separate process.

PURPOSE: To train the student to be able to coordinate and apply the commands and procedures of each separate auditing action with the actual doingness of auditing.

POSITION: Student seated at a table with E-meter, worksheets and auditing forms as needed. In the chair opposite the student is a doll occupying the position of the pc. (During checkouts the coach is seated or standing beside the auditor. He does not take the position of the doll.)

TRAINING STRESS:  This drill is coached. The student sets up the E-Meter and worksheets exactly as in a session as follows: 
(1) 	Set up E-Meter as for E-Meter drills.
(2) 	Set up shield (to prevent TA and admin being seen by pc (doll).
(3) 	Have extra pens under the E-Meter
(4) 	Have C/S face down between the bottom of the E-Meter and the table.
(5) 	Have W/S and Lists readily available in sequence required for the session.

Auditor starts the session and runs a standard session with the particular auditing action being taken up on the doll, keeping full session admin and using all standard procedures of the auditing action.

The drill is done on a steeper and steeper gradient until the student can very quickly do the action correctly.

The drill is passed when the student can do the drill flawlessly with good TRs 0-4, correct procedure and commands without comm lags or confusion; i.e.. flawlessly.

FORMAT FOR BULLBAITED DRILLS

NAME: Auditing _____________Bullbaited.

COMMANDS:  As for each separate auditing action.

PURPOSE: Do train the student to be able to coordinate and apply the commands and procedures of each separate auditing action in a drill similar to a real auditing session and thereby become flawless in applying it.

POSITION: Student seated at a table with E-Meter and auditor forms, as needed. In the chair opposite the auditor is the coach (bullbaiter), as pc.

TRAINING STRESS: The drill is the same as for auditing on a the “pc” coach bullbaits the student auditor, using “fruit answers”  during the session in an attempt to throw the student off session. The coach does not “look” for and “find” real answers. He must not go “into session” like a pc but must remain with his coach’s hat on and pretending to be a pc. On any list the coach squeezes the cans to simulate reads. He still uses “fruit answers” (six apples, blue pears) when asked to speak, but as the student auditor reads off the list items (e.g.; L3RD he squeezes the cans for reads.)

When bullbaiting an auditing action the coach should THROW IN VARIOUS SIGNS OF PC OUT OF SESSIONESS. (Per HCOB on good and bad indicators) The student auditor must:
(1) 	Obnose the out of sessionness 
(2) 	Align this to the process run 
(3) 	Handle

The pc bullbaiter can throw in situations originate troubles, or gains, be tricky etc., but he must never lose sight of HCOB 24 May 1968 “Coaching” especially the second paragraph “coach with reality”.

Once the coach throws out a situation, etc. he must allow the student auditor to carry it out, and handle the situation before the coach calls a new situation.

Before the coach gives the student any situations, he should first ensure the student can easily do the auditing action in a forward direction without fumbling or flubbing commands.

Stress is on training the student auditor to have TRs 0-4 IN on the bullbaiter.

The coach (bullbaiter) does the “start”, flunking or “that’s it”.  Flunks are given for any improper commands, procedure, comm lags, break in TRs or improper session admin.
Each drill is to be done thoroughly, building up the speed of auditor commands and actions. (It’s the number of auditing commands per unit of auditing time which makes gains in a session.” LRH)

The drill is passed when the student can do the drill flawlessly with excellent TRs 0-4, correct procedure and commands without comm lags or confusion.

These are the drills that train the student auditor to handle all the elements in a session so be exact and be real.

GRADE I EXPANDED PROCESSES

CCHs
refs:	HCOB 2 AUG 62 	CCH Answers 
	HCOB 7 AUG 62 	CCHs More Info 
	HCOB 1 DEC 65 	CCHs 
	BTB   12 SEP 65 	CCH Data

TR 100-1 CCH’S 1 - 4  UNBULLBAITED 
TR 100-2 CCH’S 1 - 4  BULLBAITED

NOTE: The coach must be a coach and not a real pc.  He must keep his coach hat on and not get driven “into session”. If any difficulty arises the coach carries a doll and makes it do the actions and has the student address the commands to the doll.

STEPS:  (Use Basic Drill Format, change position as needed to do the steps)

1.	Select an auditing room large enough and suitable for the pc to be able to walk from wall to wall.

2.	Before session set up the room with a meter so the pc can be put on the cans as necessary and so that session can proceed without having to dismantle and re-assemble the meter set up.

3. 	Take the pc into session and put on the meter, as in the start of any ordinary metered session.

4. 	Fly a rud- (Or have upper class auditor Two Way Comm to F/N according to C/S instructions.) Keep normal session admin.

5. 	R-factor. “We are now going to do CCHs. This process is done off the meter. First we’ll clear the commands”. Clear what CCH stands for. Clear any words necessary then clear the commands, explain this is a repetitive process. (Ensure the pc really understands this)

6.	Move pc and self away from meter and table, Sit facing pc (both seated comfortably - it is best to use armless chairs for this process.) The pc’s knees are between the auditor’s. The auditor is seated nearest the door.

7. 	Don’t go into a discussion of the process. Just say “We will now run CCH 1; this is the process”

	Raise your right hand to just above waist height halfway between your body and the pc. Hand held open.

8. 	Give Tone 40 command “Give me that hand” Indicate pc’s right hand by slight nod.

9. 	When pc has put his right hand in the auditor’s give an acknowledgment, “Thank you.”

10. 	Take the pc’s right wrist by your left hand and return the pc’s hand to the pc’s side.

11. 	Repeat from the second part of step 7 through step 10 continue until the pc has done so to 3 equal consecutive comm lags.

12. 	Take up any new physical manifestations as pc origination’s by saying, “What happened?” Never stop the process until a flat place is reached.

Freezes may be introduced at the end of cycle, this being after the “Thank you” and before the next command. They are used to ascertain information from the pc or to bridge from the process. This is done between 2 commands holding the pc’s hand after the ack, maintaining a solid comm line. Make every command and cycle separate maintaining a Tone 40 intention on commands.

13. 	If pc doesn’t give you his hand after the command and waiting a normal response period, take the pc’s right hand in your left hand and place the pc’s hand in your right. Then acknowledge the pc. Ask “What happened?”.  Accept whatever the pc says and continue.

14. 	After 3 consecutive commands with the pc actually doing the commands and of equal comm lag without any new physical changes CCH 1 is considered flat for this cycle through.

15.	Tell pc “We will now run CCH 2.” Clear words and commands. Tell pc the commands will be run repetitively ensuring he understands this.

16.	Stand up, move chairs to side of auditing room leaving an unobstructed walk between two opposite walls of the room. Stand to the right of the pct with the pc facing the opposite wall (keeping to the pc’s right).  “Thank you.”
		
17.	Give the command (Tone 40) “You look at that wall.” Indicate the wall by pointing. “Thank you”.

18.	“You walk over to that wall,” Walk with pc to opposite wall (keeping to pc’s right). “Thank you.”

19.	“You touch that wall.” “Thank you”.

20.	“Turn around.” As pc turns around move in 2 steps to a position just in front of the pc (facing pc). “Thank you”. Then move to pc’s right.
	
21.	Repeat 17 to 21 until the process is flat (3 consecutive sequences of commands with pc doing the process and no new physical manifestations or change of comm lag.)
	
22.	Take up any new physical change as a pc origination as it occurs with “What happened?”, maintaining a solid comm line while doing so. (i.e.: hand on arm or shoulder)
	
23.	When CCH 2 is flat tell pc “We will now run CCH 3.” Clear Commands and tell pc this process will be run repetitively ensuring he understands this.
	
24.	Return to the two chairs set up as in CCH 1.
	
25.	Raise both hands palms open facing pct hands about shoulder height and half way between auditor and pc.

26.	Give command (not Tone 40) “Put your hands against mine, follow them and contribute to their motion.”
	
27.	When pc has hands against auditor’s, move first the right hand, then the left hand in a simple motion. Straight line motions are simpler than curved motions. Make the motions fairly slow, very positive and smooth. (TONE 40 INTENTION IN THE MOTIONS.)
	
28.	After the motion is done with the right then left and both hands returned to starting position, (pc’s hands still raised against auditors) ask “Did you contribute to the motion?”.

Usually the pc says yes, if so, acknowledge, “Thank you” and allow pc to break the solid comm line, without telling him to.

If the pc is not happy that he did contribute to the motion, you can repeat the same motion.

29.	Repeat steps 26 to 28 each time varying the motion a little. You can increase the complexity slightly but don’t get too complicated.

30.	Include in your drilling the change over to hand space mimicry. The change occurs on the run through the CCHs after contact mimicry is flat with no change, i.e.: CCH 1, 2, 3 (HCM with change) 4, 1, 2, 3 (HCM with change) 4, 1, 2, 3 (HCM 3 commands only, no change) 4, 1, 2, 5 (hand space mimicry) .

31.	After 3 consecutive cycles with the pc actually doing the process and no new physical change or change of comm lag, tell pc “We will now run CCH 4.”

32.	Remain seated in chairs as in CCH 5. Take up a book.(a light hard covered book with a plain cover is best) Explain to the pc that you are going to make a motion with the book. When you have done so, you want him to duplicate the motion. Clear DUPLICATE in the dictionary and as ‘making the same motion in the same space’. Do not evaluate it as mirror image wise.

33.	When the pc understands, then hold the book steady in a comfortable position between auditor and pc. Make a simple Tone 40 motion of the book (similar to CCH 3 type motions). Complete the action at the starting point, pause, then hand the book to the pc- (Don’t tell him to take it, just move it slightly toward him and look at the pc as though offering him the book.) The pc then takes the book and repeats the motion mirror image wise.

34.	After the pc has repeated the action ask “Did you duplicate that motion?” or “How did you get on with that one?” (Not a rote question - friendly, 2 way comm quite free.) (Tone 40 in motions only)

35.	If the pc is happy with it, then do a new motion.

36.	If pc says he wasn’t happy that he duplicated it, then do it again and then keep the motions very simple to improve pc confidence.

37.	If pc says he was happy with it but the auditor sees it was obviously misduplicated, just acknowledge him; start a new cycle doing just the first part of the motion and have him duplicate that and then building it up until the pc duplicates the full motion.

38.	Don’t invalidate the pc by continuing to repeat motions he is happy with. Never say or indicate by facial expression that he didn’t really duplicate the motion, Repeat 32 to 38 to three consecutive no change sequences. 
	Repeat CCH 1, 2, 3 & 4 through and through until
	(A) all are flat on one run through. 
	(B) Or until pc has Good cog with VGIs.
	(C) Or pc exteriorizes.

39.	On step 38 on A or B put the pc on cans, check for TA position and F/N. If TA up or no F/N, check the process for unflat or overrun. If overrun rehab the flat point. If unflat continue to F/N, Cog, VGIs.

40.	If pc exteriorizes during CCHs just quietly end off and send the pc to the examiner.

TR 100 - 3 CCH 5 - UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 4 CCH 5 - BULLBAITED
Ref:  HCOB 11 Jun 57 Reissued 12 May 72 Training and CCH Processes.

NAME:  Location by contact.

COMMANDS: “Touch that (indicated object).” “Thank you.”

POSITION: Student and coach seated across a table from each other and then on their feet.

PURPOSE: To train the student auditor in the commands and procedure of CCH 5.

TRAINING STRESS: The student and coach do the steps together. The coach must remember he is being the coach not a real pc. He MUST keep his coach hat on and not go into session. Coach carries a doll as in CCH 1-4. The doll is made to do the commands and is addressed by the student. (The purpose of CCH 5 is to give the pc orientation and havingness, and to improve his perception.) The training stress is upon gentleness, ARC, and the raising of the pc’s certainty that he has touched the indicated object.

The coach gives the “start”, “flunk”, “that’s it” Flunks are given for incorrect procedure, out TRs, uncertainty. The drill is passed when the student can do it flawlessly despite distractions from the pc bullbaiter.

CCH 5

STEPS:

1. 	Select an auditing room large enough to walk around in.

2. 	Before session set up the room with a meter so the pc can be put on the cans as necessary and so that the session can proceed without having to dismantle and re-assemble the meter set up.

3. 	Take the pc into session and put on the meter, as in the start of any ordinary metered session.

4. 	Start the session. “This is the Session.” Fly a rud.

5. 	Or have upper level auditor 2WC to EP per C/S directions.

6. 	R-factor: “We are going to be doing CCH 5”

7.	Clear Commands. “The command is ‘touch that ______’ and I’ll indicate some object in the room” “What does ‘Touch that’ mean to you?” Make sure the pc understands the command.

8. 	“This process is done off the meter. Please put the cans down.”

9. 	Move yourself and pc away from the meter. Stand beside the pc so that you can use manual contact with the pc as is necessary and guide him to the indicated object.

10. 	Say “This is the process”.

11. 	Run the process. Take up any physical change as a pc origination as it occurs by asking “What happened?” Pc answers. Auditor acknowledges and continues the process.

12. 	Run to cog, VGIs.

13. 	Tell the pc to please sit down and pick up the Cans.

14. 	Check for F/N, and indicate it. If TA HIGH, check O/R & if so tell pc you’ll have to get an upper level auditor for a rehab. It underrun, run to EP on meter check.

NOTE: Auditor and pc can remain seated where the pc is very unable in which case they are seated at a table which has a number of objects scattered on its surface.

It should be noticed that this can be run on blind people

TR 100- 5 CCH 6 - UNBULLBAITED
TR 100- 6 CCH 6 - BULLBAITED
Ref: HCOB 11 Jun 57 Reissued 12 May 72 Training and CCH Processes.

NAME: Body - Room Contact.

COMMANDS: “Touch your (body part).” “Thank you.” “Touch that (indicated room object)”. “Thank you.”

POSITION: Student and coach seated and then moving about as needed.

PURPOSE: To train the student auditor in the procedures and commands of CCH 6.

TRAINING STRESS: The student and coach move about together as needed by the student enforcing the commands by manual contact using the pcs (coach’s) hands to touch objects and touch body parts. (A doll is carried and used by coach as in earlier CCH drills.)

(The purpose of CCH 6, as a process, is to establish the orientation and increase the havingness of the preclear and to give him in particular a reality on his own body.)

The training stress is upon using only those body parts which are not embarrassing to the preclear as it will be found that the pc ordinarily has very little reality on various parts of his body. Impossible commands should not be given to the pc in any case.

The coach gives the “start”, “Flunk”, and “that’s it”. On metered steps the coach indicates needle read and F/N with a pen and tells the student the TA position. Flunks are given for out TRs, incorrect procedure or commands, or uncertainty. The drill is passed when the student can do it flawlessly despite distractions from the pc bullbaiter.

CCH 6

STEPS:

1. 	Select an auditing room large enough to walk around in.

2.	Set up the meter so pc can be put on the cans as necessary without having to dismantle and reassemble the meter set up.

3.	Take the pc into session and put on the meter as in the start of an ordinary metered session.
4.	Start the session: “This is the session”. Fly a rud.

5.	Or have an upper level auditor 2 way comm per C/S directions.

6.	R-factor- “We are going to be running CCH 6.” “This process is done off the meter so you can put the cans down.”

7.	Move yourself and the pc away from the meter. Stand near the pc so that you can enforce the commands, if needed, by manual contact using the pre-clears hands to touch objects and touch body parts.

8.	Say: “This is the process”.

9.	Run the two commands, 1, 2, 1, 2 putting various body parts and room objects into the commands. Run the process to Cog, VGIs.

10.	Tell the pc, “Please sit down and pick up the cans.”
(a) 	Indicate the F/N.
(b) 	If TA high check OR & if so tell pc you’ll have to get an upper level auditor for a rehab.
(c) 	If no F/N and process is underrun, continue the process until flat & you have an F/N on meter check.

TR 100 - 7 CCH 7 - UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 8 CCH 7 - BULLBAITED

NAME:  Contact by duplication.

COMMANDS: “Touch that table.” “Thank you.” “Touch your (body part).” “Thank you.” “Touch that table.” “Thank you.” “Touch your (same body part).” “Thank you.”

POSITION: Student and coach start seated at a table. Then the coach is walking with the student auditor standing by to manually enforce the commands, if needed.

PURPOSE: To train the student auditor in the procedures and commands of CCH 7.

TRAINING STRESS: The student and coach move about together as needed. The coach takes the role as pc bullbaiter as well as giving the start, flunk, and that’s it. The coach must remember he is the coach and is not to actually run the process.

(The purpose of CCH 7 as a process is to heighten perception, orient the preclear and raise the preclear’s havingness. Control of attention as in these “contact” processes naturally takes the attention units out of the bank which itself has been controlling the preclear’s attention.)

The training stress is on precision of command and motion, with each command in its unit of time, all commands perfectly duplicated. Preclear to continue to run process even though he dopes off (Pc bullbaiter to mock up some dope off to give the student experience handling it.)

Coach carries a doll which student addresses as in previous CCH drills.

Flunks are given for out TRs, incorrect procedure or commands. The drill is passed when the student can do it flawlessly despite distractions from the pc bullbaiter.

STEPS:

1. 	Select an auditing room large enough to walk around in.

2. 	Set up meter so pc can be put on the cans as necessary without having to dismantle and re-assemble the meter set-up.

3. 	Take the pc into session and put on the meter, as in the start of any ordinary metered session.

4. 	Say “This is the session.” Fly a rud.

5.	Or have an upper level auditor 2 way comm per C/S directions.

6.	R-Factor: “We are going to be running CCH 7.” “This process is done off the meter. Please put the cans down.

7. 	Move yourself and the pc away from the meter. Stand near the pc so that you can enforce the commands if needed, by manual contact using the preclear’s hands to touch the table or body part.

8. 	Say “This is the process.”

9.	Run the commands 1, 2, 1, 2, etc., using the same body part each time until it is flat as indicated by 3 equal comm lags and the pc actually doing the command.

10. 	Then the auditor can put an aberrated body part in the command and flatten it, running the commands 1, 2, 1, 2, etc. .

11. 	Run to Cog, VGIs.

12. 	Ask the pc to sit down and pick up the cans.

13.	(a)	Indicate the F/N
(b) 	If no F/N and TA high, check for O/R & if so tell pc you’ll have to get an upper level auditor for a rehab. If underrun run to EP on meter check.

TR 100 - 9	CCH 8 - OR - OLD TIME TERRIBLE TRIO UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 10	CCH 8 - OR - OLD TIME TERRIBLE TRIO BULLBAITED
		Add. Ref: PAB 80

COMMANDS:  “Look around the room and tell me what you could have.” Run to F/N, Cog, VGIs. “Look around the room and tell me what you would permit to remain.” Run to F/N, Cog, VGIs. “Look around the room and tell me what you could dispense with” Run to F/N, Cog, VGIs. (Dispense is sometimes run first when the pc is set on wasting.)

POSITION:  Student auditor seated across the table from coach. The chairs can be turned so that they both are facing toward the majority of the room.

PURPOSE:  To train the student in the commands and procedures.

TRAINING STRESS: The coach takes the role as pc bullbaiter but he must not forget that he is the coach, not a pc. He does not go into “session” and “find” answers, but invents imaginary answers. (fruit names)

Flunks are given for out TRs, incorrect procedure or commands. The drill is passed when the student can do it flawlessly despite distractions from the pc bullbaiter.

STEPS:
1. 	R-factor. “We are going to run a process called CCH 8 also known as “Trio”

2. 	PART 1: Clear the command: “The first command is ‘Look around the room and tell me what you could have.’” “What does this command mean to you?”

3. 	Tell the pc the command is going to be run repetitively.

4. 	Say “This is the process.”

5. 	Run the process to F/N, Cog, VGIs. Indicate the F/N.

6. 	PART 2: R-factor. Tell the pc you are going to run the second part.

7. 	Clear the command “Look around the room and tell me what you would permit to remain.”

8. 	Tell the pc the command is going to be run repetitively.

9.	Run as in steps 4 & 5 as above.

10. 	PART 3: R-factor  “we are going to run the third part”

11. 	Clear the command “Look around the room and tell me what you could dispense with.”

12. 	Run as in steps 4 and 5.

TR 100 - 11 CCH 9 UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 12 CCH 9 BULLBAITED

NAME: Tone 40 “Keep it from going away.”

COMMANDS: “Look at that (indicated object)” “Thank you” “Walk over to that (indicated object)” “Thank you” “Touch that (indicated object) “Thank you” “Keep it from away” “Thank you” “Did you keep it from going away?”  “Thank you” and so forth with further objects.

POSITION: Student and coach ambulant. Student assisting by manual contact when needed.

PURPOSE: To train the student auditor in the commands and procedures of CCH 9.

TRAINING STRESS: The training stress is on precision and accuracy and on finding out that this is actually Tone 40 8C with a thinkingness addition. The coach also takes the role of pc bullbaiter. Flunks are given for out TRs, incorrect procedure or commands. The drill is passed when the student can do it with precision and accuracy. The coach must remain a coach with his attention extroverted onto coaching the student and must not be on “running” the process. He must make a doll execute the commands.

STEPS:

1. 	R-factor. “We are going to run CCH 9.”

2. 	Clear each command with the pc.

3. 	Say “This process is done off the cans.” Move yourself and the pc away from the meter.

4. 	Say “This is the process”

5. 	Run all commands in order, over and over, until you get Cog and VGIs.
6. 	Tell the pc to sit down and pick up the cans.

7. 	(a) 	Indicate the F/N.
(b) 	If no F/N and TA high, check for O/R & if so tell pc you’ll have to get an upper level auditor for a rehab. If underrun run to EP on meter check.

TR 100 - 13  CCH 10 UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 14  CCH 10 BULLBAITED

NAME: Tone 40 “Hold it still”

COMMANDS: “Look at that (indicated room object)” “Thank you” “Walk over to that (indicated object)” “Thank you” “Touch that (indicated object)” “Thank you” “Hold it still” “Thank you” “Did you hold it still?” “Thank you” etc., in that order to Cog, VGIs. Check F/N on the meter.

POSITION: Student and coach seated, then ambulant.

PURPOSE: To train the student in the commands and procedures of CCH 10.

TRAINING STRESS: The student and coach do the steps together. The coach must remember he is being coach not a real pc. He must coach and carry a doll and make it run the process without actually being in session himself. Flunks are given for out TRs, incorrect procedure or commands. The drill is passed when the student can do it flawlessly despite distractions.

STEPS:

1. 	R-factor. “We are going to run CCH 10.”

2. 	Clear the commands .

3. 	Say “This process is run off the cans.” Move yourself and the pc away from the meter.

4. 	Say “This is the process.”

5. 	Run the commands in the order given to Cog, VGIs.

6. 	Tell the pc to sit down and pick up the cans.

7. 	(a) 	Indicate the F/N.
(b) 	If no F/N and TA high, check for O/R & if so tell pc you’ll have to get an upper level auditor for a rehab. If underrun run to EP on meter check.

TR 100 - 15	R2 - 67 OBJECTS UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 16	R2 - 67 OBJECTS BULLBAITED
Ref: Creation of Human Ability (Use Basic Drill Format)

STEPS:

1. 	Tell pc you are going to run a process called R2 - 67 Objects.

2. 	Clear words as necessary and clear command. “Locate some objects.”

3. 	Tell the pc, “This is the process”, and give pc the command,

4. 	The pc then looks at the objects or puts his attention on them and tells you what they are.
5. 	This is all there is to the process. For variation, one locates some more objects.

6. 	By object is meant physical universe, present time, visible objects.

7. 	(a) 	Indicate the F/N.
(b) 	If no F/N and TA high, check for O/R & if so tell pc you’ll have to get an upper level auditor for a rehab. If underrun run to EP on meter check.

TR 100 - 17  3 PART LOCATIONAL PROCESS UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 18  3 PART LOCATIONAL PROCESS BULLBAITED
Ref: PAB 153 (Use Basic Drill Format)

STEPS:

1. 	Tell the pc you are going to run a Locational Process.

2. 	Clear all words.

3. 	Clear the command, “Notice that (room object).”

4. 	Say “This is the process” and give the first command. “Notice that _____” “Thank you” The auditor picks out the room objects and points to them. Don’t point at the pc. (The process is done on a meter)

5. 	Run to F/N, Cog and VGIs.

6. 	(a) 	Indicate the F/N.
(b) 	If no F/N and TA high, check for O/R & if so tell pc you’ll have to get an upper level auditor for a rehab. If underrun run to EP on meter check.

7. 	After indicating EN give R-factor to pc, “We are now going to run the second part which is called Locational body and room”.

8. 	Clear the commands. “Look at that (room object) “. “Look at your (pc body part).”

9. 	Tell pc the commands will be run repetitively.

10. 	Say “This is the Process” give commands, “Look at that (room object).” “Thank you” “Look at your (pc body part).” “Thank you” 

11. 	Continue to EP. Pc may exteriorize easily on the process. If he does end off. (Done on a meter.)

12. 	NOTE: There is an alternate set of commands on this process; see PAB 153 for when to run them.
“Notice the chairs”
“Notice your hand”
“Notice the wall”
“Notice the floor”	
Run as in steps 4 and 5.

13. 	Give the R-factor this is the third part and is called Objective Show Me.

14. 	Clear the command and tell the pc the command will be run repetitively.

15. 	Say “This is the process” and give the command “Show me that (Room object.)”.

16. 	The auditor points to the object he wants to be shown and only when this is running fairly well will you run it on an extrovert/introvert basis.

17. 	At that point give pc an R-factor this process has a second command which we will now clear. Clear “Show me your (pc body part)”. (Foot, Hand, knee, etc.)

18. 	Tell pc you will now run the process with the two commands alternately.

19. 	Give the commands, “Show me that (room object)”, “Thank you” “Show me your (body part)”, “Thank you”.

20. 	Run as in step 5.

TR 100 - 19  OPENING PROCEDURE BY DUPLICATION UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 20  OPENING PROCEDURE BY DUPLICATION  BULLBAITED
Ref:  R2- 17 Creation Of Human Ability. HCOB 4 Feb 59 Op Pro By Dup. BTB 24 Oct 71 Op Pro By Dup EP.

Drill done like Basic Drill Format EXCEPT that the bullbaiter holds a doll and the doll represents the pc. The bullbaiter moves the doll and makes origination’s and bullbaits for the doll. The student auditor addresses the doll.

STEPS:

1. 	R-factor: “We are going to run an expanded Grade 1 process, Opening Procedure by Duplication.”

2. 	The pc is not on the meter when running the process. Have two dissimilar objects in the auditing room. A book and bottle.

3. 	Have the pc examine, hold, inspect, become familiar with one of the objects.

4. 	When No. 3 is done, the auditor places one on B table on one side of the room then says for the pc to do step 3 on the other object. Then the auditor places this 2nd object on the opposite side of the room.

5. 	The pc should, of course, have reality on his environment prior to this process being run. (CCH’s)

6. 	Clear what you are going to do and the commands of the process. Get in the R-factor that the book and bottle will be used in the following commands:
A. 	Look at that book. 
B. 	Walk over to it. 
C. 	Pick it up. 
D. 	What is its color? 
E. 	What is its temperature? 
F. 	What is its weight? 
G. 	Put it down in exactly the same place. 
H. 	Look at that bottle. 
I. 	(Do B-G on the bottle.) 
J. 	Begin again at A for the book.

7. 	The same words and formula are used over and over, as above. The auditor acknowledges the pc’s completion of each command.

8. 	Although the questions in No. 6 never vary, the auditor must still maintain 2-way communication with the pc. The pc is doing the process so when the pc talks or volunteers information, the auditor must use TR 0 - 4.

9. 	The process is run for hours at once, (not for 30 minutes one day and 30 minutes the next) to exteriorization, F/N Cog & VGIs. When the pc exteriorizes on the process allow him to cog then put the pc on the meter to check EP.

TR 100 - 21 S.C.S UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 22 S.C.S BULLBAITED
Ref: Clear procedure issue 1. HCOB 2 Feb 61 UK Cases, Different. PAB 97

NOTE: You can first run S.C.S. on an object on a very bad off case. In this case you’d use the same commands, and it should be drilled to gain familiarity on running the process in this manner.

(Do as per the Basic Drill Format for bullbaited drills, EXCEPT that the pc bullbaiter holds a doll and the doll taken the pc role and the bullbaiter moves the doll and gives origination’s and bullbaits for the doll. The other change is in the position; in this drill the coach and student stand as needed.)

STEPS:

1. 	Choose a suitable sized auditing room for the pc to be able to walk around comfortably without bumping into walls or furniture.

2. 	Set up table, meter and chairs so as to leave ample walking space.

3. 	Tell pc you are going to run a process called S.C.S. (Start, Change, Stop.) Clear words as necessary.

4. 	STAND STILL: Tell pc the first step of the process is called “Stand Still”

5. 	We have the pc out in the middle of the room standing up while we stand alongside of him touching him. (To maintain a solid comm line)

6. 	We explain to him (and we explain this every command) “Now I want you to get your body moving down the room when I so indicate and when I tell you to stand still I want you to make that body stand still, Do you understand that?” The preclear says he does, the auditor acknowledges. Then the auditor gives the pc a slight shove and the preclear moves the body down the room, and the auditor says “Stand Still” and the preclear tries to get his body absolutely still in that instant. The auditor then says “Did you make that body stand still?” The pc answers and the auditor acknowledges.

7. 	Run Step 6 over again and again until you have run to 3 equal commlags with no physical changes and pc really doing it, or a good cognition or big win; any of which indicate a flat point.

8. 	NOTE: When running “Stand Still” be sure and give the command ‘Stand Still’ before the pc is forced to stop by wall or furniture; otherwise the pc would be stopping on his own determinism rather than on the auditor’s command which would prevent the auditing cycle from being completed.

9. 	STEP 2: Tell pc you are now going on to the next part and its called “Start”.

10. 	Touching pc on the arm or shoulder, tell the pc “I am going to tell you to start; and when I tell you to start you start the body in that direction.” (Indicate direction with hand) “Do you understand that?” “Good.” and just before you give the commend ‘Start’ let go of pc and say “Start”. Just after the pc has started say “Did you start that body?” (Pc answers”) “Thank you”.

11. 	Now repeat step 10 facing pc in various directions to suit the room space. If the pc is anticipating the command (starting to move before auditor says “start”) then vary the lag after the “Good” and the “Start” to break the circuit .

12.	Continue with steps 10 & 11 to 3 equal comm lags and pc really doing the command with no physical changes or a good cognition or a big win; any of which indicate a flat point.

13. 	Then go into CHANGE. Change is run to unflatten Start.

14. 	Stand up next to your pc on his right. Place your hand on pc’s arm or shoulder and say “Do you see that spot?” (point to it on the floor) “Good. We’ll call that Spot A. Now you stand here. OK?” (physically place pc in Spot A and keeping physical contact while giving pc directions. (As in step 10)

15. 	Then tell pc “Now do you see that spot?” “Good” We’ll call that Spot B. Alright now when I tell you to change the body’s position, you move it from Spot A to Spot B. Alright?” “Good. Change the body’s position.” “Did you change the body’s position?” (Listen to pc’s answer) “Thank you.” Always keep the solid comm line when giving commands. 

16.	Run as in step 12. Then go into STOP.

17.	STOP: Maintaining a solid comm line tell pc “I am going to tell you to get the body moving in that direction (indicate). Somewhere along the line I will tell you to stop. Then you stop the body. Do you understand that?” “Good. Get the body moving.” “Stop.” “Did you stop the body?” (listen to pc’s answer.) “Thank you.” On this step give the command “Stop” before the pc is forced to stop by a wall or furniture. The pc would be stopping on his own decision rather than on the auditor’s command, and the auditing cycle cannot be properly completed.

18.	Repeat 17 in various directions and run as in step 12.

19.	Repeat “Still”, “Start”, “Change” and “Stop”, through and through until:
	(a) 	All are flat on one run through.
	(b) 	Until pc has got a cog with VGIs.
	(c) 	or pc exterior
If a or b check for F/N. If no F/N and TA high, check for O/R & if so tell pc you’ll have to get an upper level auditor for a rehab. If underrun run to EP on meter check.

TR 100 - 23  CONTROL TRIO UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 24  CONTROL TRIO BULLBAITED
Ref: PAB 137 & PAB 146 (Use Basic Drill Format)

STEPS:

1. 	Tell pc that you are going to run a process called “Control Trio”.

2. 	Clear the word “having” as being able to touch, permeate or to direct the position of. Do not reclear if done before. Clear this very very thoroughly so no additional connotations like “wanting it” or “being able to buy it” or “what shall I do with it once I’ve got it.” Don’t do this evaluatively.

3. 	Clear the command “Get the idea of having that (indicated object ).”

4. 	Tell the pc the command will be run repetitively

5. 	Say “This is the process.” Give the command. Then “Thank you.”

6. 	Run to F/N, Cog & VGIs.

7. 	Tell pc you’re now going to run the second part.

8. 	Clear “permit” and “continue”.

9. 	Clear the command “Get the idea it is allright to permit that (indicated object) to continue.”

10. 	Tell pc this process will be run repetitively. Say “This is the process”. Run to F/N, Cog & VGIs.

11. 	Tell pc your now going to run the 3rd part.

12. 	Clear the command and run as in step 10. “Get the idea of making that (indicated object) disappear. Make sure the pc is not running disappear as ‘dispense with’ or ‘not know’ or ‘not-is’.

TR 100- 25  GOALS UNBULLBAITED
TR 100- 26  GOALS BULLBAITED
Ref: PAB 137 & PAB 146  (Use Basic Drill Format)

STEPS:

1. 	Tell pc you are going to run a goals process.

2. 	Clear words as necessary including the following words: Minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, year, etc.

3. 	Tell pc the command will be “What are you absolutely sure will happen in the next (Auditor will state time period.) ?” 

4. 	Clear the command, ensure the “Absolutely sure” part of command is recognized by the pc.

5. 	Tell pc the command will be run repetitively.

6. 	Say “This is the process”, and run the process starting with a 2 minute time period (Increase to one hour, 3 days, one week, three months, one year, etc., for example)

Complete pc certainty on each time span is necessary before the auditor continues to the next time span. This is done by 2 way comm and the auditor must be sure at all times that the pc is certain that these things are going to happen in the next 2 minutes, (or whatever the time span is) to ensure the process really bites.

7. 	Run to EP

8. 	Tell the pc you are now going to run the second part of this process.

9. 	Clear the command “Tell me something you would like to do in the next 2 minutes.” (Increase time as in step 6)

10. 	Run to EP.

11. 	On some pcs the following questions may be more real and bite faster. This is putting the accent on Have instead of Do since we work from the bottom up on the Be, Do, Have triangle. They are:
“Tell me something you are sure will be there in two minutes.”
AND
“Tell me something you would like to have in two minutes”.
It is advisable to run the last 2 processes on pcs whose ability to communicate and reality level are low.

12. 	Run as in steps 6 & 7.

TR 100 - 27  OPENING PROCEDURE SOP 8-C UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 28  OPENING PROCEDURE SOP 8-C BULLBAITED 
Ref. PAB 34.  Creation of Human Ability - R2 - 16

(Do as per the Basic Drill Format for bullbaited drills, EXCEPT that pc bullbaiter holds a doll and the doll takes the pc role and the bullbaiter moves the doll and gives origination’s and bullbaits for the doll. The other change is that the student and bullbaiter stand etc. as needed to do the drill.)

STEPS:

1. 	Select suitable auditing room for a process done walking around. Have table, meter, and chairs set up in position so that the session can be started and ended on the meter leaving room for the body of the session.

PART A

2. 	R—factor. “We are going to run a process where we’ll move around; its called Opening Procedure 8-C.”

3. 	Clear the commands “Do you see that  (indicated object)?” “Go over to it and put your hand on it” “Now look at that (indicated object).” “Now walk over to it and put your hand on it”

4. 	Say “This is the process” and run until the following manifestations of communication lag have gone: The “pc” coach just brushing the object he is told to touch. Carrying out the command before it is given, Complaining about the process in any way, Objecting to being ordered to do the actions, Unwillingness to touch the items designated, Putting all his attention on creating an effect on the auditor, Apathy, fear, grief anger or boredom turned on by the process. (Drill.)

5. 	This is done with various objects without specifically designating spots of a more precise nature than an object until pc is very certain that he is in good communication with these objects and the walls and other parts of the room.

PART A ENLARGED

6. 	When the above has been achieved the auditor can become very specific about spots for the pc to touch.
	Example: “Do you see that black mark on the left arm of that chair?” “All right, go over to it and put your finger on it.” “Now take your finger off it.” “Do you see that lower bolt on that light switch?”  “All right, go over to it and put your left finger on it.” “Take your finger off it.” and so forth until pc has a uniform perception of any and all objects in the room including the walls, the floor, the ceiling etc.

7. 	This step can be kept up for a long time. It has an infinity of variations. But it is not the variations which works. It is the making and breaking of communication with the actual designated spots.

PART B

8. 	Tell the pc we are now going onto Part B. Clear the commands: “Find a spot in the room.” “Go over and put your finger on it.” “Now let go of it.”

9. 	Tell the pc he is not to act on a command until the command is given and must not let go until told to do so.

10. 	Run the process. (Pc and auditor on their feet.) Run until all comm lag is flat and until the pc is freely selecting spots on the walls, objects, chairs, etc., with no specialization whatsoever which means that his perception of the room has become uniform.

PART C

11. 	Tell pc we are now going to run Part C and clear the words. Clear the command: “Find a spot in this room.” “Make up your mind when you are going to touch it and then touch it.” “Make up your mind when you are going to let go of it and let go.”

12. 	Run the process repetitively until all comm lags are reduced and until the pc’s very certain he’s seeing, selecting and touching the spots and to EP. (Check for F/N on the meter. If no F/N check for unflat or overrun and handle accordingly.) 

13. 	On each of these SOP 8C steps be very clear and precise and simple in your commands. Don’t go past a Cog and VGIs without checking for F/N and indication.

14. 	A variation of this process is to have the preclear make up his mind about a spot and then have him change his mind and select another spot.

TR 100 - 29  A HELP PROCESS UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 30  A HELP PROCESS BULLBAITED
Ref: HCOB 5 May 60 “Help” (Use Basic Drill Format)

STEPS:

1. 	R-factor: “We are going to run an Expanded Grade I process. It’s called Help Processes.”

PART 1

2. 	Clear the word HELP.

3. 	Discuss pc ‘helping others’ and ‘others helping’ the pc. Get pc’s views on the subject of Help. Stick to the subject of help and take it to EP. (Per HCOB 20 Nov 73 F/N What You Ask or Program.)

PART 2
	
4.	Tell the pc you are now going to run the second part of this Help Process.

5. 	Clear words as necessary and clear the F1 command, “What problem could help be to you?”

6. 	Say “This is the process” give the command and run to EP.

7. 	Clear and run F2 as in step 7, “What problem could help be to another?”

8. 	Clear and run F3 as in step 7, “What problem could help be to others?”
	OR
Use this version if the pc is inventing answers to the above commands rather than just picking them off the track.

9. 	R-factor: “We are now going to run the next step”.

10. 	Clear the F1 command, “What problem has help been to you?”

11. 	Run as in step 6.

12. 	Clear and run F2 and F3 as in step 6.
	F2: 	“What problem has help been to another?”
	F3: 	“What problem has help been to others?”
	OR
	(Another Remedy for invention)

15. 	R-factor: “We are now going to run the next step.”

14. 	Clear the F1 commands.
	F1: 	“What help could you confront?”
		“What help would you rather not confront?”

15. 	Run as in step 7.

16. 	Clear and run F2 and F3 as in step 7.
	F2: 	“What help could another confront?”
		“What help would another rather not confront?”
	F3: 	“What help could others confront?”
		“What help would others rather not confront?”

TR 100 - 31 	LOWER DICHOTOMY OF FAILED HELP or 
		2 WAY FAILED HELP UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 32 	LOWER DICHOTOMY OF FAILED HELP or 
		2 WAY FAILED HELP BULLBAITED
Ref: HCOB 3 Nov 60 Failed Help (Use Basic Drill Format)

STEPS:

1. 	Inform the pc you are going to run a Help Process.

2. 	Clear the F1 words and commands. 
	F1: 	“How could another prevent help?” 
		“How could another fail to help?”

3. 	Say “This is the process” and run it alternately to EP.

4. 	R-factor you are now going to run F2. Clear the words and commands and run as in step 3. 
	F2: 	“How could you prevent help?” 
		“How could fail to help?”

5. 	R-factor you are now going to run F3. Clear the words and commands and run as in step 3. 
	F3: 	“How could others prevent help?” 
		“How could others fail to help?”

TR 100 - 33  FORMULA 16 UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 34  FORMULA 16 BULLBAITED
Ref: HCOB 15 Dec 60 Presession 37.  HCOB 10 Nov 60 Formula 13 (Use Basic Drill Format)

STEPS:

1. 	Give pc an R-factor that you are going to run a help process.

2. 	Clear the F1 words and commands with the pc. 
	F1: 	“Who has intended not to help you?” 
		“Who has helped you?”
	F2: 	“Who have you intended not to help?” 
		“Who have you helped?”
	F3: 	“Who has intended not to help others?” 
		“Who has helped others?”

3. 	Tell the pc this process will be run in sequence repetitively.

4. 	Say “This is the process.”

5. 	Run F1 to EP, then run F2 and F3 to EP following steps two, three and four.

TR 100 - 35	FORMULA 17 UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 36	FORMULA 17 BULLBAITED
Ref: HCOB 15 Dec 60 Presession 37. HCOB 3 Nov 60 Failed Help (Use Basic Drill Format)
	
STEPS:

1. 	One runs this especially on the person who has been to Hypnotists, Spiritualists, Psychologists, Ministers, etc. and also uses specific persons connected with the pc’s past. Begin by finding out if the pc ever attended various other practices such as above and note the reads. e.g.: if a person is/was a Catholic and it read, one would run “Catholics”. Run charged terminals and/or charged general terminals.

2. 	Tell pc you are going to run a help process and its called Formula 17.

3. 	Clear F1 words and command and say “This is the process” and run to EP.

4. 	Clear F2 and run to EP.

5. 	Clear F3 and run to EP.

COMMANDS:

F1: 	“How could a ____fail to help you?”
F2: 	“How could you fail to help a____ ?”
F3: 	“How could a ____ fail to help others?”

6.	Tell pc you are now going to run the second part of Formula 17. Positive failed help is also run the same as in steps 1 to 5.

COMMANDS:

	F1: 	“How could a ____help you?”
	F2: 	“How could you help a ____?”
	F3: 	“How could a ____help others?”

TR 100 - 37  FIVE WAY CONCEPT HELP UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 38  FIVE WAY CONCEPT HELP BULLBAITED
Ref: HCOB 14 Jul 60 Concept Help (Use Basic Drill Format)

STEPS:

1.	R-factor “We are going to run an Expanded Grade I process; its called Concept Help.”

2.	Clear “Think” and any other words necessary to commands.

3.	Cull terminals from worksheets.

4.	Run only a general terminal, one which reads of course. Example, a dog, a fish, a cow, a man, a woman, etc., as long as it reads or has read in a previous session and has not since been flattened.

5.	Say “This is the process” and run each command (below) muzzled and repetitively to EP.
		
COMMANDS:

	F1: 	“Think of a ____ helping you.”	to EP.
	F2: 	“Think of you helping a ____.”	to EP.
	P3: 	“Think of a ____ helping others.”	to EP.
	F4: 	“Think of others helping a ____.”	to EP.
	F5. 	“Think of a ____ helping a____.”	to EP.

6.	These flows can be run over again using a different terminal.

TR 100 - 39  CONCEPT HELP O/W UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 40  CONCEPT HELP O/W BULLBAITED
Refs: HCOB 14 Jul 60 Concept Help.  HCOB 21 Jul 60 Some Help Terminals.  BTB 30 May 60 Dynamic Assessment on Help. (Use Basic Drill Format)

1. 	R-factor: “We are going to run an Expanded Grade I Process; its called Concept Help O/W.

2.	Clear the F1 commands: 	“Think of a ____ helping you,”
	“Think of a ____ not helping you.”
3. 	A charged terminal (one that reads) is used in the commands.  Take a reading terminal and also “a confusion”, “an unconscious person”, “a responsible person”, “a creative person”, etc. these can be taken from previous session reports.

4. 	Say “This is the process”, and run the commands muzzled alternate repetitive.

5. 	End on F/N, Cog, VGIs and select another terminal and repeat steps 2, 4, 5.

COMMANDS:

F2: 	“Think of helping a ____.”
	“Think of not helping a ____.”
F3: 	“Think of a ____ helping others”
	“Think of a ____ not helping others”

TR 100 - 41  HELP O/W UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 42  HELP O/W BULLBAITED
Ref: HCOB 12 May 60 Help Processing  (Use Basic Drill Format)
STEPS:

1. 	Tell the pc you are going to run a Help Process called Help O/W.

2. 	Clear the F1 commands well with the pc: “What help has another given you?” “What help has another not given you?”

3. 	Say “This is the process” and run in sequence repetitively to EP.

4. 	Tell the pc you are now going to run F2. Clear the commands and run as in steps 2 and 3.

5. 	Tell pc you are now going to run F3. Clear the commands and run as in steps 2 and 3.

COMMANDS:

F2: 	“What help have you given?” .
	“What help have you not given?”
F3: 	“What help have others given others?”
	“What help have others not given others?”

TR 100 - 43  5 WAY BRACKET ON HELP UNBULLBAITED 
TR 100 - 44  5 WAY BRACKET ON HELP BULLBAITED
Ref: HCOB 5 Nov 65  5 Way Bracket on Help. (Use Basic Drill Format)

STEPS: 

1. 	Tell pc you will run a Grade I Process called 5 Way Bracket on Help.

2. 	Clear words and commands.

3. 	Run consecutively as one process - muzzled style to EP.

COMMANDS:

“How could you help me?” 
“How could I help you?” 
“How could you help another?” 
“How could another help you?” 
“How could another help another?”

TR 100- 45  RUNNING HELP ON AN ITEM UNBULLBAITED 
TR 100- 46  RUNNING HELP ON AN ITEM BULLBAITED
Ref: HCOB 28 Jul 58 CLEAR PROCEDURE. HCOB 7 Jul 60 The Assessment on Help. (Use Basic Drill Format)

STEPS:

1. 	Give pc R-factor you are going to run a Grade I Process and its called Running Help on an Item.

2. 	You can run this on a charged item culled from worksheets or you can find terminals to run per HCOB 7 Jul 60 The Assessment on Help.

3.	Clear each Flow as you come to it, taking the best reading item and filling it into the blank. Say “This is the process.” and run to EP.

COMMANDS:
F1: 	“How could a (terminal) help you?”
F2: 	“How could you help a (terminal)?”
F3: 	“How could a (terminal) help others?”

4.	These flows can be run over again with different items.

TR 100 - 47  REGIMEN 2 UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 48  REGIMEN 2 BULLBAITED
Ref. HCOB 26 Aug 60 Regimen 2. (Use Basic Drill Format)

STEPS:

1. 	Give the pc the R-factor you are going to run a Grade I Process called Regimen 2.

2. 	Clear words and commands

3. 	Tell pc you will run this process alternately.

4. 	Say “This is the Process” and run to EP.

5. 	Clear and run F2 as in steps 2, 3, and 4.

6. 	Clear and run F3 as in steps 2, 3, and 4. 

COMMANDS:
 
F1: 	“What motion has helped you?”
	“What motion has not helped you?” 
F2: 	“What motion have you helped?”
	“What motion have you not helped?” 
F3: 	“What motion has helped others?”
	“What motion has not helped others?”

TR 100 - 49	FORMULA 20 UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 50	FORMULA 20 BULLBAITED
Ref. HCOB 2 May 61 Formula 20. (Use Basic Drill Format)
	
STEPS:

1. 	Give R-factor you will run a Grade I process called Formula 20.

2.	Clear the F1 words and command well with the pc: F1: “Who has failed to control you?”

3.	Say “This is the process” and run repetitively to F2.

4.	Tell pc your now going to run F2. Clear words and command and run as in step 3. F2: “Who have you failed to control?”

5.	R-factor on F3 and run as in steps 2 and 3. F3: “Who have others failed to control?”

PART 2

STEPS:

1.	Give pc R-factor you will now run Part 2.
	
2.	Clear the F1 words and command. Say “This is the Process” and run repetitively to EP. F1: “What has failed to control you?” 

3.	Clear F2 and run as in step 2. F2: “What have you failed to control?”

4.	Clear F3 and run as in step 2. F3: “What have others failed to control?”

PART 3

STEPS:

1. 	Give pc R-factor you are going to run the third part of Formula 20.

2.	Clear the F1 words and command well with your pc. F1: “Who has helped you?”

3.	Say “This is the process and run repetitively to EP.
	
4.	Give R-factor you’re going to run F2 and run as in steps 2 and 3. F2: “Who have you helped?”

5.	Give R-factor on F3 and run as in steps 2 and 3. F3: “Who has helped others?”

TR 100 - 51	INVENT PROBLEMS PROCESS UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 52	INVENT PROBLEMS PROCESS BULLBAITED
Ref: HCOB 11 Jan 59 An Amusingly Effective Process.  (Use Basic Drill Format)

STEPS:

1.	Give pc R- factor that you are going to run a Problems Process.

2.	Clear words and command. F1: “Invent a problem you could have with another for which ____ is the answer.”

3. 	The blank is filled in with the pcs current worry or malady. (Providing it reads.) Say “This is the process” and run repetitively to EP. Further items can then be taken up and handled after running all three flows to EP.
	
4.	R-factor to pc that now you will run F2. Clear command and run as in step 2.

5.	R-factor to pc that now you will run F3. Clear command and run as in step 2.

COMMANDS:

F2: 	“Invent a problem another could have with you for which ___ is the answer.”
F3: 	“Invent a problem another could have with others for which ____ is the answer.”

TR 100 - 53  HAS V - GRADE I PROCESS UNBULLBAITED
ER 100 - 54  HAS V - GRADE I PROCESS BULLBAITED
Ref:  HCOB 19 Jan 61 additional HAS Processes 

STEPS:

1. 	Clear well with the pc you are about to run a Grade I Problems Process, its called HAS V.

2. 	Clear the following commands well:
	F1: 	“Get the idea of solving a problem.”	
		“Get the idea of not solving a problem.”
	
3. 	Say “This, is the process” and run alternately to EP.
	
4. 	R-factor to pc on F2, clear command and run as in step 3.
	F2: 	“Get the idea of another solving a problem.”
		“Get the idea of another not solving a problem.”
	
5. 	R-factor on F3, clear command and run as in step 3.
	F3: 	“Get the idea of others solving a problem.”
		“Get the idea of others not solving a problem.”

6.	The Case Supervisor may add a terminal if the pc complains about lots of problems with that terminal. The commands used would be:
	F1:	“Get the idea of solving a problem With (terminal)-“
		“Get the idea of not solving a problem with .(terminal).”
	F2:	“Get the idea of (terminal) solving a problem with you.”
		“Get the idea of (terminal) not solving s problem with you.”
	F3:	“Get the idea or (terminal) Bolting Q problem with others.”
		“Get the idea of (terminal) not solving a problem with others.”

TR 100 - 55  PROBLEMS PROCESS FOR PTPs - GRADE I UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 56  PROBLEMS PROCESS FOR PTPs - GRADE I BULLBAITED
Ref: HCOB 16 Dec 57 Present Time Problem. (Use Basic Drill Format)

STEPS:

1. 	Auditor tells pc they are now going to run a Grade I process. Run only charged terminals.

2. 	Clear words.

3. 	Clear command: “Invent something worse for you than (terminal).”

4. 	The blank should be filled in with a terminal the pc is somewhat fixated upon - someone involved in the pc’s PTP.

5. 	Say “This is the process” and run repetitively to EP.

6. 	Clear F2 and run as in steps 2, 3, 4 and 5. F2: “Invent something worse for (terminal) than you.”

7. 	Clear F3 and run as in steps 2, 3, 4 and 5. F3: “Invent something worse for others than (terminal).”

8. 	Tell the pc you are going to do the next step.

9. 	Clear words and commands well with the preclear. “Spot where (terminal) is now.” “Spot where you are now.”

10. 	Say “This is the process” and run alternately to EP.

11. 	Other terminals can be run in the same way with above steps.

TR 100 - 57  PROBLEMS PROCESS UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 58  PROBLEMS PROCESS UNBULLBAITED
Ref: HCOB 31 Mar 60 The PTP.  (Use Basic Drill Format)
STEPS:

1. 	Give the pc R-factor you are going to run a Grade I Process.

2. 	Clear F1 words and command. F1: “What problem could you confront?”

3. 	Say to the pc “This is the process” and run repetitively to EP.

4. 	R-Factor you are going to do the next flow.

5. 	Clear F2 words and command and run as in step 3. F2: “What problem could another confront?”

6. 	R-factor on F3. Clear words and command and run as in step F3: “What problem could others confront?”

7. 	Tell pc you are now going to do the next step.

8. 	Clear the F1 words and commands well with the pc. F1: “Tell me your problem.”
“What part of that problem have you been responsible for?”

9. 	Say “This is the process” and run repetitively to EP.

10. 	Tell pc you’re now going to run F2.

11. 	Clear the words and commands and run as in step 9.

12. 	R-factor on F3 and run as in step 8 and 9.

COMMANDS:

F2: 	“Tell me a problem of another.”
	“What part of that problem has another been responsible for?”
F3: 	“Tell me a problem of others.”
	“What part of that problem have others been responsible for?”

13. 	R-factor you’re now going to run another process.

14. 	Clear words as necessary. Clear F1 command. F1: “What two things can you confront?”

15. 	Say: “This is the process” and run to EP

16. 	R-factor on F2 and run as in steps 14 and 15. F2: “What two things can another confront?”

17. 	R-factor on F3 and run as in steps 14 and 15. F3: “What two things can others confront?”

18. 	R-factor on next process and F1. Run as in steps 14 and 15. F1: “What problem have you been (or might you have been) responsible for?”

19.	R-factor on F2, and run as in steps 14 and 15. F2: “What problem has another been (or might another have been) responsible for?”

20.	R-factor on F3 and run as in steps 14 and 15. F3: “What problem have others been (or might others have been) responsible for?”

TR 100 - 59  PROBLEM OF COMPARABLE MAGNITUDE UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 60  PROBLEM OF COMPARABLE MAGNITUDE BULLBAITED
Ref. HCOB 16 Dec 57 Present Time Problem. HCOB 1 Mar 58 Problem of Comparable  Magnitude. (Use Basic Drill Format)

STEPS:

1. 	Inform your preclear you are going to run a Grade I Process. Run on Key charged terminals.

2. 	Clear these commands well with the pc:
	A. 	“Invent a problem that is of comparable magnitude to (terminal) for you?”
	B. 	“How could that be a problem to you?”
	C. 	“Can you conceive yourself figuring on that?”

3. 	The terminal would of course be a terminal the pc is fixated upon in PT and would read etc. Question B can be omitted only if the pc tells you how it could be a problem in answering the first question.

4. 	Say “This is the process” and run the process ABC, ABC, ABC to EP.

5. 	Clear F2 command and run as in step 4: 
	F2: 	“Invent a problem that is of comparable magnitude to you for (terminal).” 
		“How could that be a problem to (terminal)?” 
		“Can you conceive (terminal) figuring on that?”

6. 	Clear F3 command and run as in step 4: 
	F3: 	“Invent a problem that is of comparable magnitude to (terminal) for others.” 
		“How could that be a problem to others?” 
		“Can you conceive others figuring on that?”

TR 100 - 61	ROUTINE 1 A - PROBLEMS PROCESS UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 62	ROUTINE 1 A - PROBLEMS PROCESS BULLBAITED
Ref: HCOB 6 Jul 61 Routine 1 A (Use Basic Drill Format )
	
STEPS:

1. 	Inform the pc that you are going to run a Grade I process, its called Routine 1A.

2. 	Clear the F1 commands well with the pc.
	F1: 	“What problem could you confront?”
		“What problem don’t you have to confront?”

3. 	Say to the pc “This is the process.” and run to EP.

4. 	Clear F2 and run as in step 3.
	F2: 	“What problem should another confront?”
		“What problem wouldn’t another confront?”

5. 	Clear F3 and run as in step 3.
	F3: 	“What problem would be confronted by others?” 
		“What problem wouldn’t others confront?”

TR 100 - 63  SOLUTIONS TO SOLUTIONS UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 64  SOLUTIONS TO SOLUTIONS BULLBAITED
Ref: HCOB 3 May 59 Solutions to Solutions. (Use Basic Drill Format)
	
STEPS:

1. 	Auditor gives R-factor to pc that they are going to run a Grade I Solution process.

2. 	Auditor clears well this command: F1: “What solution could you make stick?”

3. 	Say “This is the process” and run to EP.

4. 	Clear and run F2 as in step 3. F2: “What solution could another make stick?”

5. 	Clear and run F3 as in step 3. F3: “What solution could others make stick?”

TR 100 - 65  R2-20 USE OF PROBLEMS & SOLUTIONS UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 66  R2-20 USE OF PROBLEMS & SOLUTIONS BULLBAITED
Ref: Creation of Human Ability. (Use Basic Drill Format)

STEPS:

1. 	Auditor informs pc they are going to do a Grade I problems process called R2-20.

2. 	Tell the pc you are going to have him pick out or pick up an object of his choice and have him examine it until it is real to him/her. Clear this up and when pc understands it then tell the pc that he/she will be given a command which you will now clear: “What problem could this object be to you?”

3. 	Say “This is the process” and run to EP.

4. 	“It will be discovered at first, as always in the handling of significance’s, that he begins to drain the object itself of the problems which are inherent in the object and then will eventually begin to invent problems. The problem should be run until the preclear is convinced that he can create problems at will. Many objects can be used rather than just one if it is discovered that the pc’s attention is fixing too strongly upon the object.” LRH

TR 100 - 67  PROBLEMS INTENSIVE UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 68  PROBLEMS INTENSIVE BULLBAITED
Ref: Tape 6110C11 SH Spec 65 Problems Intensive. HCOB 27 Sep 62 Problems Intensive Use.  HCOB 22 Sep 63 Prepcheck Buttons.  BTB 10 Apr 72 Prepchecks. (Use Basic Drill Format)

STEPS:

1. 	The auditor informs the pc “We are going to run a Problems Intensive”. (Clarify words if necessary) 

2. 	The auditor clears words and process command: “What self-determined changes have you made this life?” (you can vary the question to get all different angles on changes. Per Tape Problems Intensive.)

3. 	Say “This is the process” and ask the pc the question and write down the pc’s answers and the reads.

4. 	Take the biggest reading change and ask, “When was it?”

5. 	Pre-date the item by a month. E.g.: Pc gives 26th Mar ‘54 you prepcheck since 26th Feb ‘54.

6. 	Clear the command “Since (date) has anything been (Prepcheck button).” (The date is the one a month earlier.)

PREPCHECK BUTTONS:

	1. Suppressed	10. Withdrawn From
	2. Careful of	11. Reached
	3. Didn’t reveal	12. Ignored
	4. Not-ised	13. Stated
	5. Suggested	14. Helped
	6. Mistake Been Made	15. Altered
	7. Protested	16. Revealed
	8. Anxious About	17. Asserted
	9. Decided	18. Agreed (with)

7. 	Run each button to EP until the full EP is obtained on the self-determined age. This may require running all the buttons in some cases.

8. 	The handling of an out rud(s) to F/N on one of the buttons would end off that prepcheck button.

9. 	One may run further buttons and items if the major cog with F/N, VGIs is not attained.

10. 	If no major cog on the first self-determined change you handled on F1 then take the second biggest reading change and do steps 4 to 9. Then take the next biggest read on down until all reading change 3 have been handled.

11. 	Then re-assess the list, if the items don’t read put in Supp/Inval. From time to time ask “Would you like to add any self-determined changes to the list?” (Add any pc gives.)

12. 	When F1 has gone to EP give pc R-factor you will now run F2.

13. 	Clear the F2 command and run as in steps 3 to 12. F2: “What self-determined changes has another made this life?”

14. 	Give pc R-factor you will now run F3.

15. 	Clear the command and run as in steps 3 to 12. 23: “What self-determined changes have others made this life?”

TR 100 - 69  LEVEL I TRIPLE UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 70  LEVEL I TRIPLE BULLBAITED
(Use Basic Drill Format)

STEPS:

1. 	Give the pc m R-factor. “We are going to run a process called Level I Triple”.

2. 	Clear the F1 commands.

3. 	Explain to pc how you are going to run the process. When pc understands say “This is the process” and run F1 to EP. 
	F1: 	“What problem have you had with someone?”
		“What solutions have you had for that problem?”

4. 	The way the process is run is to ask the first F1 question.. When pc answers you acknowledge then ask the second question (“What solutions....” etc.) over and over again until pc has no more solutions. Then ask the first question again and repeat this cycle to EP.

5. 	Then give R-factor on F2. Clear commands and say “This is the process” and run as in step 4.
	F2: 	“What problem has another had with you?”
		“What solutions has another had for that problem?”

6. 	Then give R-factor on F3. Clear command and say “This is the process.” and run as in step 4. 
	F3: 	“What problem has someone had with another?”
		“What solutions have they had for that problem?”

TR 100 - 71  GRADE I HAVINGNESS UNBULLBAITED
TR 100 - 72  GRADE I HAVINGNESS BULLBAITED
(Use Basic Drill Format)

STEPS:

1. 	R-factor. “Now we are going to run havingness.” Clear Havingness.

2. 	Clear words and command of Flow One. F1: “Point out something desirable.”

3. 	Say “This is the process” and run repetitively to EP.

4. 	R-factor on F2. Clear words and command and run as in step 3. F2: “Point out something another would find desirable.”

5. 	R-factor on F3. Clear words and command and run as in step 3. F3: “Point out something another could get others to desire.”

	Revised & Reissued as BTB
	By Flag Mission 1234
	I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis
	2nd: Molly Harlow

	Authorized by AVU

	for the
BDCS:SW:AL:MH:al 
Copyright © 1971, 1974 	BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
by L. Ron Hubbard 	of the
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

RUNNING CCHs

A lecture given on
22 June 1961

All right. I’d better cover the running of the CCHs just for fun just for fun, just as an amusing activity that, of course, has no relationship to anybody that’s ever going to make a mistake—particularly here.

And the way the CCHs are run is CCH 1, 2, 3, 4; 1, 2, 3, 4; 1, 2, 3, 4; just like a waltz step. You just continue them over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. And it is a breach of the Auditor’s Code, Clause 13, to run a process longer than it is producing change; and it is a breach of the Auditor’s Code, Clause 13, to cease to run a process that is producing change. And nothing we are doing these days has exceeded the Auditor’s Code in any way, shape or form.

The odd part of it is, the more we seem to change our minds, the more they remain the same, as far as what we’re doing is concerned. People who accuse us, you see, of always changing our minds miss the point that we haven’t changed very many fundamentals. But we’ve sure been looking for an opening in other people’s minds, and CCH is one of them.

And the CCHs were basically pioneered, I see, back in about 1956. And that is the first way they were run, and that is the way they produce the maximum change. And after that, I didn’t pay too much attention to them, and they slopped into very careless ways. And people started adding additives to them; that is the usual thing that happens. And people started to endure while running them, and it hadn’t anything to do with the CCHs.

Hence I’m calling this back to your attention. Commands have been added to them, like “Put your hands back in your lap.” Now, what that has to do with the CCHs, I'm sure I don’t know, because I never heard of it until I picked it up on a sheet of paper not too long ago.

Somebody refined it and I okayed it carelessly and then forgot about it, and so forth. Truth of the matter is, the words in a CCH process have practically nothing to do with the process.

Now, I had a question on an auditor’s report here the other day, as to whether or not you w ere really supposed to put the person’s hand—or touch the person’s wrist with your other hand. At least that’s the way I interpreted the question. Well, how are you going to get the man’s hand? It’s a matter of seizure, as far as you’re concerned; it doesn’t matter whether he’s hanging from the chandelier or anything else. You take his wrist delicately between your thumb and forefinger and put his paw in your paw, and you execute the auditing command for him. And you continue to do that. It’s always the same repetitive motion; you always do it the same way.

And there are exact motions that you go through. I won’t try to describe these verbally; I’d rather show you. They’re very simple. For instance, when you’re doing CCH 1, your knees are interlocked with the PC’s knees. Try to get out of a chair when somebody has got your knees clamped. You see, you don’t sit back across the room and so on. You do so much formal auditing that you’ve forgotten that there was an awful heavy routine regimen laid down here on these CCHs. They were quite precise.

Anyway, you’re moved in practically into the PC’s chest, and you’ve got at least one of his knees between your knees, and he starts anyplace, why, there he is. He isn’t going to get up—not if you close your knees. And furthermore, you should be between him and the door. Always. Your back’s to the door; his face is toward it. 

Now, he’s got a wide perimeter to leap through to get to the door, but you’re covering all of it. If you’re suspicious of him, back him to the far corner of the room on a CCH 1; so therefore he has to walk through you to get to the door. And you don’t lose PCs. I mean, they sit there and run CCH 1, that’s all.

You do a certain routine with your hands, and you present the hand into your hand, and you don’t shake it and wish him happy days and all that sort of . . . He has given you his hand, and at that moment you put his hand back. See, you don’t tell him “Now, put your hands back in your lap.”

What was this—telepathic CCHs? Well, the CCHs are run with meat. They are very meaty processes, you see? They’re not verbal “Let’s all get along . . .”

We had a student one time on one of the ACCs that was running CCH 2, and the PC was giving the auditor a very bad time, you see? But it was just a coaching session because they were doing Upper Indoc. And this PC was acting as the PC, of course, was slumping and doing unexpected twists and turns. And this dear person who was running this TR, all of a sudden just abandoned the whole thing and turned around to her instructor and said, “PCs never act that way; I’m simply not going to run that TR anymore.”

Well, time went by, and she ran into one who did act that way, who acted much worse in an actual session. So all of your Upper Indoc was simply basic training by which you could then do the CCHs. But unless you’d done Upper Indoc, you see, and got your confrontingness up on this amount of motion, then it was difficult to do the CCHs.

Now, two of the CCHs are as rough as bear rassling. Now, the other two CCHs are not. Nevertheless, they, too, are done by compulsion if necessary.

You can run one-handedly CCH 3 and CCH 4, and you run it one handedly. That’s an interesting aspect of it. You take the PC’s hand and you make the PC’s hand touch yours and follow the motion. That’s all. And then you release his hand. I mean, that’s as simple as that. It becomes a kind of a CCH 1 all over again, but it was with motion in a different pattern each time, don’t you see? So if the PC is running fine, you run it two-handed and if the PC is not running fine, you run it one-handed. And that’s all there is to it.

And book mimicry: He says he’s not going to do book mimicry because when he was very young he got hit by a book. And you say, “That’s fine,” and you take the book and you put it through a motion, and then you put the book in his hands and you put it through the same motion. And then you take the book and put it through a motion, then put it in his hands and go through the same motion. You understand?

This PC never has an opportunity not to execute the auditing command, and that’s all there is to it. And that’s CCH 1, 2, 3, 4. The PC never has an opportunity not to execute the auditing command.

And the auditor who will let the PC get away with a non-execution of a CCH oh, my. It just isn’t done—not at all, not even in Chelsea. Not done. The PC always executes the auditing command, no matter if you have to sit on her chest and get it done! And you could fully expect the PC to turn up to high C, high G. soprano, contralto, or just get into a roaring funk or anything else. Who cares! It has nothing to do with your Tone 40ing through the CCHs. It is just that way. It is not nice; it is effective.

Now, the consequences of letting a PC get out of a CCH are very grave, and you only have to do it once and you will wish to God you never did it again.

I saw a PC let out of CCH 2 one day, and that PC went crazy. How do you like that? It was an institutional PC to begin with. And the PC was getting better under CCH 2 and all of a sudden made a break for the door, and the auditor did not stop her. And she rushed out into the street. And the auditor walked along behind her trying to persuade her to do the process. And she walked all over the town and was eventually picked up by the cops and thrown into the local spin bin, where she had come from originally. I’m not trying to tell you that CCH 2 drove this person crazy. But do you know that PC didn’t get all right for years? Now, the consequences of it are pretty fabulous.

That auditor just stood there and let the PC blow. You got the idea? He heard about it for years, too. Whenever he was getting out of line, why, we’d mention it to him, see? We’d say, “Well, at least you didn’t let the PC blow out on the street,” you know? And he’d cringe.

No, it’s a serious thing. Nov., all he had to have done was just to have blocked the PC’s leaving. Yes, it was an institutional PC; yes, the girl had been in spin bins till you couldn’t count; yes, she’d been electric-shocked and all the rest of it. So what? All he had to have done, all he needed to have done, was simply to have stopped her going out the door and put her back through CCH 2—through the next command. And that psychosis was blowing and would have blown. We know by experience that this is quite common and quite ordinary.

The CCHs run out electric shocks; they run out surgery; they run out almost anything you can think of, if they are run right.

The darnedest physical manifestations turn on. And, of course, the CCH is not flat at its points of hugest volume of reaction. Your PC doesn’t, oddly enough, sustain tremendously high volume reaction, and you almost never see a PC screaming for twenty minutes so that you have to say that it’s flat, don’t you see, and go on to the nest CCH. Almost never happens.

Neither do you necessarily wait till he stops screaming and then say it’s flat. Has he stopped screaming for twenty minutes, you see? That would be the test.

But, of course, by rule now, what do we mean by flat? We mean the same aspect of the PC for twenty minutes, which by ne plus ultra; reductio ad absurdum, would be, if the PC were screaming at exactly C-sharp minor exactly, for twenty minutes, that is a no-change. So you’d go on to the next process. You got it?

If the PC is lying on the floor in a funk for twenty minutes, that process is flat. Have you got it? You’re executing the auditing command, and the PC remains on the floor for twenty minutes, there’s no aspect change of the PC, so that process, as far as you’re concerned, is flat. Now, you got that?

Now, how slight a change is a change? A somatic enters and leaves in that twenty minutes. Well, that’s not flat. You’ve got to run it for twenty minutes without the return of that somatic. You got it?

Now, most CCHs run rather calmly. Most of your CCHing is not done with this tremendous duress. About the only time that tremendous duress sets in is usually when the PC is going through something he considers quite painful.

Now, the CCHs turned it on and the CCHs will turn it off, and that is one of the oldest rules of auditing: That which turns it on turns it off. What do you think is going to happen? You’ve got a horrible, strong, beefy process of this character, and you’ve turned something on with it. Well, when is he going to get the CCHs run again? See, you didn’t run it on through and turn it off. Well, that’s a serious thing, you see? That’s a blunder of magnitude.

But it’s twenty minutes, and it’s by the clock. It’s not about twenty minutes; it’s twenty minutes, by Greenwich meridian, navigational chronometer, sidereal time. Twenty minutes. And if there’s no change of aspect in the PC for twenty minutes, then it’s flat.

Well, what if the PC, during the whole of the run—nothing happens? PC just offers his hand and he offers his hand and offers his hand and offers his hand. Nobody said anything to—you ran it till you got a reaction!

Now, let me point out something: An E-Meter very often, on a level (and this will fool you sometime if you don’t know about it, so know about it pretty well)—the E-Meter, assessed on a level, sometimes for the first three to five hours of run will be giving you the answer to a flat tone arm. A flat tone arm. It’s giving you less than a quarter of a division of motion for the first three to five hours, in an extreme case. Less than a quarter of a division for twenty minutes is the signal to change to another process, isn’t it? How can you call it flat when it hasn’t yet begun to bite?

But there is some motion in the tone arm; there is some motion in the tone arm. Therefore, it is not flat at the beginning of an assessed level run in Routine 2. In Routine 2 it’s moving an eighth of a division. It moves an eighth of a division, it almost reaches a quarter of a division, it moves a sixteenth a division, it moves an eighth a division, it moves almost a quarter of a division. You get the idea?

Well, those all say—according to the test—”process flat,” because it’s moving less than a quarter of a division. Look, how can a process be flat when it hasn’t begun to run? It can’t be. And you will find—and you needed some subjective reality on this; you’ll run into it soon enough, because it happens to people early in processing, particularly on a Routine 2. But it sometimes happens when you’ve assessed the goal and you’re running on a Routine 3, too. All right.

Here’s this little creak, creak, creak, you know? And you say, “Well, by all the rules, it’s moving less than a quarter-division in twenty minutes; therefore, I’ll come off of it.” And then you say, “Well, the PC was ungratefully spun.” And the process has not yet begun to run.

Three to five hours, sometime in that period, all of a sudden it suddenly picks up and moves a quarter of a division. Now suddenly it moves a half a division. Now all of a sudden it moves a division. And then it gets down and you say, “Well, thank goodness, it’s coming on down now, and this level is flattening.” And it’s only moving about a third of a division, and pretty soon it’ll move a quarter-division, and then it goes from 1.0 to 6.0 to 7.0 to 5.0 to 3.0 to 4.0 to 2.0, because when they do this, sooner or later they get hot, hot, hot!

Now, the only danger in overrunning a process, of course, is sticking the tone arm. And the only danger there is that you stick it for a couple of sessions, and you can’t reassess. But you could stick it for a half an hour and still reassess. So if you’re in doubt, while you’re feeling your way over this, go ahead and stick it!

It’s like I told Barry Fairburn up at HGC London. He kept telling me, on this one PC, he said, “Well, it’s just . . . I just . . . when will it ever get flat?” You know, it had picked up and had gone very slow, and he’d come off it and he’d reassessed another level in the same afternoon. And of course there I was, looking right down the telex wire at him.

And I said, “Ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah!” I said, “With a tone arm doing that little, the tone arm has not yet begun to move on that level. That tone arm will beg n to move on that level. So let’s get on the ball here.” And he promptly and instantly went off of the second one he bad assessed and went back to run the fat one he had assessed. And much to his amazement, the first one really started to pick up and fly!

And then he finally wrote me in desperation, about six or seven hours of auditing later. He says, “When is this thing ever going to flatten?”

So I said, “All right now, Barry, you just run it to a stuck tone arm.”

And he did; it took quite a while, but he ran it to a stuck tone arm, an then reassessed. Stuck the tone arm for twenty minutes and learned how long you could run it and what it looks like.

In other words, this tone arm action, sometimes early in auditing, takes a long time to get going; and at no time can you consider that flat, because it’s never run yet. It assessed, so if your assessment was good, it will run. And it may take three to five hours for it to start to run, and we’ve seen that quite consistently.

Now, that’s just one level of the Prehav Scale. Now, let’s apply this same thing to the CCHs. This is why I’m taking it up.

Now, your CCHs are run without Model Session and without an E-Meter. We care nothing about the E-Meter in running the CCHs because the PC is the E-Meter. Just as you’ve learned to watch the tone arm move, so must you learn in the CCHs to watch the PC move—the body reaction. It isn’t what the PC says; it is what the PC is doing and it’s what is happening to the PC. Now, the PC may communicate to you that certain things are happening, and that’s fine—that’s a change. But the PC is the E-Meter.

You have to consider all four of the CCHs as one level of the Prehav Scale, in this wise, for this purpose: Sometimes the CCHs do not begin to bite. So, what do you get? You get twenty minutes of CCH 1, followed by twenty minutes of CCH 2, followed by twenty minutes of CCH 3, followed by twenty minutes of CCH 4, followed by twenty minutes of CCH 1, followed by twenty minutes of CCH 2, and followed by 181/2 hours of CCH 3. You got that?

Just as it takes, on a normal level, a while for a tone arm to pick up and run, so does it also take a while on some cases for the CCHs to begin to run. But if you sit there and grind on just one CCH, this won’t happen. And if you don’t run the CCHs . . .

The reason why the CCHs were trotted back out of mothballs,-dusted off, the smell of camphor whisked off the top of them, and put back into the lineup, was because you had what happened in the CCHs: the person would run up against the withhold block. In other words, the person would accumulate more responsibility and become aware of more withholds, and there was no way to get rid of them because the PC wasn’t being talked to and no rudiments were being run. So the CCH game was limited by the fact he never had a chance to get his withholds off. Right?

So, in running the CCHs today, you are going to run a processing check—a standard HCO WW form. I repeat, no Security Check is permitted to be edited or altered, changed or added to, period. If it doesn’t say HCO WW Form something-or-other at the top of it, it isn’t a Security Check. Okay?

And, of course, you don’t use a Staff Member Security Check—that is to say, a new . . . one of these new HCO WW Form 6s or something like that —as the repetitive Security Check for processing, or something like that. It means right what it says.

You run a Joburg. You take your most violent versions of Security Check, and you run them one for one. If the PC is an hour on the CCHs, the PC gets an hour of Security Check. You got it?

Now, if you’re really booting somebody over the horizon and just really giving them the rocket in a mad way, swap their broomstick for a rocket: give them the CCHs from one auditor and a Joburg from another one. Perfectly feasible. Now, you can actually go ahead and assess for SOP Goals with a third auditor, all at the same time.

In the morning PC gets his CCHs, and in the afternoon he gets assessed for goals, and in the evening gets a Security Check run on him. How fast can you get a gain? Well, wait till you’ve tried that one—wait until you’ve tried that one and seen that one go, because, man, you get a gain. It’s really inevitable.

But the CCHs are quite powerful, and they throw overts into view quite easily. And the person who is pegged down gets a little bit of auditing and all of a sudden these overts start to loom a little large, and they have to get rid of them.

Now, I don’t want you to run into trouble and I don’t want you to be abused in auditing, but I hope it happens to you at least once that you get a lot of wonderful auditing that gives you a beautiful case advance without a Security Check, and then suffer for two or three days, and it’ll sure make a citizen out of you. Boy, that gives you a subjective reality, right there.

An auditing gain without a Security Check—an auditing gain with velocity, you understand, such as we’re handing out now, without a Security Check to clean it unhand you’ve really handed somebody a bad time. They just practically start bleating, you know? “Why am I doing all these horrible things? My life is such a horrible mess. I have. . .” You know? They didn’t think it was; they were in a wonderful state of fixed irresponsibility just a day before and then something got run on them, like Routine 1 or Routine I mean, the CCHs or assessments on the general scale. And this was run and all of a sudden, there they are, off to the races.

And you let them improve and improve and improve and improve, and don’t inquire into their private lives, because that wouldn’t be nice. You’d practically kill them.

I don’t wish you any hard luck, but there’s nothing makes a citizen out of you like having that happen to you. You get miserable.

So the CCHs are highly functional as long as they can produce a change in the PC. And the change in the PC is ordinarily stopped by the fact that the PC can’t get off his overts. And he’s become more responsible by running the CCHs, and then can’t get off his overts and so, bang!—that parks his progress on the CCHs.

Now, how many ways could you park progress on the CCHs? One, you could fail to run Tone 40 auditing. You could go at it in some old crummy way, you know? You got so used, in the Academy, to putting it into the ashtray that you keep putting the intention in the ashtray throughout the auditing session, you see? Be pretty wild.

You run it sort of permissively. You say, “We shouldn’t be mean to the preclear,” and we just sit back and we don’t really press it home. And the PC says, “Well, I’m tired today. And I really don’t feel . . . I really think this CCH 1 is pretty flat now, and I’m very tired today, and so forth, and I’d rather it wouldn’t . . . weren’t run. I’d rather you’d go on to CCH 4. I think that was the one I was interested in.”

Go on to CCH 4, you’ve had it. Here we go, because you violated C. The first C is control, the next C is communication and the H is havingness. Control, communication, and havingness, or communication, control and havingness. Either way, because you apply control, you get communication; and if you apply control and get communication, havingness will result. If you communicate with somebody you can apply control, which will give you havingness. Whichever way this adds up, the end result is havingness.

Now, irresponsibility can deny havingness. Irresponsibility, then, is pulled off of a case by the Security Check, which results in havingness. All O/W results in havingness. So Routine 1, whether looked at from above, below, plan view, or projected, gives you havingness. And the final net run of it is havingness. Routine 2, all the prehavingness buttons, are the things that prevent people from having. Prehavingness might as well mean “prevent havingness” buttons. But we don’t call it that because somebody would say the scale was designed to prevent havingness. And by that overt, of course, they prevent themselves from having any gain.

Anyhow, prehavingness, and the end result of patching up somebody’s various buttons on the Prehav Scale is to give him havingness. And when the individual has enormous numbers of unrealized goals all over the track, the net result of all of these all up and down the track was to deny him havingness because he never attained the goal. So that when you do a Goals Assessment, just the assessment, the end product of it is havingness. And you’ve got three havingness routines.

Now, all three routines—you have in these routines the inherent fact that you run O/W on a preclear and he gets havingness.

Now, why does he get havingness? Because the individual individuates from things because he can’t have them. And therefore he develops overts only on those things he can’t have. And when you get the overts off, he can then have.

Here’s one of the tests: If you can’t get the havingness of the Havingness and Confront Process to work, did you know that all you had to do was run some O/W and you will achieve the same thing?

Supposing we did this weird one: This is just taking it straight from theory, you see? I don’t say it’s workable or anything else, but it’s just theoretical. You look around and you say, “Well, notice that cupboard.” And you say, “Well, have you ever done anything to a cupboard? Have you ever withheld anything from a cupboard?” And he recalls one. You say, “Good. Look at that floor; notice that floor. Now, have you ever done anything to a floor? Have you ever withheld anything from a floor? Oh, you have. All right. That’s good. Now, notice that fireplace. Have you ever done anything to the fireplace? Have you ever withheld anything from a fireplace? Oh, you have. That’s dandy. Very good.”

You didn’t force him, you see, to have actually done something to fireplaces, and so on, because some of these will draw blanks. He says “No,” that’s right; you say, “We’ll go on to the next one.”

And all of a sudden that room will become the most fantastically real room he ever was in. Theoretically, that would be the normal outcome of it. You got it? You give him the environment.

But of course you have shorthanded ways of doing this with all of those thirty-six Havingness Processes that you run on a PC objectively in the room. They all more or less do just this. You see?

So your routines are all devoted to increasing the PC’s havingness. And they are devoted to—Routine 1, applying control so as to get him into communication so that he can have; Routine 2, getting out of the road the fixed reactive buttons which prevent him from having things; Routine 3, getting out of the road all of these unrealized goals, each one of which has been a defeat for him at sometime or another, all of which—any goal—all of which goals had as their end product havingness. You can’t help but raise his havingness.

Now, running right along with this you run O/W and get off all of his withholds, which are preventing him from having. See, he gets the impulse— he can now have, but he’d better not have because he’s done bad things, and if he had these things he would ruin them. And therefore, if you don’t get this out of the road, you’ve left him stuck with the idea that he now could have these things but he’d better not, and he’s never noticed before now. And it becomes quite painful to him. He says shame, blame, regret, guilt—oh, he says all kinds of things, but that’s what it results in. You got it?

So everything you are doing in auditing at the present moment has the end product of havingness. And, of course, if you could have the whole ruddy universe, I assure you it wouldn’t be the least trouble to you, not the least bit of trouble. It’s only those things you can’t have you have trouble with.

Next time you have a PT problem, look it over—look it over. And just ponder this: “How many things are involved with this problem? All right. What blocks off my having of these things or people?” You’ll see a problem blow up.

You see, individuation: individuation from the thing, from the object, from the universe, from the dynamic is what brings about the trouble, because you get into an obsessive games condition. And an obsessive games condition simply adds up to the fact that you can’t have it; and it, of course, by your determination, can’t have anything to do with you.

Had a fellow around one time who had a games condition going with fire. And my Lord, that fellow burned up couches and suits and fire just pursued him every place. He could stand in the middle of a street without a bit of fuel anywhere in view and have a roaring bonfire almost consume him. And he was in this terrific games condition with regard to fire.

Now, if you’d improved his havingness in general, sooner or later along the road you would have hit the reactive button “fire,” see? What has he done with and to fire? In some way he’s made it discreditable, in some way he has made it guilty, in some way he’s become irresponsible for fire.

All of a sudden, fire no longer has this obsessive chasing effect. Fire just doesn’t pursue him up and down all the boulevards and through his whole life, you see? Because fire isn’t pursuing him anyhow: He simply cannot have fire, he cannot control fire, and he can’t communicate with fire. Soon as he gets into that condition, wow, he’s had it. Because no matter where fire will occur, he has to retreat from fire and pull it in on him. See, he’s part of the same universe this fire’s in, only he hadn’t noticed that.

All right. Now, the CCHs, then, are no different than the other two routines. Where an individual is having any difficulty whatsoever with their physiological beingness, where the individual has been obsessively abused, particularly in this physiological beingness that they find themselves in at the moment, the CCHs knock out individuation from the physical beingness. That physical-beingness individuation has been caused by duress on the part of the preclear toward his body and by, apparently, his body toward him.

He’s having difficulty: he can’t get in his head, he can’t come near the body, he can’t do this, he can’t do that, and therefore, the body is giving him somatics and he’s having trouble with the body. You’ve got the natural concatenation: he’s just individuated, that’s all. He’s one thing and the body’s another thing and he can’t have it.

And of course the CCHs attack this one particularly, right on the button. It isn’t necessarily the criteria for running CCHs, but it’s its most immediate and direct result.

So you take somebody that’s been given electric shocks. Of course, this has individuated him from the body, because of his own giving the body electric shocks of one kind or another. Well, what happens to this fellow? You start running the CCHs and his havingness on a body starts rising, inevitably. So he has to become aware of all these electric shocks. So as soon as he becomes aware of them, they start running out.

All right. But as soon as they start running out, if he himself takes no further mental step to find out what he’s done to bodies and get rid of his overts against bodies, he’s left with the somatics running out—but they stop running out—and his overts against the body in full bloom. Pow! This hurts.

So you’ve got to improve a PC’s responsibility if you’re going to improve his havingness, because he won’t permit himself to have unless he can be responsible for having. And that’s the other philosophic button on which this rests, which we’ve known for a very long time. Now, you got this?

So the way you run the CCHs is directly, immediately and so on, precisely, and you pay very little attention to the PCs mental reactions. All you do is give him a demonstration that that body he’s sitting in can be controlled. As soon as he sits in on this one and says, “You know, somebody’s controlling this body. Heh-heh. Somebody’s controlling this body. Maybe I can.” And so he’ll try.

Now, if you let him get up to a point where the body flies out of control and you say to him, “Well, that’s all right. That’s giving you some trouble. You want to rush out in the street and not come to session and so forth? Well, go ahead”—mmmm. you’ve shown him the body can’t be controlled, haven’t you? And he retrogresses like mad. So you mustn’t do that to him, because it’s a direct reversal to what you’re trying to do.

You’re trying to show him that his body can be controlled; a failure to execute the CCHs show immediately and directly the body can’t be controlled. Of course the body wins.

Now, all you’d have to do if you’re going to ruin somebody—I can tell you how to ruin somebody—is start the CCHs and if the guy says, “Oh, I’m tired of this silly process, ‘Give me that hand.’ What are we doing? Getting in practice to join the Elks?”

And you say, “Well, if you’re tired of it, then we just will go off onto something else.”

All right. We go off onto CCH 2 and we march him up and down the room, and eventually he suddenly throws us off a little bit and says, “You know, this is getting awfully annoying to me.”

And you say, “Well, all right. We’ll go on to something else. Now, let’s sit down here in the chair, and now, you put your hands up there . . .”

“Well, I don’t know that I want to!”

“Well, all right. Then here’s this book. All right. Here’s this book and . . .”

Fellow says, “I never read books. I don’t like books. Don’t want anything to do with books.”

You say well, there’s nothing you can do about it, and you go and see the instructor, the senior auditor, or call somebody long distance, or send them cables from Johannesburg, you know? And you say, “Well, we have this PC who we can’t make any progress with, with these CCHs.”

Now, do you know that you can take Routine 2 and Routine 3 and do— I’m being very hard on Johannesburg. Actually, Johannesburg is snapping out of it, and I’m very happy to notice it. I have noticed it. It was sure in the basement for a while.

Well, anyhow, if you were to do the same thing with any auditing activity, and let the PC get out of control at each and every turn of the road, you of course are giving them the side effect of proving it to him that his aberrations are so strong that they cannot be controlled. And don’t be too puzzled if the PC eventually becomes practically unauditable.

Don’t be too surprised, if you fail to exert heavy auditing control during a session, if the PC starts getting mad at you, chopping you up, doing this, doing that, doing the other thing; because by not controlling him, by taking his advice all the time, by asking him “How do you run this process, anyway?” by doing this and doing that, you have shown him that you are not controlling him in the session. And showing him that you are not controlling him in the session, of course, results in the model of “no control” taking over and he himself is defeated because he sees that he cannot control his mind, he cannot control his body, he cannot control. That’s true of any auditing process.

That might give you a new shading on this idea of control. Whereas you would look on it very bad—I’ve mentioned this to you just the other day.

I was auditing a PC, actually on a think process, and the PC said, “Oh, I’ve had enough of that,” and leaped madly out of the chair from a very, very calm, you know, demeanor, and actually said “I’ve had enough of that” while springing through the air like an impala. And was springing straight to the door, and in mid-flight I simply grabbed her by the wrist, turned her around in mid-flight and brought her back sitting down in the chair—its legs almost spraddled out into a total splash, you see?—and gave the next auditing command. And that PC began to run like a doll. Nothing to it, man. And we had that process flat just in no time.

And you say, “God, that’s awfully harsh!” No, I wasn’t being harsh to the PC; I was being rather decent about it. If I’d been mad at the PC, all I would have had to have done was not reach out and grab her wrist, let her reach the door, and then not audit her. Oh, pow. She’s had it. She’s had it! She’d go around now in the total belief, “Well, if Ron can’t control this much aberration and so forth, it’s uncontrollable,” don’t you see? And “Zzooh! What can poor little me do about it?” You know, some kind of a stupid rationalization like this, you know, to herself. She’d go off hiding from herself in corners.

All right. So she did have a black-and-blue addendum. That was an awful lot better than having a black-and-blue psyche.

And if you for a moment think you’re being anything but ornery when you fail to control a PC in session, get rid of the idea. Don’t get this kindness all mixed up. I saw I didn’t get through to you too good the other day on the subject of kindness, but that’s right on the button now. By misguided kindness, you let the PC take control of the session; by misguided kindness, you let the PC off from finishing off the somatic; by misguided kindness you consult endlessly with the PC to make sure that he isn’t displeased with what we are doing; and out of that misguided kindness, you practically drive somebody to the bottom of a well.

Be the most vicious thing you could do to a PC is to fail to control him.

The factor is so strong that even if the PC is right in his advice’s, you had better not take it, because he will suffer more from having been run rightly but out of control, than wrongly in control. Now, do I make myself clear?

Just the fact that the PC has said, “But this has been flat for days!” And you were just that moment going to open your mouth and say, “You know, I think this level has been flat for days!” You were just about to say this. But the fact that he says it, that’s enough, man. You have no choice but to run it. Why? Because his announcement of the act throws him out of control. And it is more serious to let a PC out of control in session than it is to run the wrong process or to overrun a process. That can’t louse him up, but letting him go out of control can practically kill him.

So if you ever want to err, don’t err on the side of sweetness and light, man, err on the side of the heavy-handed parent; err on the side of the lion tamer; err on the side of the machine-gunner. Keep the Auditor’s Code, but keep control. And if you do that, your PCs will never do anything but recover, because the hidden factor of the CCHs are present in whatever you’re running, even though you’re doing formal auditing.

“Well, is it all right with you if I end this process?”

And he says, “No, it certainly is not!”

And you say, “What objection do you have?”

And he says, “Sa-rowr, rowr-rowr, rowr-rowr.” And you say, “All right. Okay. Thank you very much. Now, I’ll give you two more auditing commands and end this process.”

“Oh, God! What are you doing to me?”

And you say, “Have you ever shot the moon? Thank you. Have you ever shot the moon? Thank you. Is there anything you’d care to say before I end this process?”

And you know, about that time, if you’ve done the job right, he’ll say, “No, as a matter of fact I don’t have.”

You say, “Good. End of process.”

What happened to the ARC break you knew was going to occur? It wasn’t that he was knuckled under and overwhelmed—that was not what happened. You say, “What do you know? This outburst is easily controlled. Look, PC controlled it.”

PC’s controlled it. “Not only did the auditor control it, I controlled it too. Heh-heh. What do you know? Tooh! Nothing to it.” Got the idea?

All right Wrong—wrong way: “Well, is it all right with you if I ask you two more times and end this process?”

“No, my God, I will say it isn’t! I’ve got a somatic eight feet thick, and why don’t you ever pay any attention to your auditing, and what is the matter with you anyway?”

“Well, how wide is this somatic? Okay. All right. Well, we’ll carry on the process a little while longer then, and see if you get rid of it.”

“Well, you’d better.”

Fifteen minutes more auditing and you’ve got a real roaring ARC break. What’s the ARC break over? You did what the guy said. You tried to flatten this terrible somatic; you were being nice about the whole thing; you were being reasonable about the whole thing. Well, the test is, did the somatic get better? No, as a matter of fact, it will always get worse. Always. It’s better to end the process wrongly on the auditor’s determination than to end it on the PC’s rightly. Remember that. Of course, it’s a happy chance that you end it rightly on the auditor’s determination.

Give you a new viewpoint of this sort of thing?

Audience: Yeah.

Yeah.

Now, the auditor is running the session, and if the PC starts running the session, expect trouble expect trouble, man. It’s not a kind thing to do; it’s a rotten, mean, dirty, nasty thing to do to a PC. It’s almost covert hostility to do that to a PC.

PC says, “Oh, God, you’re not gonna . . . you’re . . . you’re actually . . . no, my God! You’re not going to run any more ‘failed can’t’!”

And the auditor says . . . My normal response to such a thing is “What’s the matter?”

And he says, “Yow, yow, yow, yow, yow! And yow, yow, yow, yow, yow.”

You say, “No kidding! All right. The auditing command is ‘What have you failed to can’t?’ ‘Who has failed to can’t you?”’ And he’ll all of a sudden—he’s suddenly good as gold.

He says, “Well, it (kmpf, kmpf) wasn’t nat-tarted to run flat.”

The PC can steer a session wrong on me by being too informative of actually what is the exact situation, because he opens a gate there that you can’t let him go through. And he says, “Well, this ‘failed can’t’ has been flat for the last session. I know it.” And you were just about to open your mouth and say, “This ‘failed can’t’ has been flat for the last session, I’m sure.”

And he says, “This ‘failed can’t’ has been . . .” Whooh. Well, here goes a half an hour of ‘failed can’t.’

In the first place, I wouldn’t believe it was flat if he was protesting against it. And the other thing, even if it was flat, it would do him more harm to let him start running the session than it would be to overrun a process or underrun one. You got that? It would do him more harm.

Now, many people have trouble ending sessions, and that’s because they keep consulting the PC as to “what’s the state of the PC,” so as to determine when the session should end. And I’ll tell you a good test sometime, is the next time a PC says to you that the session shouldn’t end, or he has something undone, or he feels very bad about it, or he hasn’t made his goals, why, that’s just dandy; just nicely, firmly and pleasantly end the session, and find no ARC break. And you’ll say, “What happened to the ARC break that we knew was coming?” It didn’t materialize.

Now, what happened to it was, this is an effort of a breakout, an effort at a continuance, and you come along behind the thing and you say, “You see? It wasn’t necessary to continue it.”

And he says, “It wasn’t necessary to continue it.”

So the nest time you have trouble ending a session... This, by the way—a new auditor on an HGC always, almost always, has this difficulty. They say to the old-timers, “How can you possibly get your sessions ended by 3:30? How can you end a session by 3:30?” And the new auditor is staggering out of the auditing room, you see, at 6:45.

Well, that’s a sure indicator that the new auditor does not have his PC in control, because he’s said to the thing, “Now, how do you feel now? How do you feel about the process we’ve been running, and so forth? How do you . . . how are you . . . how’s your general health?”

And the PC says, “Well, it’s pretty bad, actually. My aunt Methuselah matildaed the other day, and it’s pretty bad.”

And the new auditor would say, “Well, the poor fellow. Why, we . . . the best . . . the best thing for him to do is to carry on here and get this matildaing out of the way.” And so he does that, and then he’ll find something else, and he’ll find something else and it goes on and on and on. And the PC anises less and less, and makes less and less progress, and is slowed down more and more, and the auditor’s getting into more and more trouble, and he wonders, “What on earth is happening to me?”

Whew. The only thing that’s happening is, is back there at 3:30 with the tone arm moving—it could have been, you see, as bad as this. The tone arm was moving on a rock slam—the tone arm was rock-slamming, you see, not the needle. And 3:30 was about to come around, and he just had time to get in his end rudiments before he reached 3:30, and he said, “All right. Is it all right with you if I give you two more commands and end this process?”

“All right with me? My God, I’m just getting going!”

You say, “All right. Thank you very much.” Give him two more commands. “Is there anything you’d care to say before I end this process?”

“Well, there certainly is. My God, I never saw such horrible bad auditing, and you’re doing me in,” and so forth.

And you say, “Good. End of process.” And then you run your end rudiments. “Now, is there any ARC breaks?” And you expect immediately that you’re going to get your head taken off, before you get used to this kind of thing, you know? And you’re sitting there all ready for the meter to blow up. Ah, there’s a little twitch.

And you say, “What was that?”

“Well,” he says, “you ended it. You ended the process, and I don’t know if I can ever get back into it or not.”

“All right,” you say. “Well, is it all right with you if we take that up tomorrow?” And you say, “Okay. Now, do you have any ARC breaks?” And there is none. And you say, “All right. And here we go,” you see, and run off the end rudiments and that’s it. The PC goes out whistling and everything’s fine, dandy.

But the new auditor, the new auditor at 6:35, you see, streaked with sweat and coal dust, comes staggering out of the auditing room, you know, and he says to the others, he says (who have now assembled for an evening briefing session or something of the sort), “How do you people do it? You must be terribly cruel. You must just chop the PC off in the middle of nothing, you know, and you just must be thinking about yourselves and nobody else, and . . .”

They say, “Well, I don’t know, we end it, and it never seems to do any harm.” And that’s the correct way to go about it, that’s all. You run the session.

Now, that’s very, very observable in the CCHs, but, of course, it carries over into the remainder of auditing. In the CCHs it is so observable that if you let the PC start running the auditing session, he will practically spin, and in the others he just has an ARC break.

You want to know what an ARC break is? Sometime or another the PC went out of session and you lost control of the PC. And it sometimes takes as much as an hour to an hour and a half for that ARC break to materialize in the physical universe. That is so true that when I get a PC who is ARC breaking (which doesn’t happen very often, because I do this other one), I say to them, ‘What happened a half an hour ago?”

“Half an hour ago? Oh, a half an hour ago. I’m not interested in a half an hour ago. It’s what’s happening right now. I mean, I’m . . . after all, I feel these bayonets in my chest and so forth, here.”

“No, what happened a half an hour ago?”

“Oh, I remembered a half an hour ago, I—yeah, that’s right. There was something there. I . . . I remembered about a half an hour ago I’d forgotten to phone my wife at noon and she’s probably furious with me.” There was your ARC break; didn’t have anything to do with what you were doing in auditing.

Now you, not understanding what ARC breaks are, or how to take ARC breaks apart, find your auditing apparently under criticism all the time from the PC, and then you try to put your finger on what it is that you are doing wrong in your auditing so as to set it right. And the truth of the matter is, the only thing you’re doing wrong in your auditing is not being pig-bullheaded. And a half an hour after you have broken down and relinquished control of the session, you get an ARC break and get all this criticism from the PC of your auditing. And that happens an hour and a half to a half an hour after you have committed the “fox pass” [faux pas]. And you let them “foxes” through and you’ve had it.

And that’s what occurs. You got it now?

Audience: Yes. Hm-hm.

Try sometime to be overbearingly, stupidly domineering about a session. Just try it sometime, just for the hell of it! Have the PC make a perfectly reasonable suggestion, such as “Could I have a break so that I can go to the bathroom?” and look at him as though he has suddenly stolen the crown jewels. Yes? And say, “Well, we’ll get a break in an hour or so,” and note the peculiar lack of an ARC break.

And then sometime have a PC say this to you, “Well, actually, I don’t quite feel up to running the process at the moment,” and you say, “Well, we'll do something else,” and watch the ARC break materialize in an hour and a half to a half an hour.

You see? And because it’s an hour and a half to a half an hour afterwards in most cases, you don’t associate cause and effect, because it’s such prior cause that you haven’t noticed where you lost control of the session. But the best way to patch up an ARC break is to find out where you lost control of the session and reassert control of the session, not Q-and-A with the ARC break! Now, there’s a real way to patch them up.

So you’re very graduate in the way of auditors, and you ought to learn that one, and you ought someday, just for the hell of it, just to find out that it’s true, just start—as you’re auditing, just be pigheaded about something sometime or other. Just utter pigheaded. Pick out one of the cartoons they used to draw of the German army back in World War I, you know, and put it on.

And the PC has made a perfectly reasonable request. The PC has said, “Can we end the session by 4:30, because I have a date with a millineuse?”

And look at him pityingly, you know, and just disregard it utterly. Just make as if—pointedly—he’d never said a word. You’re going to be charitable; you’re going to disregard this terrible thing he has obviously done.

Now, to your way of thinking, that would cause an ARC break. No, the way the ARC break is caused, you must also do this one—do this other one, see?

Sometimes a PC says, “Oh, I don’t know if . . . I . . . you . . . God . . . God almighty! I . . . I don’t . . . I don’t have to run this. You say you found a present time problem on that meter. Well, look, I’m so tired of having all of my auditing time wasted on present time problems! Can’t we just skip the present time problem for once?”

Go ahead. Skip it. Just knuckle-headedly skip it, pleasantly, and just say, “Well, all right. Well, if you don’t want to run it, we won’t run it. Okay. Now, let’s take up the nest one here.” And watch it start to arrive. You can actually measure it on your clock. The maximum time you will have to wait is one and one-half hours of auditing, but somewhere, certainly—certainly within an hour and a half, and in certainly not less than a half an hour, you’re going to have an ARC break on your hands.

“Your fingernails are dirty. Your fingernails are dirty. You know, you really ought to get some training at the local Academy, because if you ran your confronting a bit better, I’m sure I could make some progress or something. Do you realize that you have crossed your legs?” Any kind of an ARC break you can think of that has nothing to do with the price of fish. No, it was right back there.

And you say, “Well, naturally. We had a present time problem. That’s making him edgy.” No, that is not what happened. Is you let the PC run his own bank for a moment and showed him that you were an incompetent, weak schnook. And showed him that his bank was not controllable, and you’ve proved this to him conclusively that his bank was not controllable, so what materialized? The simplest thing in the world materialized: the bank, having been demonstrated to be uncontrollable, of course becomes uncontrollable. And you get what is commonly called an ARC break.

And auditors who have constant, continual ARC breaks with PCs can be rated just exactly this: no control of PC. PC says, “I am schnooking today,” and the auditor says, “You poor fellow, so therefore we’re not going to schnook.” You know, he says, “It’s schnooking. Naturally, we’ll avoid schnooking then. We won’t get into that nasty field.”

Or the PC says, “I keep hearing these violins in my ears,” and that sort of thing. And the auditor is sitting down there just to do one thing, which is to run an assessed level of the Prehav Scale—get the rudiments in order to run a level of the Prehav Scale. And the PC knows very well what’s going to happen. And he says, “Violins in my ears,” you know, “all the time!” and so forth.

And the auditor says, “Well, is this a present time problem with you?”

And he says, “It certainly is.”

And the auditor just goes right on down the line and gets the rest of what he ought to do and runs the assessment, and we don’t hear anything more about it. And the violins turn off ‘cause they were part of the level.

But, this one: The auditor says, “Oooh, violins. Well, we’ll have to do something about violins. Now, what trouble have you had with violins in your life?” and just throws the session away. And you’ve got an ARC-breaky PC from that point right straight on. You got it?

Learn that one well. Because it’s the difference—no matter what tricks you learn, that one that I’ve just been talking about, which is very much in keeping with the CCHs, that one is the difference between auditing and no auditing. You’ve got a black and white: auditing or no auditing. Auditing, the auditor is in control of the session with a capital C and a capital T. Got it? All right. Auditing takes place. Auditor not in control of session, reactivity takes place, because there’s nobody now in control of the session, so there couldn’t be any auditing.

And the easiest way in the world to get rid of auditing is to delete control from an auditing session. Then the auditor isn’t controlling the session, the PC can’t control the auditing session, the reactive mind damn well won’t control the auditing session, so where is the auditing?

Actually, a lot of your feeling about auditing, or some of your flinches that you occasionally get about auditing, simply stems from times when you have not controlled an auditing session; and only then did you come under heavy criticism from the reactivity of the PC. Only then.

The only thing that could ever be criticized about any of you as an auditor is that you do not control a session heavily enough.

So take your cue from the CCHs and control the rest of auditing the same way, and the results which you get will be five to ten times as fast as they are right now. You want to know how to speed up auditing results? Just try it. Okay?

Audience: Thank you. Hm-hm.

Right-O. Said my piece. Thank you very much.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 AUGUST 1962

CenOCon

CCH ANSWERS

The following queries and my reply are useful in the CCHs.

Ron from Ray = 1/8 = 335L

Thanks for Telexes 233L2 and 334L2. That’s fine.

Some queries have come up about CCHs. Could we have the latest stable data on

1. 	When is a physical origination picked up—after command is executed and before acknowledgement, or after acknowledgement?

2. 	Does one pick up by saying—”How are you doing?” “What happened then?” or “I noticed—so and so—happened. What’s going on?”—or is there any other method that we don’t have and which is better than any of these?

Love
Ray

Ray from Ron = 15.30 = 2/8 = 335L2

1. 	When it happens.

2. 	Only by a two way comm query like “What’s happening?”

Never designate the origin.

Don’t make a system out of queries. Three commands nicely done is flat.

Don’t take spoken data from PC about somatics as a reason to keep on.

Also the process that turns something on turns it off.

Love 
Ron.

								L. RON HUBBARD 
LRH:dr.cden 
Copyright © 1962 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 AUGUST 1962
Sthil Students
Course
Franchise

RUNNING CCHs

CCHs being run terribly wrong.

Correct version follows: Run a CCH only so long as it produces change in the pc’s general aspect.

If no change in aspect for three commands, with the pc actually doing the commands, go on to next CCH.

If CCH producing change do not go on but flatten that CCH.

Then when for three commands executed by the pc it produces no change go on to next CCH.

Run CCHs One Two Three Four, One Two Three Four, One etc.

Use only right hand on One.

The CCHs are run alternated with Prepchecking session by session depending upon whether or not the pc has had a win on either and whether the CCHs in the CCH Session were not left with the pc stuck in one CCH which was producing terrific change and thusly very unflat as a process.

CCHs are not run in Model Session, nor run on the E-Meter, nor are goals set. The reality factor is established before the first command is given.

It is code break clause thirteen to run a CCH that is producing no change or to not flatten in same or subsequent session a CCH that is producing change.

Some pcs get no reaction at first on any CCH; therefore run each one as above, CCH One Two Three Four, One etc, and with Prepchecking being given in alternate sessions, or as stated above in case one of the CCHs has to be flattened off in another session on the CCHs.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:jw.rd 
Copyright © 1962 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

B O A R D  T E C H N I C A L  B U L L E T I N
12 SEPTEMBER 1963R
REVISED & REISSUED 7 SEPTEMBER 1974 AS BTB 
(REVISION IN SCRIPT) 
Remimeo
CANCELS
HCO BULLETIN OF 12 SEPTEMBER 1963
SAME TITLE

CCH’S DATA

The CCHs are a highly workable set of Processes starting with Control, going to Communication and leading to Havingness, in that order. The CCHs are auditing specifically aimed at and using all the parts of the Two Way Comm Formula.

CONTROL is the first action of the CCHs and is highlighted by being done Tone 40 for the first two CCHs (CCH 1 and CCH 2).

The reason for Control being the main point is simply to bring about an awareness of Terminals to which communication will be possible; this is done by A. bringing to the PC’s awareness that his body and he are being controlled from a particular KNOWN SOURCE POINT and B. that he also is a Source Point of Control with Control over self and body, all of which is accomplished with CCH 1. i.e. Awareness of two known terminals:

Once the above has been done with CCH 1, the gains can be developed further with CCH 2 by finding for the PC more known points (environment) and familiarity in this “new” environment plus the beginnings of the next major step forward in this developement of Communication, the awareness of distance.

COMMUNICATION (CCH3) is the next major step forward in the rehabilitation of your PC. Tone 40 is used in the next step but only on the motion. Communication is encouraged. The type of Communication practised by the actual auditing actions is that of “one way communication” i.e.Cause-distance-effect with intention, attention, duplication and understanding, plus the first glimmerings of cause being given to the PC by Auditor receiving PC’s comm and then getting the PC to get the idea of contributing to the motion. In this section you are also going to develop the PC’s ability to reach by showing him it is safe to reach across a distance (hand contact mimicry) and then reduce his dependency on YES? and increase his reach even more (hand space mimicry).

As an added bonus to the above you are also on the beginning step of Havingness (Duplication) as you will be teaching the person to duplicate as a being in two way communication and not as a body with reference to body Right and body Left.

HAVINGNESS is the final step in this portion of the CCH formula (full formula CCHCACTCH where A = attention (control) T = Thinkingness (control)). This step of CCH 4 is the final culmination point which restores the PC’s ability to be in good two way communication with a high level of Havingness. By the use of Duplication, the full Two Way Communication Formula is practised in a physical manner with the result that you will have travelled a very very steep case gain from No Comm as a Thetan to full Two Way Communication as a Thetan with lots of Havingness. i.e. The emanation of an impulse or particle (Book and Motion) from Source Point across a distance to Receipt Point with the intention of bringing about at Receipt Point a Duplication and understanding of that which emanated from the Source Point, with Receipt Point then becoming the Source Point back across the distance to the Source Point which has now become the Receipt Point with intention, attention, duplication and understanding.

OBSERVED GENERAL ERRORS

1. 	Not knowing how to change from Hand Contact Mimicry to Hand Space Mimicry.

ANS. 	The change occurs on the run through the CCHs after Hand Contact Mimicry is flat with no change, i.e. CCH 1, 2, 3 (HCM with change), 4,1,2,3 (HCM with change) 4, 2, 1, 2, 3 (HCM 5 commands only, no change), 4, 1, 2, 3 (Hand Space Mimicry).

2.	Trying to handle “verbal originations” on Tone 40 CCH 1 and 2.

ANS. 	Tone 40 is used to overcome revolt of circuits, Body Originations are handled, circuits are not validated.

3. 	Overwhelming PC with very slow, very fast or continuously varying speeds of movements.

ANS. 	An overwhelm is always wrong. Velocity plays an important role in being part of the Comm Formula. By all means experiment with it but pay close attention to PC, make for wins and increase tolerance, not losses and decrease tolerance.

4. 	Interrupting PC to handle a Body Origination.

ANS. 	Body Originations must be picked up when they occurs. In deciding to pick up a Body Origination the Auditor should bear in mind that it is against the Auditor’s Code to prevent a PC from carrying out a command.

5. 	While doing CCH 4 Auditor tells PC to do it Mirror-image-wise.

ANS. 	When the process is being done as per the Two Way Communication Formula you will see that the PC will be executing the command “mirror-image-wise” (the receipt point has become the source point). However, to tell the PC to do it mirror-image-wise is absolutely wrong as such a direction will prevent the PC from looking and put him on a self-audit.

6. 	Not being sure of a CCH flat point.

ANS. 	Flat Point = 3 cycles with no change in Comm Lag, no physically observed change and the PC doing it.

7. 	Imprecise Body movements of Auditor on CCH 2.

ANS. 	Auditor on right side of PC (PC on Auditor’s left) with Auditor slightly in front of PC except on “Turn around”. The change of position is achieved by moving the left leg one paoe to the left and forward in each case.

	H. G. Parkhouse

	Revised & Reissued as BTB 
	by Flag Mission 1234

	I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis
	2nd: Molly Harlow
	Authorized by AVU

BDCS:SW:AL:MH:HP:mh 	for the 
Copyright © 1963, 1974 	BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
by L. Ron Hubbard 	of the 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 JUNE 1957
REISSUED 12 MAY 1972

Remimeo

TRAINING AND CCH PROCESSES

(Originally issued as an HCO Training Bulletin
from Hubbard Communications Office, Washington, D.C.)

NOTE.. The variations and some of the most potent processes are not included in this Training Bulletin but will appear in the Student Manual when published in September 1957.

NUMBER: Training 0

NAME: Confronting Preclear.

COMMANDS: None.

POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart— about five feet.

PURPOSE: To train student to confront a preclear with auditing only or with nothing.

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. Coach may speak only if student goes anaten (dope off). Student is confronting the body, thetan and bank of the preclear.

HlSTORY: 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”.

NUMBER: Training 1

NAME: Dear Alice.

COMMANDS: A phrase (with the “he saids” omitted) is picked out of the book “Alice in Wonderland” and read to the coach. It is repeated until the coach is satisfied it arrived where he is.

POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart .

PURPOSE: To teach the student to send an intention from himself to a preclear in one unit of time without vias.

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.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, April 1956, to teach the communication formula to new students.

NUMBER: Training 2

NAME: Acknowledgments.

COMMANDS: The coach reads lines from “Alice in Wonderland” omitting “he saids” and the student thoroughly acknowledges them. The coach repeats any line he feels was not truly acknowledged.

POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To teach student that an acknowledgment is a method of controlling preclear communication and that an acknowledgment is a full stop.

TRAINING STRESS: Teach student to acknowledge exactly what was said so that preclear knows it was heard. Ask student from time to time what was said. Curb over and under acknowledgment. Let student do anything at first to get acknowledgments across, then even him out. 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.

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.

NUMBER: Training 3

NAME: Duplicative Question.

COMMANDS: “Do fish swim?” or “Do birds fly?” Communication bridge between.

POSITION: Student and coach seated a comfortable distance apart.

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 teach him how to shift from one question to another with a communication bridge rather than an abrupt change.

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. To insist on communication bridge when question is changed. Even though the same question is asked, it is asked as though it had never occurred to anyone before. To teach students that a communication bridge consists of getting three agreements—one agreement to end this question, second agreement to continue session in general and maintain ARC, third agreement to begin a new question. Teach student that preclear is part of these agreements. To teach student never to vary question or shift question or command without a bridge.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, April 1956, to overcome variations and sudden changes in session.

NUMBER: Training 4

NAME: Preclear Originations.

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 a comfortable distance apart.
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.

TRAINING STRESS: The student is taught to hear origination 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 student into better handling.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956, to teach auditors to stay in session when preclear dives out.

NUMBER: Training 5

NAME: Hand Mimicry.

COMMANDS: All commands are by motions of one or two hands. The auditor makes a simple hand motion, holding his hand or hands in the final position. The coach bobs his head as having received it. The coach then, mirror-wise, makes the same motion with his hand or hands. The student then acknowledges. If the motion was not correctly done by coach the student acknowledges doubtfully, then repeats the motion to the coach. If the coach does it well, student thanks coach by shaking own two hands together (prize fighter fashion). Keep motions simple. Student must always be able to duplicate own motions.

POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other at a short distance, coach’s knees inside student’s.

PURPOSE: To educate student that verbal commands are not entirely necessary. To make student physically telegraph an intention. To show student necessity of having preclear obey commands.

TRAINING STRESS: Accuracy of student repeating own commands. Teaching student to give preclear wins. Teaching student that an intention is different from words.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, April 1956, from the principles of body mimicry developed by LRH in Camden, N.J., in 1954.

The following group of processes are usually taught in Upper Indoctrination Course:

NUMBER: Training 6

NAME: Plain 8-C.

COMMANDS: “Look at that wall.” “Walk over to that wall.” “With your right hand, touch that wall.” “Turn around.” All with acknowledgments. Not Tone 40. (Preclear is acknowledged when he originates, no physical contact.)

POSITION: Student and coach both ambulant in a room with no center obstacles. Student walks with coach who does process for student.

PURPOSE: To give preclear reality on environment, control in following directions and havingness. Not all effects fully explored.

TRAINING STRESS: Precision in repetition of commands by student and experience on a gradient scale in directing another body than own. Handling of originations. Acknowledging execution of commands by preclear. When this process develops somatics on a preclear it must be continued until flat.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Camden, 1953. Originally called “Opening Procedure of 8-C”, 8-C being a full auditing procedure aimed at negative thought. The only surviving part of this is now called 8-C and means the above process. Original intention was to place preclear within the control of the auditor so auditing could occur. Proved so successful became an end-all in itself. Nominated in Summary Research Project 1956 as responsible all by itself for approximately 50% of results achieved by auditors across the world.

NUMBER: Training 7

NAME: Hi-School Indoc.

COMMANDS: Same as 8-C but with student in physical contact with coach, student enforcing commands by manual guiding. Coach has only three valid statements to which student must listen: these are “Start” to begin process, “Flunk” to call attention to student error, and “That’s it” to end session. No other remark by coach is valid on student. Coach tries in all possible ways, verbal, covert and physical, to stop student from running 8-C on him. If the student falters, comm lags, fumbles a command or fails to get an execution on coach, coach says “Flunk” and they start at beginning of command cycle in which error occurred. Coach falling down is not allowed.

POSITION: Student and coach ambulant. Student handling coach physically.

PURPOSE: To train a student never to be stopped by a preclear. To train him to run fine 8-C in any circumstances. To teach him to handle rebellious people.

TRAINING STRESS: Stress is on accuracy of student performance and persistence by student. Start gradually to toughen up resistance to student. Don’t kill him off at once.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, 1956.

NUMBER: Training 8

NAME: Tone 40 on an Object.

COMMANDS: “Stand up.” “Thank you.” “Sit down on the table.” “Thank you.” These are the only commands used. (If student has trouble with Training 9, have him do Tone 40 on an Object with 8-C commands.)

POSITION: Student standing beside table holding ashtray which he manually makes execute the commands he gives.

PURPOSE: To make student clearly achieve Tone 40 command. To clarify intentions as different than words. To start student on road to handling objects and preclears with postulates. To obtain obedience not wholly based on spoken commands.

TRAINING STRESS: have student give orders for a while alone. Then begin to nag him to get them up to Tone 40 commands. Have student silently permeate object with command and an expectancy that it will do it. When student can “see” his intentions going in accurately, when he wonders why object doesn’t instantly obey, when he is not stumbling through energy or depending on his voice, the training process is flat. This process usually takes the most time in training of any process and time on it is well spent. Objects can be ashtrays or rag dolls.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., 1957, for the 17th ACC.

NUMBER: Training 9

NAME: Tone 40 on a Person.
COMMANDS: Same as 8-C. This is not Tone 40 8-C (CCH 12). Student runs fine, clearcut intentions and verbal orders on a coach. Coach tries to break down Tone 40 of the student. Coach commands that are valid are “Start” (to begin), “Flunk” to tell student he has erred and must return to beginning of cycle, and “That’s it” to take a break or stop session for the day. No other statement by coach in session is valid on student and is only an effort to make student come off Tone 40 or in general be stopped.

POSITION: Student and coach ambulant. Student in manual contact with coach as needed.

PURPOSE: To make student able to maintain Tone 40 under any stress of auditing.

TRAINING STRESS: The exact amount of physical effort must be used by student plus a compelling unspoken intention. No jerky struggles are allowed since each jerk is 3 stop. Student must learn to smoothly increase effort quickly to amount needed to make coach execute. Stress is on exact intention, exact strength needed, exact force necessary, exact Tone 40. Even a slight smile by student can be a flunk. Too much force can be a flunk. Too little definitely is a flunk. Anything not Tone 40 is a flunk.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., for the 17th ACC.

The following processes are taught in the Communication-Control-Havingness Course:

NUMBER: CCH 0

NAME: Rudiments, Goals and Present Time Problem.

COMMANDS: Establishing session beginning by calling attention to room, auditor and the session to begin. Discussing the preclear’s goals for the session. Auditor asks for present time problem and settles it with problems of comparable magnitude or incomparable magnitude or by Locational Processing. In general, remarks and commands enough to bring about ARC at session’s beginning but not enough to run down havingness of the preclear.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated at a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To make known the beginning of a session to a preclear and the auditor so that no error as to its beginning is made. To put the preclear into a condition to be audited.

TRAINING STRESS: To begin sessions, not just let them happen. To educate the student into the actual elements of a session and condition of preclears. To stress the inability to audit something else when present time problem is not flat. To demonstrate what happens when preclear doesn’t know session has begun or has no goals for it or what happens when present time problem only half flat when other things are engaged upon. Stress that it is done each session. Explain closure mechanism of problem with preclear, the solution of “the liability of solutions”.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Elizabeth, N.J., 1950; Goals in Wichita, Kansas in 1951; Present Time Problem, London, 1952; Rudiments, Phoenix, 1955.

NUMBER: CCH 1.

NAME: * Give Me Your Hand, Tone 40.

COMMANDS: “Give me your hand.” Physical action of taking hand when not given and then replacing it in preclear’s lap. And “Thank you” ending cycle. All Tone 40 with clear intention, one command in one unit of time, no originations of preclear acknowledged in any way verbally or physically. May be run on right hand, left hand, both hands, each one flattened in turn.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated, in chairs without arms, close together. Auditor’s knees both to auditor’s left of preclear’s knees, outside of auditor’s right thigh against outside of preclear’s right thigh. This position reversed for left hand. In both hands preclear’s knees are between auditor’s knees.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate to preclear that control of preclear’s body is possible, despite revolt of circuits, and inviting preclear to directly control it. Absolute control by auditor then passes over toward absolute control of his own body by preclear.

TRAINING STRESS: Never stop process until a flat place is reached. To process with good Tone 40. Auditor taught to pick up preclear’s hand by wrist with auditor’s thumb nearest auditor’s body, to have an exact and invariable place to carry preclear’s hand to before clasping, clasping hand with exactly correct pressure, replacing hand (with auditor’s left hand still holding preclear’s wrist) in preclear’s lap. Making every command(l and cycle separate. Maintaining Tone 40. Stress on intention from auditor to preclear with each command. To leave an instant for preclear to do it by own will before auditor does it. Stress Tone 40 precision. To keep epicenters balanced. CCH I (b) should also be flattened.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in the 17th ACC, Washington, D.C., 1957.

* The name and command for CCH 1 has since been revised to, “Give me that hand.”

NUMBER: CCH2

NAME: * Tone 40 8-C.

COMMANDS: “Look at that wall.” “Thank you.” “Walk over to that wall.” “Thank you.” “With the right hand, touch that wall.” “Thank you.” “Turn around.” “Thank you.” Run without acknowledging in any way any origin by preclear, acknowledging only preclear’s execution of the command. Commands smoothly enforced physically. Tone 40, full intention.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear ambulant, auditor in physical contact with preclear as needed.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate to preclear that his body can be directly controlled and thus inviting him to control it. Finding present time. Havingness. Other effects not fully explained.

TRAINING STRESS: Absolute auditor precision. No drops from Tone 40. No flubs. Total present-time auditing. Auditor turns preclear counterclockwise then steps always on preclear’s right side. Auditor’s body acts as block to forward motion when preclear turns. Auditor gives command, gives preclear a moment to obey, then enforces command with physical contact of exactly correct force to get command executed. Auditor does not check preclear from executing commands.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., 1957, for the 17th ACC.

* The name and command for CCH 2 has since been revised to, “You look at that wall.”

NUMBER: CCH 3

NAME: Book Mimicry.

COMMANDS: Auditor makes a simple or complex motion with a book. Hands book to preclear. Preclear makes motion, duplicating auditor’s mirror image-wise. Auditor asks preclear if he is satisfied that the preclear duplicated the motion. If preclear is and auditor is also fairly satisfied, auditor takes book and goes to next command. If preclear says he is and auditor fairly sure preclear isn’t, auditor takes back book and repeats command and gives book to preclear again for another try. If preclear is not sure he duplicated any command auditor repeats it for him and gives him back the book. Tone 40 only in motions. Verbal two-way quite free.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To bring up preclear’s communication with control and duplication. (Control + duplication = communication.)

TRAINING STRESS: Stress giving preclear wins. Stress auditor’s necessity to duplicate his own commands. Circular motions are more complex than straight lines.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard for the 16th ACC in Washington, D.C., 1957. Based on duplication developed by LRH in London, 1952.

NUMBER: CCH 4

NAME: Hand Space Mimicry.

COMMANDS: Auditor raises two hands, palms facing preclear’s 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 the motion?” “Good.” “Put your hands in your lap.” When this is flat the auditor does this same thing with a half inch of space between his and preclear’s palms. When this is flat auditor does it with a wider space and so on until preclear is able to follow motions a yard away.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated, close together facing each other, preclear’s knees between auditor’s.

PURPOSE: To develop reality on the auditor using the reality scale (solid comm line). To get preclear into comm by control + duplication.

TRAINING STRESS: That auditor be gentle and accurate in his motions, giving preclear wins. To be free in two-way comm.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, 1956, as a therapeutic version of Dummy Hand Mimicry. Something was needed to supplant “Look at me. Who am l?” and “Find the Auditor” part of rudiments.

NUMBER: Training 10

NAME: Locational Processing.

COMMANDS: “You notice that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” Auditor enforces command when needed by turning preclear’s head toward object. Run inside an auditing room or outside. Auditor indicates obvious objects, naming them and pointing to them.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated side by side or facing each other or seated or walking outside.

PURPOSE: To control attention. Since attention is being controlled by facsimiles, an unknown control, supplanting with a known control brings preclear up to present time. See also Pre-Logics. A highly therapeutic process. Can be substituted for Present Time Problem to some degree in cases that cannot run a Present Time Problem as a process.

TRAINING STRESS: That coach (or preclear) always looks in direction of object.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Elizabeth, N.J., in June 1950, to bring preclears into auditing room after they had been “brought up to present time”.

NUMBER: CCH 5

NAME: Location by Contact.

COMMANDS: “Touch that (indicated object).” “Thank you.”

POSITION: Auditor and preclear may be seated where the preclear is very unable, in which case they are seated at a table which has a number of objects scattered on its surface. Or auditor and preclear may be ambulant, with the auditor in manual contact with the preclear as is necessary to face him toward and guide him to the indicated object.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the process is to give the preclear orientation and havingness and to improve his perception.

TRAINING STRESS: Training stress is upon gentleness, ARC and the raising of the preclear’s certainty that he has touched the indicated object. It should be noticed that this can be run on blind people.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard from Locational Processing in 1957.

NUMBER: CCH 6

NAME: Body-Room Contact.

COMMANDS: “Touch your (body part).” “Thank you.” “Touch that (indicated room object).” “Thank you.”

POSITION: Auditor and preclear move about together as needed, the auditor enforcing the commands by manual contact using the preclear’s hands to touch objects and touch body parts.

PURPOSE: To establish the orientation and increase the havingness of the preclear and to give him in particular a reality on his own body.

TRAINING STRESS: Training Stress is upon using only those body parts which are not embarrassing to the preclear as it will be found that the preclear ordinarily has very little reality on various parts of his body. Impossible commands should not be given to the preclear in any case.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1957 in Washington, D.C., as a lower step than Body-Room Show Me.

NUMBER: CCH 7

NAME: Contact by Duplication.

COMMANDS: “Touch that table.” “Thank you.” “Touch your (body part).” “Thank you.” “Touch that table.” “Thank you.” “Touch your (same body part).” “Thank you.” “Touch that table.” “Thank you.” “Touch your (same body part).” “Thank you,” etc., in that order.

POSITION: Auditor may be seated. Preclear should be walking. Usually auditor standing by to manually enforce the commands.

PURPOSE: Process is used to heighten perception, orient the preclear and raise the preclear’s havingness. Control of attention as in all these “contact” processes naturally takes the attention units out of the bank which itself has been controlling the preclear’s attention.

TRAINING STRESS: Training stress is on precision of command and motion, with each command in its unit of time, all commands perfectly duplicated. Preclear to continue to run process even though he dopes off. Good ARC with the preclear, not picking one body part which is aberrated at first but flattening some non-aberrated body part before aberrated body part is tackled.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1957 in Washington, D.C., as a lower level process than Opening Procedure by Duplication, or Show Me by Duplication. All contact processes have been developed out of the Pre-Logics.

NUMBER: CCH 8

NAME: Trio.

COMMANDS: “Look around the room (environment) and tell me something you could have.” Run until flat. “Look around the room and tell me something the body (body part) can’t have.” Valence form: “Look around the room and tell me something mother (or other valence) can’t have.” Long form: “Look around the room and tell me what you could have.” Run flat. “Look around the room and tell me something you would permit to remain.” Run flat. “Look around the room and tell me what you could dispense with.” Dispense in long form is sometimes run first when preclear is set on wasting.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated at a comfortable distance both facing toward majority of the room.

PURPOSE: To remedy havingness objectively.

TRAINING STRESS: Run it smoothly without invalidative questions. One of the most effective processes known when thinkingness can be controlled somewhat. Run when havingness drops or for a full intensive.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in 1955. Name derived from the three questions of the long form. Originally called the “Terrible Trio”.

NUMBER: CCH 9

NAME: Tone 40 “Keep it from going away.”

COMMANDS: “Look at that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Walk over to that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Touch that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Keep it from going away.” “Thank you.” “Did you keep it from going away?” “Thank you,” and so forth.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear ambulant. Auditor assisting by manual contact.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the process is to increase havingness of the preclear and bring about his ability to keep things from going away, which ability lost, accounts for the possession of psychosomatic illnesses.

TRAINING STRESS: The training stress is on precision and accuracy and finding out that this is actually Tone 40 8-C with a thinkingness addition. This is the first step on to the route of making things solid.

HlSTORY: Developed in 1956 in London, England, by L. Ron Hubbard.

NUMBER: CCH 10

NAME: Tone 40 “Hold it still.”

COMMANDS: “Look at that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Walk over to that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Touch that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Hold it still.” “Thank you.” “Did you hold it still’?” “Thank you,” etc., in that order.

PURPOSE: To improve an individual’s ability to make things more solid and to assert his ability to control his environment.

TRAINING STRESS: Same as CCH 9.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, England, in 1956.

NUMBER: CCH 11

NAME: Tone 40 “Make it a little more solid.”

COMMANDS: “Look at that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Walk over to that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Touch that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Make it a little more solid.” “Thank you.” “Did you make it a little more solid’?” ‘‘Thank you,” etc., in that order.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear ambulant.

PURPOSE: To assert control over the preclear and increase the preclear’s havingness. To increase the preclear’s reality on the Pre-Logics. To reverse the flow of solids.

TRAINING STRESS: Complete precision of performance, a stress 011 all the CCH 9, CCH 10 and CCH 11, that they include a control of thinkingness of the preclear and therefore should not be run with a tremendous amount of auditor trust of the preclear and should not be run until the lower levels of CCH are to some degree flat as they will give the preclear losses.

HISTORY: Developed in 1956 in London, England, by L. Ron Hubbard.

NUMBER: Training 11

NAME: ARC Straight Wire.

COMMANDS: “Recall something that was really real to you.” “Thank you.” “Recall a time when you were in good communication with someone.”’ “Thank you.” “Recall a time when you really liked someone.” “Thank you.” The three commands are given in that order and repeated in that order consistently.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other at a comfortable distance.

PURPOSE: To give the student reality on the existence of a bank. This is audited on another and is audited until the other student is in present time. It will be found that the process discloses the cycling action of the preclear going deeper and deeper into the past and then more and more shallowly into the past until he is recalling something again close to present time. This cyclic action should be studied and understood and the reality on the pictures the preclear gets should be thoroughly understood by the student. The fact that another has pictures should be totally real to the student under training.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1951 in Wichita, Kansas. This was once a very important process. It has been known to bring people from a neurotic to a sane level after only a short period of application. It has been run on a group basis with success but it should be noted that the thinkingness of the individuals in the group would have to be well under the control of the auditor in order to have this process broadly beneficial. When it was discovered that this process occasionally reduced people’s havingness, the process itself was not generally run thereafter. It is still, however, an excellent process with that proviso, a reduction of havingness in some cases.

NUMBER: CCH 12

NAME: Limited Subjective Havingness.

COMMANDS: “What can you mock up?” “O.K. (to preclear’s answer).” “Mock up (what preclear said he could mock up).” “O.K.” “Shove it in to yourself.” “O.K.” When this is relatively flat, “Mock up (whatever preclear said he could).” “O.K.” “Let it remain where it is.” “O.K.” When this is relatively flat enter on the third part. “Mock up (whatever the preclear said he could mock up).” “O.K.” “Throw it away.” “O.K.” If the preclear cannot throw the object away at once, have him duplicate it many times and move one of them slightly further away from him until he has at last thrown one away. If the preclear cannot mock anything up, remedy his havingness with blackness. If the preclear’s “field” is invisibility, have him put glass objects of many sorts and sizes on a table and one after the other “keep them from going away”. If mock-up disappears have preclear keep on trying at it because he will eventually be able to get it back.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other.

PURPOSE: To Remedy the Havingness of the preclear’s bank.

TRAINING STRESS: Not to give the preclear any losses. He must successfully complete each step and the auditor must do things on a gradient scale until the preclear has successfully completed each command given.

HISTORY: These and other creative processes were developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in the fall of 1952.

NUMBER: CCH 13

NAME: Subjective Solids.

COMMANDS: “What can you mock up?” “O.K. (to preclear’s answer).” (This is asked once every time one changes the type of mock-up.) “Mock up (whatever the preclear said).” “O.K.” “Now make it a little more solid.” “O.K.” “Did you do that?” “Thank you.” Various objects are mocked up and made a little more solid. The preclear can be told to do what he pleases with these. This is not a Tone 40 process.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated.

PURPOSE: To make it possible for the preclear to mock up subjective objects and make them a little more solid, preparatory to running “Then and Now Solids”.

TRAINING STRESS: On knowing what the preclear is doing, how he is doing it, where he is putting the mock-ups, so that the preclear is certainly policed and is certainly doing the process. If the preclear neglects to do the process, even though he receives the command and nods his assent, he is, of course, going out of control of the auditor.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1956 in London.

NUMBER: CCH 14

NAME: Then and Now Solids.

COMMANDS: “Get a picture—and make it a little more solid.” “Thank you.” “Look at that (auditor indicates object)—and make it a little more solid.” “Thank you.” These commands are given with a tiny pause between the first and second phrase as it will be found that the glance of the preclear at the object tends to give him the impression that he has already made it a little more solid before the auditor gives the command if this auditing command is broken into two commands.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To straighten out the time track of the preclear. To clear up his bank. To disclose his life computation. To show up the whole track. To give preclear practice in handling time. To get rid of unwanted facsimiles. And in general to handle in its totality the reactive mind.

TRAINING STRESS: On leading up with gradients toward any failure that the preclear may have in making something a little more solid. In keeping the auditor from chasing all over the bank every time the preclear has a second picture show up or a third or a fourth or a fifth on the same command. The auditor wants one picture and wants one thing or the picture itself to be made a little more solid. We do not do two or three pictures and then a room object. The preclear can get easily lost on the track unless this is obeyed. Furthermore, it will be noted that the preclear goes out of present time further and further and then less and less and then further and further and then less and less and this cycle of further into the past and then less into the past finally winds up with bringing the preclear wholly into present time.

HISTORY: Developed from Over and Under Solids, which was developed by L. Ron Hubbard in late 1955 and improved by him in 1956. The process more or less completes the work begun on the reactive mind in 1947. It will be noted that many earlier processes and effects are woven into Then and Now Solids.

NUMBER: Training 12

NAME: Think a Thought.

COMMANDS: “Think a thought.” “Thank you.”

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To give the student some reality on the thinkingness of other people and demonstrate that the control of thinkingness is possible.

TRAINING STRESS: Should be on the fact that after the control of the body has been asserted and control of attention flattened, control of thinkingness can take place. There is really nothing wrong with the preclear except that he cannot control his thinkingness, thus he cannot change considerations at will because he is stopped by the bank. This is the most permissive of such processes since the preclear cannot really help to think a thought and we do not much care whether he thought it or the bank thought it.

HISTORY: Developed in 1955 in Phoenix, Arizona, by L. Ron Hubbard.

NUMBER: CCH 15

NAME: Rising Scale Processing.

COMMANDS: The Chart of Attitudes is employed, the top and bottom buttons of which are: DEAD-SURVIVE, NOBODY-EVERYBODY, DISTRUST-FAITH, LOSE-WIN, WRONG-RIGHT, NEVER-ALWAYS, I KNOW NOT-I KNOW, STOP-CHANGE-START, NO RESPONSIBILITY-FULLY RESPONSIBLE, STOPPED-CAUSES MOTION, FULL EFFECT-CAUSE, IDENTIFICATION-DIFFERENTIATION, OWNS NOTHING-OWNS ALL, HALLUCINATION-TRUTH, I AM NOT-I AM, NO-GAME-UNLIMITED GAMES. The auditing commands in this process are “Get the idea of (bottom button).” “Do you have that idea?” “All right.” “Now change that idea as nearly as you can to (top button).” “O.K.” “How close did you come?” “Thank you.” This is run many times on the one set of buttons until the preclear has a certainty that he can maintain the upper scale idea.
POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To give the preclear drills in changing his mind and to demonstrate that he can maintain higher levels of certainty and that he can alter his considerations. And incidentally to probably change his glandular structure to the better until they have a better performance which is of no great importance to the process and has little to do with Scientology.

TRAINING STRESS: The training stress is on maintaining ARC with the preclear, yet being definite about what idea the preclear is supposed to get. The prerequisites demand that the thinkingness of the preclear be to some degree under the control of the auditor. The auditor must not be impatient with the preclear, but let the preclear try again and again to get these two ideas, one a low-scale idea and change that idea into an upper-scale idea. The preclear must be in fairly good condition with regard to havingness or the process can fail.

HISTORY: This process was developed in the fall of 1951 by L. Ron Hubbard in Wichita, Kansas, and is taken from Scientology 8-8008 as published in England and as given in The Creation of Human Ability, page 129, as R2—51. This is probably the oldest purely Scientology process in existence. It was not entirely workable in the past because it was not understood that the body has to be brought under the auditor’s control and that the attention has to be brought under the auditor’s control before the thinkingness of the preclear can be brought under the auditor’s control. The process, however, run on preclears who were not in too bad condition, has been continually successful both in changing their physical beingness and abilities, the latter being in the sphere of interest of Scientology. The first preclear on which this and Opening Procedure by Duplication were run was Mary Sue Hubbard.

NUMBER: GP 1

NAME: Bank Processes (Engrams, Secondaries, Locks, Perceptics and Whole Track).

NUMBER: GP 2

NAME: Subjective Havingness in Full, Repair and Remedy of Havingness, Avalanches, Black and White, Flows.

NUMBER: GP 3

NAME: Connectedness, Association, Identification, A = A = A = A.

NUMBER: GP 4

NAME: Time Processes.

NUMBER: GP 5

NAME: Creative Processes.

NUMBER: GP6

NAME: Full Rising Scale Processes.

NUMBER: GP7

NAME: Not-Know Processes, Waterloo Station, Something you wouldn’t mind Forgetting.

NUMBER: GP8
NAME: Think a Thought, Future Mock-ups.

NUMBER: GP9

NAME: CDEI, Problems, Find Something that is Not Thinking.

NUMBER: GP10

NAME: Thought Placement, Invent a Lie, Assign an Intention, Place a Command.

NUMBER: GP11

NAME: Exteriorization, Pre-Logics, Keep Head from Going Away, Try not to Exteriorize.

NUMBER: GP12

NAME: Route 1.

NUMBER: GP13

NAME: Anchor Points, Structure of Body.

NUMBER: GP14

NAME: Body Lifting.

NUMBER: GP15

NAME: World Reality, Get the Idea that (object) is Thinking about Itself, Perception of Environment, Reality Scale Processes.

NUMBER: Training13

NAME: Fishing a Cognition.

COMMANDS: This is a general ARC, answering the preclear’s origin process. When the preclear experiences a somatic, when he sighs, when he gives a reaction to a Tone 40 process, the auditor repeats the process two or three more times (random number) and then pausing the process asks the preclear, “How are you doing now?” or “What is going on?” and finds out what happened to the preclear just as though the auditor has not noticed that the preclear had a reaction. The auditor does not point out the reaction but merely wants a discussion in general. During this discussion he brings the preclear up to at least a cognition that the preclear has had a somatic or a reaction and then merely continues the process without further bridge. This is done randomly. It is not always done every time the preclear experiences a reaction.

POSITION: Whatever position the preclear and auditor are in as directed by the process they are running. But usually with the auditor touching the preclear. For example, in “Give Me Your Hand” the auditor continues to hold the preclear’s hand after he has said “Thank you” and asks the preclear how he is doing.

TRAINING STRESS: Is that the fishing of a cognition is an art and it cannot be taught by general command, that the auditor must not as-is the preclear’s havingness by asking him, “How are you feeling now?”, that the preclear must not be placed in possession of the knowledge that he can stop the auditor from auditing by having a reaction or experiencing a reaction to the processing, otherwise he will begin to experience them simply to stop the auditor. Thus the use of Training 13 is not routine and regular but is random. It should be stressed that this can be used while running any and all Tone 40 processes. It should be stressed that the Tone 40 is run as itself and that fishing a cognition is run into the process between cycles of command and acknowledgment and command and acknowledgment. After a thorough acknowledgment one can fish for a cognition thus pausing momentarily in the process, get things straightened out, maintain ARC with the preclear and then go on with the Tone 40 process. One does not enter fishing a cognition between the command and the acknowledgment. One never reacts to what the preclear is doing the instant that the preclear does it, otherwise one educates the preclear to stop one. Training stress here is that a Tone 40 process is not run on an automaton basis.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., in 1957 while developing CCH on the following notes from LRH’s notebook: “I use processes to restimulate thought or action and when this happens I fish out a cognition and either continue the process or bridge to the next process.” It was developed basically to keep auditors in communication with the preclear since Tone 40 processes give some auditors, when they are studying them, the idea that they are supposed to go out of communication with the preclear.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD
                                        				Founder

LRH: ne.rd 
Copyright © 1957, 1972 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

R2-67: OBJECTS

(Exerpted from Book: Creation of Human Ability)

To a person who cannot hold the two back corners of the room, the simple location of objects is valuable.  When a person is self-auditing, this is a very valuable solo process.

The command is: ‘Locate some objects’, etc. The person looks at them or puts his attention on them and notes what they are. This is all there is to the process.  For variation, one locates some more objects. By object is meant physical universe, present time, visible objects.

P.A.B. No. 153
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 February 1959

C. C. H.

(Continued from P.A.B. No. 152 of 15 January 1959
on “The Five Levels of Indoctrination”)

Compiled from the Research Material and Taped Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard

WE GO NOW INTO CCH. CCH could not even vaguely be attempted without the five levels of Indoctrination having been run. Nevertheless, early in the HPA or HCA Course you will discover that an individual hasn’t yet had Tone 40, so, although CCH starts with Tone 40, the training continuity of CCH does not. Training starts with dummy auditing in the Communication Course and then goes to the second level of Indoctrination, which is simple 8-C, and they coincide at that point. The order of learning these processes is therefore different from the order in which they are given to a pc. You don’t have to remember the order of learning, but you do have to remember the order of giving them to a pc. However, I am going to give them to you in the order of training.

We have simple 8-C (which I have already given you) at the second level. The commands of simple 8-C are very simple and they do not depend on any other command. In simple 8-C the commands are: “Look at that wall. Thank you.” “Walk over to that wall. Thank you.” “With your right hand touch that wall. Thank you.” “Turn around. Thank you.”

The second process we deal with in training is Locational Processing, and this, as you can see at once, is a command of attention process. The commands are: “Notice that      . Thank you.” This is very simple Locational Processing and, by the way, an interestingly therapeutic process. The training stress is simply this: the direction of attention must not be disturbed by other mechanisms of attention direction. The auditor must do this smoothly. We are trying to get the auditor to get the preclear’s attention to go smoothly to the object indicated. What we have here is one person handling another person’s attention—this is quite unusual, and must be done very smoothly. We don’t care how well the commands are getting across, beyond, of course, that they should get across as well as a person learned to get across a command in dummy auditing. The auditor picks out objects and says, “Notice that      .” He normally points, and the preclear merely turns his head. There are no cautions to be used with this except that, if the preclear gets very restimulated, flatten it.

The third is called Locational, Body and Room, and here we have the first example of extraversion-introversion. The commands are: “Look at that____.Thank you. Look at your (foot, hand or knee). Thank you.” There is an alternative set of commands on this: “Notice the chair. Notice your hand Notice the wall. Notice the floor.” They actually have a difference. A person who is pretty dead in his head had better be told to “notice,” because the strain and stress which will come on him through trying to get out of his body and “look” at his head is so great he will start pulling ridges to pieces. So, of the two, the safest is “Notice.” The other will exteriorize somebody. They are two different sets of commands, two different objects. “Look at that wall, look at your hand,” etc., is liable to find a person out there five feet outside his head. But if a person would not normally exteriorize by his build, bank behavior, etc., you would use “Notice.” In training we use “Notice,” but we must remember that the process works fabulously well with “Look.”

That’s an extraversion-introversion process. We have the sequence of it as “Look in on yourself. Look at yourself. Look at the environment. Look at yourself. Look at the environment”—alternating it. This is what is known as an alternate command. It is necessary to call your attention to that bit of terminology because in “Give me your hand” Tone 40, we run it on the right hand and we run it on the left hand, but it is not an alternate. We don’t say, “Give me your right hand. Give me your left hand.”

The next one of these is Objective Show Me. Here the preclear does a little demonstrating. The reason this is put in here is because it is one of the more miraculous therapeutic processes. It is the reason why a person’s bank is invisible to other people. It is the reason why people have secrets, they pull banks in on themselves, and the reason why they don’t dare show it to anybody else. The commands are: “Show me that      . Thank you.” The auditor points to the object he wishes to be shown. Only when that is running fairly well will you run it on an extrovert-introvert basis, and the next series of commands on it could be “Show me that . Show me your      .” (i.e., “Show me that table. Show me your foot. Show me that ceiling. Show me your hand.”) This, by the way, opens the door to mock-ups and facsimiles anybody could see. If there is some method of achieving that, this is the process to do it. A person overcomes his unwillingness to show things, and he realizes that he is not still on Arcturus and you are not the space police from Saturn. He is being made unwilling by life to show anybody anything.

Actually, I would omit this process under training. I wouldn’t show a person how to do this early in his training. I would let him find this one up the track somewhere. That is why I have not given it out in training earlier. But you must know that it exists because it is a very important process and has to be handled very delicately—that is why at this level of training it isn’t used.

Instead, we use a mild one called Attention by Duplication 9, Number 4. This is a very old process, but we don’t run it in the old manner. We place a book in one location and a bottle in another location (never more than five feet apart), and we say, “Look at that book. Walk over to that book. Pick up that book. Put the book down in exactly the same place.” The same goes for the bottle. You could add a “Turn around” in there, but you have then graduated this to Tone 40 Book and Bottle.

Tone 40 Book and Bottle is not Opening Procedure by Duplication. You have to be ready to assume total control of the preclear to run Tone 40 Book and Bottle. The commands are the same, except that you never acknowledge anything but the execution of the auditing commands. Then we would only have to add the command “Turn around.” He is really not supposed to do anything else we have not told him to do. (In training we use Opening Procedure by Duplication and later on will have to show somebody what we mean by Tone 40 Book and Bottle.) The training stress on this is precision. The auditor must not make any mistakes or omissions on this command. It is one of the most arduous processes to run known to man. If an auditor adds into it the randomity of getting his commands mixed up, he can practically finish a preclear. It is one of the number one exteriorization processes. If Opening Procedure by Duplication 1957 will exteriorize somebody (and it will), Tone 40 Book and Bottle is likely to send him on his way. You have no latitude for mistakes here. The training stress is the exact duplication of the commands. One of the cautions that must be observed in running this is that it is not left unflattened and mustn’t be faltered if it begins to run. If the process is biting it must not be stopped simply because there is a class schedule involved. If you were unfortunate enough to begin Opening Procedure by Duplication 1957 at 3 p.m. and it was running on the preclear, you have no choice if it is still running at 2 a.m. in the morning—Auditor’s Code or not, you are still going to be there running it. I couldn’t possibly tell you that emphatically enough. We remember this from way back when. The most fatal thing that can happen is to be interrupted during this process, which may never bite again. And if it isn’t flattened, it is liable to leave somebody hung right there. It is a major auditing error to start Opening Procedure by Duplication 1957 and not flatten it. When you start that one, don’t have any other dates. Most of these processes under training sooner or later will be left unflattened on somebody, but that one must never be.

R2-17: OPENING PROCEDURE BY DUPLICATION UNTIL PRECLEAR FEELS GOOD ABOUT IT

(Exerpted from Book: Creation of Human Ability)

Opening Procedure by Duplication is begun only after the preclear has some reality on his environment. Until the preclear’s reality on his environment is good, Opening Procedure by Duplication should not be done, for the preclear only turns on an unreality circuit and goes through it mechanically.  The first part of Opening Procedure by Duplication is to get the preclear to examine, communicate with and own (somewhat on the order of Opening Procedure of 8-C) two dissimilar objects.  These objects are then placed several feet apart and at a level so that the preclear can pick them up without bending over, but so that he has to walk between them. Once the auditor is entirely satisfied that the preclear has reality on these objects and can own them he then begins Opening Procedure by Duplication with the following commands, supposing that one of the objects was a book and the other was an ash tray, ‘Go over to the book’, ‘Look at it’, ‘Pick it up’, ‘What is its color?’ At this point the preclear must give an answer. ‘What is its temperature?’, here the preclear must answer again. ‘Put it down in exactly the same place.’ When the preclear has executed, ‘Go over to the ash tray’, ‘Look at it’, ‘Pick it up’, ‘What is its color?’ the preclear says his answer. ‘What is its temperature?’, the preclear says his answer. ‘Put it down exactly in the same place.’ When the preclear has executed, ‘Go over to the book’ and the same words and the same formula are used over and over again until the preclear has had a sufficient number of hours of Opening Procedure by Duplication to enable him to do it without communication lag, without protest, without apathy, but only cheerfulness, each time seeing the items newly. This is a process which is done by the hour. The process is better when done consecutively for so many hours rather than done an hour apiece each day for several days. This procedure is the first step of Procedure 30.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 FEBRUARY 1959
Originally issued from London

OP. PRO. BY DUP.

Use two objects—a book and a bottle.

Have the pc look them over and handle them to his satisfaction. Then have him place them at some walking distance apart in the room, on a couple of tables or similar locations.

The commands:

“Look at that book.” 
“Walk over to it.” 
“Pick it up.” 
“What is its colour?” 
“What is its temperature?” 
“What is its weight?” 
“Put it down in exactly the same place.”

Repeat with the bottle.

Do not vary the commands in any way. Use Tone 40. “Thank you” acknowledgment. The basic commands should never be departed from, and never, never trick the preclear by using the book again when you knew he was just about to start toward the bottle. The purpose of the process is duplication. Good control should be used.

Accept the pc’s answers whether they are logical, silly, imaginative, dull or unlawful. In starting the process you can discuss with him what you are about to do and make sure you have got the rudiments established. Run the process until the comm lags are flat.

This process is an HPA/HCA requisite.

								L. RON HUBBARD 
LRH:mc.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

BTB 24 Oct 71
Op Pro by Dup EP
is not available at this time
-The Editor

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 FEBRUARY 1961
Franchise

UK CASES DIFFERENT

In finding the bugs in running the South African case, I also had a chance to study the UK case somewhat as the country is full of English people fresh from home and I’ve already had years of experience with it in England.

I believe that clearing a UK case easily requires between finishing off the Formulas and starting the Regimen a lot of S-C-S or 8C + the Havingness found effective for the case.

Control seems to get inverted on a UK case more easily than on some other nationalities and I think the inversion must be cleared up before Help (as in Regimen 3) can be effectively run.

This isn’t a criticism on the UK case. It’s just an effort to speed up clearing. A close study indicates that the UK case tends strongly to alter-is a command. It’s no wonder, looking over the country’s history, that commands got dangerous.

Therefore, in the HGC in London, I am now going to require an addition to procedure for clearing as follows:

When the Formulas are gotten out of the way and, while still running Failed Help between tests for havingness, the Havingness is found, a period of at least forty-five hours is instituted where the pc is run on S-C-S or 8C interspersed with a few commands of his Havingness every half hour. The last five hours will be run on Op-Pro-by-Dup.

Only when this is done will the auditor locate the Confront and then continue with Regimen 3.

If a test by the auditor, on any case, regardless of nationality, shows that the pc is poor on control, the above routine should be followed.

This data is backed up by enormous success with S-C-S and Op-Pro-by-Dup in England and the general success of 8C.

I have been looking for the bug in UK clearing for some time and feel that this is its remedy.

S-C-S

S-C-S now has four stages, instead of three. It has been found that at least one pc never flattened start because the body was “already started” being in constant motion and so the pc never could start it. The added command is “When I tell you to stand still, I want you to make that body stand still.” “All right?” “Stand still.”

The remainder of S-C-S is as always.

							L. RON HUBBARD 
LRH :jms.rd 
Copyright © 1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 87
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
Brunswick House, 83 Palace Gardens Terrace, London W.8

_____________________________________________________________________

5 June 1956

S C I E N T O L O G Y
TRANSLATOR’S EDITION

by L. Ron Hubbard, Ph.D., C.E.

Continued from PAB 86

SCIENTOLOGY PROCESSING

Scientology is applied in many ways to many fields. One particular and specialized method of application of Scientology is its use on individuals and groups of people in the eradication of physical illnesses deriving from mental states and the improvement of their abilities and intelligence. By processing is meant the verbal exercising of a patient (preclear) in exact Scientology processes. There is a great deal of terminology and precision in these processes and their use and they are not combinable with older mental activities such as psychiatry, psychology, psychoanalysis, yoga, massage, etc. However, these processes are capable of addressing or treating the same ills of the mind as are delineated by older methodology, with the addition that Scientology is alone in its ability to successfully eradicate those psychosomatic ills to which it is addressed and is the only science or study known which is capable of uniformly producing marked and significant increases in intelligence and general ability.

Scientology processing, amongst other things, can increase the intelligence quotient of an individual, his ability or desire to communicate, his social attitudes, his capability and domestic harmony, his fertility, his artistic creativity, his reaction time and his health.

An additional sphere of activity allied to processing is Preventive Scientology. In this branch of processing an individual is inhibited or restrained from assuming states lower than he has already suffered from. In other words the progress of tendencies, neuroses, habits and deteriorating activities can be halted by Scientology or their occurrence can be prevented. This is done by processing the individual on standard Scientology processes without particular attention to the disability involved.

Scientology processing is called “auditing” by which the auditor (practitioner) “listens and commands.” The auditor and the preclear (patient) are together out-of-doors or in a quiet place where they will not be disturbed or where they are not being subjected to interrupting influences. The purpose of the auditor is to give the preclear certain and exact commands which the preclear can follow and perform. The purpose of the auditor is to increase the ability of the preclear. The Auditor’s Code is the governing set of rules for the general activity of auditing. 

The Code follows:

THE AUDITOR’S CODE

1.  Do not evaluate for the preclear.
2.  Do not invalidate or correct the preclear’s data.
3.  Use the processes which improve the preclear’s case.
4.  Keep all appointments once made.
5.  Do not process a preclear after 10 p.m.
6.  Do not process a preclear who is improperly fed.
7.  Do not permit a frequent change of auditors.
8.  Do not sympathize with the preclear.
9.  Never permit the preclear to end the session on his own independent decision.
 10.  Never walk off from a preclear during a session.
 11.  Never get angry with a preclear.
 12.	Always reduce every communication lag encountered by continued use of the same question or process.
 13.  Always continue a process as long as it produces change and no longer.
 14.  Be willing to grant beingness to the preclear.
 15.  Never mix the processes of Scientology with those of various other practices.
 16.	Always remain in good two-way communication with the preclear during sessions.

The Auditor’s Code governs the activity of the auditor during sessions. The activity of the Scientologist in general is governed by another broader code.

THE CODE OF A SCIENTOLOGIST

As a Scientologist, I pledge myself to the Code of Scientology for the good of all:

  1. 	To hear or speak no word of disparagement to the press, public or preclears concerning any of my fellow Scientologists, our professional organization or those whose names are closely connected to this Science.

  2. 	To use the best I know of Scientology to the best of my ability to better my preclears, groups and the world.

  3. 	To refuse to accept for processing and to refuse to accept money from any preclear or group I feel I cannot honestly help.

  4. 	To punish to the fullest extent of my power anyone misusing or degrading Scientology to harmful ends.

  5. 	To prevent the use of Scientology in advertisements of other products.

  6. 	To discourage the abuse of Scientology in the press.

  7. 	To employ Scientology to the greatest good of the greatest number of dynamics.

  8. 	To render good processing, sound training and good discipline to those students or peoples entrusted to my care.

  9. 	To refuse to impart the personal secrets of my preclears.

10. 	To engage in no unseemly disputes with the uninformed on the subject of my profession.

As it can be seen, both of these codes are designed to protect the preclear as well as Scientology and the auditor in general. As these codes evolve from many years of observation and experience by a great number of people, it can be said that they are intensely important and are probably complete. Failure to observe them has resulted in a failure of Scientology. Scientology can do what it can do only when it is used within the limits of these two codes. Thus it can be seen that the interjection of peculiarities or practices by the auditor into Scientology processing can actually nullify and eradicate the benefits of that processing. Any hope or promise in Scientology is conditional upon its good use by the individual and its use in particular within the limits of these two codes.

THE CONDITIONS OF AUDITING

Certain definite conditions must prevail and a certain methodology must be followed in order that processing may be beneficial to its fullest extent.

Probably the first condition is a good grasp of Scientology as a Science and its mission in the world.

The second condition would be a relaxed state of mind on the part of the auditor and the confidence that his use of Scientology upon the preclear will not produce a harmful result.

The third requisite should be finding a preclear. By this it is literally meant that one should discover somebody willing to be processed and having discovered one so willing should then make sure that he is aware that he is there being processed.

The fourth requisite would be a quiet place in which to audit with every precaution taken that the preclear will not be interrupted or burst in upon or unduly startled during processing.

All requisites for auditing from here on are entirely concerned with procedures and processes. By auditing procedure is meant the general model of how one goes about addressing a preclear. This includes an ability to place one question, worded exactly the same way, over and over again to the preclear no matter how many times the preclear has answered the question. It should include the ability to acknowledge with a “good” and “all right” every time a preclear executes or completes the execution of a command. It should include the ability to accept a communication from the preclear. When the preclear has something to say the auditor should acknowledge the fact that he has received the preclear’s communication and should pay some attention to the communication. Procedure also includes the ability to sense when the preclear is being over-strained by processing or is being unduly annoyed and to handle such crises in the session to prevent the preclear from leaving. An auditor should also have the ability of handling startling remarks or occurrences by the preclear. An auditor should also have the knack of preventing the preclear from talking obsessively since prolonged conversation markedly reduces the havingness of the preclear and the sooner long dissertations by the preclear are cut off the better for the session in general. Processes, as distinct from procedures, consist of utilizing the principle of the gradient scale to the end of placing the preclear in better control of himself, his mind, the people and the universe around him. By gradient scale is meant a proceeding from simplicity toward greater difficulty, giving the preclear always no more than he can do, but giving him as much as he can do until he can handle a great deal. The idea here is to give the preclear nothing but wins and to refrain from giving the preclear loses in the game of processing. Thus it can be seen that processing is a team activity and is not itself a game whereby the auditor opposes and seeks to defeat the preclear and the preclear seeks to defeat the auditor, for when this condition exists there are little results in processing.

The earliest stage of auditing consists in taking over control of the preclear so as to restore to the preclear more control of himself than he has had. The most fundamental step is then location, whereby the preclear is made to be aware of the fact that he is in an auditing room, that an auditor is present and that the preclear is being a preclear. Those conditions will become quite apparent if one realizes that it would be very difficult for a son to process a father. A father is not likely to recognize anything else than the boy he raised in his auditor. Therefore the father would have to be made aware of the fact that the son was a competent practitioner before the father could be placed under control in processing. One of the most elementary commands in Scientology is “Look at me, who am I?” After a preclear has been asked to do this many times until he can do so quickly and accurately and without protest, it can be said that the preclear will have “found” the auditor.

The preclear is asked by the auditor to control, which is to say, start, change and stop (the anatomy of control) anything he is capable of controlling. In a very bad case this might be a very small object being pushed around on a table, being started and changed and stopped each time specifically and only at the auditor’s command until the preclear himself realizes that he himself can start, change and stop the object. Sometimes four or five hours spent in this exercise are very well spent on a very difficult preclear.

The preclear is then asked to start, change and stop his own body under the auditor’s specific and precise direction. In all of his commands the auditor must be careful never to give a second command before the first one has been fully obeyed. A preclear in this procedure is walked around the room and is made to start, change the direction of and stop his body, one of these at a time, in emphasis, until he realizes that he can do so with ease. Only now could it be said that a session is well in progress or that a preclear is securely under the auditor’s command. It should be noted especially that the goal of Scientology is better self-determinism for the preclear. This rules out at once hypnotism, drugs, alcohol or other control mechanisms used by other and older therapies. It will be found that such things are not only not necessary but they are in direct opposition to the goals of greater ability for the preclear.

The principal points of concentration for the auditor now become the ability of the preclear to have, the ability of the preclear to not-know and the ability of the preclear to play a game.

An additional factor is the ability of the preclear to be himself and not a number of other people such as his father, his mother, his marital partner or his children.

The ability of the preclear is increased by addressing to him the process known as the Trio. These are three questions, or rather commands.

1. 	“Look around here and tell me what you could have.” 
2. 	“Look around here and tell me what you would permit to remain in place.” 
3. 	“Now look around and tell me with what you could dispense.”

No. 1 above is used usually about ten times, then No. 2 is used five times, and No. 3 is used once. This ratio of ten, five and one would be an ordinary or routine approach to havingness. The end in view is to bring the preclear into a condition whereby he can possess or own or have whatever he sees, without further conditions, ramifications or restrictions. This is the most therapeutic of all processes, as elementary as it might seem. It is done without too much two-way communication or discussion with the preclear and it is done until the preclear can answer question one, two and three equally well. It should be noted at once that twenty-five hours of use of this process by an auditor upon a preclear brings about a very high rise in tone. By saying twenty-five hours it is intended to give the idea of the length of time the process should be used. As it is a strain on the usual person to repeat the same question over and over, it will be seen that an auditor should be well disciplined or very well trained before he audits.

In the case of a preclear who is very unable, “can’t have” is substituted for “have” in each of the above questions for a few hours until the preclear is ready for the Trio in its “have” form. This can-can’t is the plus and minus aspect of all thought and in Scientology is called by a specialized word, “dichotomy.”

The rehabilitation of the ability of the preclear to not-know is also rehabilitation of the preclear in the time stream, since the process of time consists of knowing the moment and not-knowing the past and not-knowing the future simultaneously. This process, like all other Scientology processes, is repetitive. The process is run, ordinarily, only after the preclear is in very good condition and is generally run in an exterior well-inhabited place. Here the auditor, without exciting public comment, indicates a person and asks the preclear, “Can you not-know something about that person?” The auditor does not permit the preclear to “not-know” things which the preclear already doesn’t know. The preclear “not-knows” only those things which are visible and apparent about the person. This is also run on other objects in the environment such as walls, floors, chairs and other things. The auditor should not be startled when for the preclear large chunks of the environment start to disappear. This is ordinary routine and in effect the preclear should make the entirety of the environment disappear at his own command. The environment does not disappear for the auditor. The end goal of this “not-know” process is the disappearance of the entire universe, under the preclear’s control, but only for the preclear. It will be discovered while running this that the preclear’s “havingness” may deteriorate. If this happens he was not run enough on the Trio before he was run on this process. It is only necessary in such a case to intersperse “Look around here now and tell me what you could have” with the “not know” command to keep the preclear in good condition. Drop of havingness is manifested by nervous agitation, obsessive talk or semi-unconsciousness or “dopiness” on the part of the preclear. These manifestations indicate only reduction of havingness.

The reverse of the question here is “Tell me something that you would be willing to have that person (indicated by the auditor) not-know about you.” Both sides of the question have to be run (audited). This process can be continued for twenty-five hours or even fifty or seventy-five hours of auditing with considerable benefit so long as it does not react too violently upon the preclear in terms of loss of havingness.

It should be noted that, in running either havingness or “not-know” on a preclear, the preclear may exteriorize. In other words it may become apparent, either by his observation or because the preclear informs him, that the auditor has “exteriorized” a preclear. Under “The Parts of Man” section there is an explanation of this phenomenon. In modern auditing the auditor does not do anything odd about this beyond receive and be interested in the preclear’s statement of the fact. The preclear should not be permitted to become alarmed since it is a usual manifestation. A preclear is in better condition and will audit better exteriorized than “in his head.” Understanding that an actual ability to “not-know” is an ability to erase by self-command the past without suppressing it with energy or going into any other method is necessary to help the preclear. It is the primary rehabilitation in terms of knowingness. Forgetting is a lower manifestation than “not-knowingness.”

P.A.B. No. 137
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

1 June 1958

SOME MORE CCH PROCESSES

Compiled from L. Ron Hubbard’s Research Writings and Taped Lectures to the
18th American Advanced Clinical Course

CONTROL TRIO:

After one has run CCH 0 to 5 and has brought the preclear’s body and attention under control, there are various ways of handling the case from there on. Here is a series of processes which undercuts Trio and is called “Control Trio.”

The commands for Control Trio are:

1. 	“Notice that (auditor indicates object) and get me idea of having it.”

2. 	“Notice mat (auditor indicates object) and get the idea of permitting it to continue.”

3. 	“Notice that (auditor indicates object) and get me idea of making it disappear.”

The processes should be run in that order and each one must be run flat before the next one is attempted. It is very necessary to clear the command before embarking upon the process. Preclears simply understand that “having” means that they must possess something, carry it with them wherever they go—without just leaving the mountain, chair or whatever it is, in its own space-time continuum. He gets it confused with ownership and so forth.

In Fundamentals of Thought there is an excellent definition of havingness: “The essential definition of having is to be able to touch or permeate or to direct the disposition of:”

During the running of the first command the preclear will come up with cognitions regarding the necessity of having or not having things, its goodness or badness, and will in general run out his earlier training regarding this point. It will change his conceptions which earlier religions may have implanted, such as it is “bad to have,” and run out the compulsions of “must, must not, got to, can’t have,” etc.

Find out what the preclear is doing and how he is doing this, for he should get havingness from this process and his tone should rise considerably. A change should take place within a very short period, otherwise (a) his body and attention are not under control or (b) he doesn’t understand the command and is running a different process than that which you intended.

There should be no qualifications or conditions such as “If I had the money I could buy that object and then have it,” or “I don’t like it and thus don’t want it,” or “What shall I do with it once I have got it?” It is just the ability to have without other considerations of goodness, badness, ownership or beauty going with it, and the auditor and preclear should clear such conceptions through good but non-evaluating two-way communication.

The second part of this trio brings the preclear’s sense of active participation of creativity and responsibility out, for he must grant that particular object sufficient life and beingness to allow it to “continue within its own space and time.” Preclears come up with the considerations that they have either tried to not-is objects and/or people or “withheld” something from them or tried to push them out of their environments because they didn’t like them or agree with them. This is an interesting process to put their ideas about what they should have around them back into proper perspective. They will find that there is no harm in permitting the sixth dynamic to continue in present time right where it is.

The third part of the trio is the most effective and more will be said about it in a following PAB. It is a very good exteriorizing process and the preclear will come up with many cognitions on his own and the rest of the dynamics. Here the idea is just to “get the idea of making the object disappear” instead of to dispense with it or not-know or not-is it.

This cycle can be run over and over again until it is flat, within a few minutes after the command has again given the preclear some gains.

After this, Trio (old-time Terrible Trio) can then be run with great advantage on a case who couldn’t do it before. Control Trio, which undercuts Trio, will bring out its reality level.

GOALS:

With every preclear it is most necessary to establish goals that are REAL for the PRECLEAR. You want him to have some goals which are HIS and not what grandma, father or schoolteacher desires for him. Preclears who have no real goals are working on other people’s determinism and we have to (a) establish the certainty of a future for the preclear, and (b) get him to put things in that future that he WANTS, so that he can have a future.

There is a gradient scale of processes which will establish goals which are REAL to the preclear by casual two-way communication, using the following questions:

1. 	“What are you absolutely sure will happen in the next two minutes?” one hour, three days, one week, three months, one year, etc.

Complete certainty on each time span is necessary before the auditor continues to the next time span. This is done by two-way communication, and the auditor must all the time be sure that the preclear is certain that these things are going to happen in the next two minutes (or whatever the time span is) to ensure that the process really bites.

2. 	“Tell me something that you would like to do in the next two minutes,” one hour, etc., is the next process that would put doingness and more time into that future.

On some preclears the following questions may be realer and bite faster. This is putting the accent on have instead of do, since we work from the bottom up on the Be, Do, Have triangle. They are:

3. 	“Tell me something you are sure will be there in two minutes, etc.,” and

4. 	“Tell me something you would like to have in two minutes, etc.”

The last two processes really undercut the above and are thus lower level processes and it is advisable to run them on preclears whose ability to communicate and reality level are low.

Watch out for the preclear attaching all sorts of conditions to his answers. Also work towards positive goals of “things” and not conditions such as “I want to get rid of my fears and somatics.” The latter type of preclear is working towards nothing rather than towards something. (A more positive goal of something would be “I want a stick of candy or a glass of water.”) Check for certainty at all times, for certainty strengthens reality and the reality of a future for the preclear is most essential if auditing is to succeed all the way.

LOSSES:

Why doesn’t a preclear exteriorize easily and stay exteriorized? And “Why does he get sick when one asks him to conceive a static?” is the accompanying question. The answer to this is “Losses.” The preclear associates a static with loss, and he says, “All right, if there is nothing there I’ve lost it.”

Conceiving a static is therefore painful, and whenever he lost anything something disappeared. An individual cannot conceive a static if he associates static with a loss-if it is painful. So we have to cure him of the painfulness of loss, consideration of, before we can exteriorize him easily.

We do this by going back to automaticity. The universe has been taking things away from the preclear. It has become an automaticity known as “time.” Time itself is a consecutive series of losses. So we have to cure this preclear of losses before we can get him to appreciate time, otherwise he would be so afraid of losing it that he’d park himself on the track, and this is the “stuck on the track” phenomenon.

This is done with the process “Recall a moment of loss,” sandwiched with havingness (Control Trio, Trio or Locational Processing). This gets the preclear to take over the automaticity of all of the losses which he has experienced unwillingly.

When an individual has no visio, has never seen anything, couldn’t see anything, the only thing that he is looking at is a “stuck” loss.

Recall a Moment of Loss and Goals are a lower harmonic of running Then and Now Solids and are at the moment making a bid for our chief exteriorization processes. Recall a Moment of Loss should be run with two-way communication, but not too much outflow of the preclear. Communication must at all times remain two-way. Ask the preclear “when” this happened now and again, unless, of course, he told you when he recalled the loss.

Control Trio, Goals and Recall a Moment of Loss are a combination of processes and should be run as a combination to secure the best gain for the preclear. 

A Scientologist is one who controls persons, environments and situations.

Scientology means knowing in the fullest sense of the word.

Scientology is used on Life and its forms and products.

A Scientologist operates within the boundaries of the Auditor’s Code and the Code of a Scientologist.

The chief uses of Scientology are in the fields of education, organization, mental disability and religion. Scientology is the first to give scientific meaning to these.

A Scientologist is considered a professional if he uses Scientology in any of these fields and has been thoroughly trained in Scientology.

A Scientologist is a first cousin of the Buddhist, a distant relative to the Taoist, a feudal enemy to the enslaving priest and a bitter foe of the German, Viennese and Russian defamers of Man.

The religion of the Scientologist is freedom for all things spiritual on all dynamics which means adequate discipline and knowledge to keep that freedom guaranteed.

We are the people who are ending the cycle of homo sapiens and starting the cycle of a good earth.

There is no barrier on our path except those we make ourselves.

Our ability belongs to all worlds everywhere.

P.A.B. No. 146
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD
Via Hubbard Communications Office
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

_____________________________________________________________________

15 October 1958

PROCEDURE CCH

(This lecture is a final summing up of the previous CCH PABs [interrupted at PAB No. 138] and should be read after those have been digested. It was given by L. Ron Hubbard to the HGC staff auditors in Washington, D.C. on 23 August 1957.

Thinkingness in general should not be suspected to be under anybody’s control. It is probably more under the auditor’s control than it is under the preclear’s.

When I say or ask “Is the preclear’s thinkingness under control?” I want you to understand that it is less under the preclear’s control at any time than under the auditor’s. The auditor can certainly control the preclear’s thinkingness better than the preclear can. But before you can do this you must first get the preclear’s body and attention under control.

A condition to running Trio is: Is the person and attention under your control? To assume that the power of choice is also under the preclear’s control—much less his thinkingness—is, of course, completely wrong.

This condition then moves Trio way up on the present scale of processes. In order to give the preclear some havingness after CCH 0 to 5 has been flattened, I have developed an undercut to Trio.

Trio is a directive process and should be prefaced by “Get the idea of having that clock.” “Get the idea of having that picture (indicated picture on the wall),” etc. That’s highly directive and would keep thinkingness of a rough case under control.

The second version is: “Get the idea that it is all right to permit that (indicated object) to continue.” It is also just an indicating process.

The third section of this trio is the clincher: “Get the idea of making that (indicated object) disappear.” One runs “disappear” instead of “dispense with” or “not-know.”

Small objects are much easier for the preclear to make disappear than large ones. You have not told him to make it disappear but only to “get the idea of making it disappear.” Preclears usually literally interpret you and try like mad to make it disappear—and it usually does for a short time.

I have solved the enigma of exteriorization. Why doesn’t a preclear exteriorize easily and stay exteriorized? We ask the accompanying question: Why does a preclear get sick when one asks him to conceive a static? Obviously we would have to get somebody to conceive a static before he could himself stay comfortably outside his body’s head.

The answer to this problem is contained in the process “Recall a moment of loss.” Loss prevents the preclear from conceiving a static. He associates a static with loss. He says, “All right, if there is nothing there I’ve lost it,” or “I’ve lost something there, therefore I’d better not conceive a static.”

Conceiving a static is therefore painful. The truth of the matter is whenever he lost anything, something disappeared. All right. The funny part of it is that he never noticed that he didn’t lose totally every time. He still had other objects. He lost his tie pin, but he still has his tie. He’s still got the floor, the room, this universe, space, etc., but he never realizes this in these instances and that is why we run this process “Recall a moment of loss” to accustom somebody to conceiving a static very directly on loss and to get him to exteriorize.

An individual cannot conceive a static if he associates static with loss—if the loss is painful. So we have to cure him of the painfulness of loss, consideration of, before we can exteriorize him easily.

We do this by going back to automaticity. The universe has been taking things away from him. It has become an automaticity, and we find that the universe has an automaticity known as time and time itself is a consecutive series of losses. So we have to cure the preclear of losses before we can get him to appreciate time, otherwise he would be so afraid of losing it that he’d stick himself on the track and we get the “stuck on the track” phenomenon.

The process “Recall a moment of loss” aimed at this, but the third command of Control Trio (as this series of processes had better be called), “Get the idea of making that (indicated object) disappear,” handles it very well. This gets the preclear to take over the automaticity of all of the losses which he has unwillingly experienced.

The universe has been taking the things away from him, and just spotting objects and getting the idea that they are going to disappear or are disappearing takes over the automaticity of losses, and he becomes accustomed to it after a while.

All of the invisible masses that preclears have around them are actually simply symptoms of mass—loss, mass—loss. When an individual has no visio the only thing that he is looking at is a “stuck” loss. He is looking at the nothingness of something that was there.

So one takes over that automaticity with the third command of Control Trio and one therefore has a very highly directional, workable set of processes.

Each part of that Trio would be run relatively flat and go on to the next part, and I would say that one would run each part certainly not a hundred commands each and the auditor should endeavor to stay in that order of magnitude and just run it round and round.

Take somebody with glasses, for example. His eyesight will do more tricks in less time on this third command of Control Trio than one can imagine. Things will go black. Well, why do things go black? Blackness makes things disappear and one takes over the automaticity of blackness to make things disappear. Night grabs, the way of the universe, once in every 24 hours on earth here. This is the process we have been looking for to turn on visio.

If you want to turn on sonic with this you would have to go down to a noisy part of town and just run Trio on sound, but you wouldn’t dare run Control Trio on sound if the preclear did not already have it flat on objects. Visio turns on before sonic.

There are many things one could do with this process. People who have anaesthetized areas in their body—like they have no chest, etc.—do weird things during this process.

I wanted to tell you particularly about this particular process because it is a specific and will be found to be very useful to you. We had to find out if one version of this would run without killing a preclear and that is “Recall a moment of loss.” Actually “Recall a moment of loss” should act as a havingness process because it as-ises all of the lost points on the track and it should be a havingness process all by itself; but we didn’t want to be so bold as to run it with no havingness.

(Until I find out differently, this Control Trio and “Recall a moment of loss” are making a bid for our chief exteriorization processes.)

Now here is a process which is based on our old “Recall a secret.” The version is entirely straight wire. The auditor explains to the preclear that he is not looking for hidden data to evaluate it. He is only asking the preclear to look at the data. He then makes a list of valences, paying great attention to those the preclear considers “unimportant” or is very slow to divulge. Then the auditor takes this list and runs repetitive straight wire ( 1951 ) as follows: “Think of something you might withhold from (valence).”

The auditor repeats this question over and over until no communication lag is present. He never says “something else you might withhold from valence” because the auditor wants the preclear to think of some of these many times.

Before selecting another valence the auditor runs a little Locational or Trio. He then takes the next valence the same way. The list is covered once and then the same list is covered again. The object is speed. Cover many people. Given time the auditor can do the same thing on all dynamics.

There is a variation. Instead of a valence, body parts may be used. “Think of something you might withhold from that (body part).” Leave sexual parts or obvious psychosomatic difficulties until last. Don’t begin on a withered arm, for example.

It is amusing to realize that this process overlords all early psychotherapies, but they, using this effort to locate secrets, thought that divulgence and confession were the therapeutic agents. These have no bearing on workability. Further, early efforts naively thought there was one secret per case. Actually there are billions. It is easy to get into past lives on this. A basic secret is that one lived before.

Whenever you run “withhold” on a valence you finish up with “can’t have” on the valence and “have” for the preclear. It flattens off better that way.

You will often find that it is more advantageous to run Locational Processing than Problems of Comparable or Incomparable Magnitude at times. A Problem of Comparable Magnitude is all right, but it is a thinkingness process and on a case that is having an awful lot of trouble with it, it gives them hell to run Locational Processing, but nevertheless it does run out the present time problem, which is most fascinating.

Any one of the Rudiments is an excellent process. Two-Way Communication is great and does not as-is havingness. You have to keep the reality of two-way comm very high, though, and be willing to interrupt obsessive outflows and silences of the preclear. It is establishing a high level of reality. It consists of the auditor feeding experimental data to the preclear to have him look it over and decide about it one way or the other. You don’t let the preclear in Two-Way Comm as-is everything he knows, thinks, or wants to do.

The latest addition to the Rudiments is “Clearing the Auditor.” Actually the crudest way known of clearing the auditor is “Who do I remind you of?” “Tell me

something you like about me.” The best way of clearing the auditor we know of is in Training 15, which is “Could I help you?” “How?” “Could you help me?” “How?” “Could I help anybody else?” “How?” “Could you help anybody else?” “How?” “Do other people ever help other people?” “Do women ever help women?” “Do men ever help men?” “Do men ever help women?” etc. You beat it to pieces on a big long bracket.

This goes so far that it becomes a fantastic process in itself. You take father and mother valences and they are usually quite hot. You can run this on “Help.” This is usually quite necessary on a case that is going to hang up because the only reason he is sitting there is to waste help.

One has to understand that this case is trying to waste help, and it isn’t a matter of “Find the Auditor” in the Rudiments today, but “Clear the Auditor” and the only point on which he is cleared is “Help”—”Can I help you? Can you help me?”

We use Handbook for Preclears to give the preclear some homework at the Hubbard Guidance Centers and it has been helping out just to the degree that it does some clarification on goals and gets the preclear stirred up. It simply stirs up the case so that it will run out.

I was running over a phrenological questionnaire, and it said people are never permitted to do anything they want to do and this is the best goal of discipline. I got this tangled out in one way or the other. I got thinking about it from the standpoint— this was about 20 years ago—of “I wonder if there is anybody around that could articulate with great conciseness what he would like to do?” And I have found on all hands a failure to articulate was the main difficulty. A person had the feeling that he wanted to do something and that it would be wonderful, but it was all in a sensory capacity. If he could have been made to articulate this it would really have been something. And I experimented on it a little bit and we see that today in the Handbook for Preclears.

If you can get a person to articulate in a session anything about the future you have won the subject of goals. But it must be in the alignment of this person’s frame of reference. It must be aligned with his life—not aligned with something we think he ought to live.

So let’s take a look at the clearance of goals. Goals would not be likely to run on a high generality. In other words, they are specific, personal and intimate. It is “What do you think? What do you want? What is aligned to your life?”

Let’s look at Goals as a process. One could run Goals for 25 hours with the greatest of ease. One could run the Present Time Problem for 25 hours, and we just had a report of a terrific win here on a preclear who was run on Locational for 25 hours. So it looks as though the Rudiments could be the session.

We discover a preclear in the terrible condition of not wanting any auditing, not going any place and all of his goals being somebody else’s goals. Two things can be done immediately: Clear the auditor and then run Goals.

Goals could be run with two-way comm in this manner. You ask the preclear what he is absolutely sure would happen in the next couple of minutes, the next hour, a day from now, a week from now, one month from now and one year from now. We want something that the preclear is absolutely sure would happen.

We are running right there the reverse process of atomic bombs which say “no future—no future—no future.” That is basically what is wrong with a person. Why does he get jammed on the track? It is because of “no future.” He had been denied to a point where his loss was so great that he dared not own.

I had a case, by the way, which was one of the roughest cases I have ever run into. He put on the total appearance of being sane—dramatized sanity—and yet the case would make odd remarks like “I really think people are crazy.” “Well, why do you think people are crazy?” I would say. “Well, because people say they can tell right from wrong and you know there’s no difference.” It was fascinating. He would make odd remarks like this from time to time.

One day he made a remark on goals: “Well, it’s really best to tell people that things cannot happen to them because otherwise they might hope they could and then they would be disappointed.”

This person was stark, staring mad and had no future of any kind. Five hours just this one question, “Is there anything going to happen in the remainder of this afternoon?” “Will anything happen the rest of today?” “Is there anything going to occur any place in the world the rest of today?” was run on him and his confident answer, with great certainty was, “No. No. No.”

Finally we broke through it and I finally got the person to admit that there was some slight possibility that there would be a room here for the rest of the day. That busted the case. It read from total no-future up.

This case was an isolated one as we have had occasionally. Now and then an inspirational sort of process cracked them through. Well, now we see this process of Goals on the basis of futures and a person without futures cannot have a fancy future called a goal and all a goal is is a fancy future determined by the person. If he has no future at all determined by anybody, then he isn’t going to go anywhere from that point and any goal he has is totally unreal.

The best way that I know of to clear up a goal is as follows (with two-way comm): “Is there anything that is going to happen in the next couple of minutes?” We get this thrashed out until he has got some great big certainty that there will be something a couple of minutes from now. Then we gradiently move it up and we get certainties at each one of these stages and levels—regardless of on what.

The person knows there is going to be a future there. Now let’s have him put something in this future he has now created. He has created a future and has certainty on it. Now let’s put some desire in the future and we get a goal.

“Now what would you like to have happen in the next couple of minutes?” or “What would you like to do in the next couple of minutes, tomorrow, next week, etc?” We will get weird things which have no desire in them; they will all be get-rid-of’s, and if you finally plowed him down on it he would get down to the bottom of the ladder, which is “Knock this body off right now.” And when he says, “I would like to get over my fear of darkness, I would like to get over feeling bad every time my mother screams at me,” these aren’t desires. These are run-aways, flinches. These are “Let’s not confront it,” “Let’s get out of the universe; let’s scram,” and the final result is the basic postulate, “If I could just get rid of this body right this instant I would be all right.”

So that process doesn’t even vaguely get flat unless there is a real goal like “I’d like to have a stick of candy.” That is a goal, a real goal.

Preclears will modify their goals in some way or another: “Of course, I can’t because I have to work and I don’t have any money,” and “yak, yak, yak.” They are modified goals, and as long as they modify them they don’t have a goal because they are making a postulate and the MEST universe is kicking the postulate in on them. So we do this on a gradient scale of time so that goals become real to them.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 34
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11

_____________________________________________________________________

4 September 1954

With this issue of the Professional Auditor’s Bulletin begins a new series by L. Ron Hubbard entitled A BASIC COURSE IN SCIENTOLOGY. The bulletins in this series are planned to cover the period of at least one year. This Basic Course consists of numerous articles by Ron on the theory and techniques of present day Scientology. The experienced professional auditor will find this an excellent source of review; the newcomer will have available a wealth of new data in easily used and highly understandable form.

OPENING PROCEDURE, SOP-8-C

A Basic Course in Scientology—Part 1

Because many people write to me requesting information on how to run a particular technique, and because the greater portion of such inquiries are on how to get a case running, this process is here outlined for your use as the first part of the Basic Course. Having once run this Opening Procedure, SOP-8-C on a so-called “tough case,” you will not require any further reassurance or sales talk about it. And having it run thoroughly on yourself by an auditor skilled in its use will adequately demonstrate its workability.

IMPORTANT: IN PROCESSING PSYCHOTICS AND NEUROTICS OF WHATEVER DEGREE OR THOSE HAVING PSYCHOSOMATIC AILMENTS OF ANY TYPE, USE ONLY OPENING PROCEDURE, 8-C, EACH PART, UNTIL THE PERSON IS SURE WHO IS DOING IT. USE ONLY OPENING PROCEDURE, SOP-8-C UNTIL THE CASE IS FULLY SANE. USE NO OTHER PROCESS OF ANY KIND.

The entire modus operandi of Opening Procedure 8-C consists in having the preclear move his body around the room under the auditor’s direction until (a) he finds he is in actual communication with many spots on the surface of things in the room, (b) until he can select spots in the room and know that he is selecting them and can communicate with them, and (c) select spots and move to them, decide when to touch them and when to let go. Each one of these steps is done until the auditor is well assured that the preclear has no communication lag.

The auditing commands for part (a) are as follows: “Do you see that chair?” “Go over to it and put your hand on it.” “Now look at that lamp.” “Now walk over to it and put your hand on it.” This is done with various objects, without specifically designating spots of a more precise nature than an object, until the preclear is very certain that he is in good communication with these objects and walls and other parts of the room.

The above is run until the following manifestations of communication lag (and any others you may encounter) are well erased: the preclear just brushing the object he is told to touch, looking away from it very quickly, not looking at it at all, looking at the auditor instead of the object he was told to touch, carrying out the command before it is given such as going over to touch the lamp when all the auditor has said is “Do you see that lamp?”, complaining about the process in any way, objecting to being ordered to do the actions, unwillingness to touch the items designated, putting all his attention on creating an effect on the auditor, and apathy, grief, anger, fear and boredom turned on by this process.

When the above has been accomplished the auditor can say anything he pleases, or seemingly introduce any significance he wishes to so long as he hews very closely to the actual thing in this method which makes it work—which is to say perceiving the physical universe and making contact with it. At this time the auditor can become very specific about the selection of spots for the preclear to touch. “Do you see that black mark on the left arm of that chair?” “Go over and touch it with your right index finger.” “Now take your finger off it.” “Do you see the lower bolt on the light switch plate?” “Now go over to it and touch it with your left ring finger.” “Now take your finger off it,” and so forth until the preclear has a uniform perception of any and all objects in the room including the walls, the floor and the ceiling. This step can be kept up for a long time. It has an infinity of variations. But it is not the variations which work, it is the making and breaking of communication with the actual designated spots. You can do the following at this point: make certain the preclear is doing the process by asking questions such as, “Are you touching the door knob?” “Where is the door knob?” “What is its shape?” “What is its color?” “What sort of texture does it have?” “Are you sure you are touching it?” “Can you feel it?” “Look at it.” “Who is touching it?” “Whose hand is on that door knob?” “Who is holding your hand there?” “Where is that door knob?” “When is it there?” You can badger the preclear in the above fashion until his actions show that he is in communication with the object and until he is not angered by your questioning and direction.

IF AT ANY TIME THERE IS ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE PRECLEAR’S CASE DO THIS STEP [PART (a)] UNTIL SATISFIED THAT COMMUNICATION IS GOOD. A CASE WHICH WILL NOT OBEY 8-C (a) ORDERS WILL ALWAYS PERVERT OR ALTER COMMANDS TO BE PERFORMED WITH LESS SUPERVISION THAN PERCEPTION OF HIS BODY.

Part (b) has these auditing commands: “Find a spot in this room.” No further designation is necessary for this spot. Spotting procedure gives the preclear determinism of selection. When the preclear has done this the auditor says, “Go over to it and put your finger on it.” When the preclear has done this the auditor says, “Now let go of it.” It must be emphasized that the preclear is not to act upon a command until the command is given and must not let go until told to let go. The preclear is permitted to select spots until such time as all communication lag is flat and until he is freely selecting spots on the walls, objects, chairs, etc., with no specialization whatsoever— which means that his perception of the room has become uniform. Many things turn up in running this procedure such as the fact that the preclear cannot look at walls, etc.

Part (c) of this procedure is run with these auditing commands: “Find a spot in the room.” “Make up your mind when you are going to touch it and then touch it.” “Make up your mind when you are going to let go of it, and let go.” A variation of this process is to have the preclear make up his mind about a spot and then have him change his mind and select another spot.

The trouble with most cases, and the trouble with any case which is hung up and is not progressing, is that an insufficient quantity of Opening Procedure 8-C has been used by the auditor. This has been found to be an invariable rule. Preclears will pretend to run commands of a subjective nature but not run them at all. In other words, the auditor is saying do one thing and the preclear is doing quite another. Thus the process is not actually being used on the preclear. The difficulty in this case is a specific difficulty in communication where the preclear cannot duplicate. But more important than that, any preclear whose case is hanging up is out of touch with reality and the environment to such an extent that he has begun to do processes on mock-ups rather than on the actual physical universe. It will be discovered that doing processes on mock-ups such as finding spots in them, finding distances to them, and so forth is productive of no gain, and even negative gain. Only processes which directly address the physical universe are found to raise the tone of the preclear. He has to come to full tolerance of it before he can get out of it. Thus any case bogging down somewhere in more intricate procedures can be relieved and brought into present time by Opening Procedure 8-C. The only caution on the part of the auditor is that he must be very precise about giving his orders and must insist on the preclear being very certain that he is actually seeing spots and touching them and inhibiting the preclear from executing the commands before they are given.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

R2-16: RUN PRECLEAR THROUGH OPENING PROCEDURE OF 8-C PARTS (A), (B), (C), EACH ONE UNTIL THE PHYSICAL COMMUNICATION LAG STABILIZES. THE AUDITOR SHOULD MAKE SURE AT FIRST WHILE RUNNING STEP (A) THAT THE SPOTS HE DESIGNATES ARE HIGHLY GENERALIZED AND ARE NOT SMALL AREAS UNTIL THE PRECLEAR CAN BE DIRECTED TO SMALL AND PRECISE SPOTS

(Exerpted from Book: Creation of Human Ability)

The entire modus operandi of Opening Procedure of 8-C consists in having the preclear move his body around the room under the auditor’s direction until (A) he finds he is in actual communication with many spots on the surface of things in the room, (B) until he can select spots in the room and know that he is selecting them and can communicate with them, and (C) select spots and move to them, decide when to touch them and when to let go. Each one of these steps is done until the auditor is well assured that the preclear has no communication lag.

The auditing commands are as follows: ‘Do you see that chair?’ ‘Go over to it and put your hand on it’, ‘Now look at that lamp’, ‘Now walk over to it an put your hand on it. This is done with various objects without specifically designating spots of a more precise nature than an object until the preclear is very certain that he is in good communication with these objects and the walls and other parts of the room. The auditor can say anything he pleases, or seemingly introduce any significance he wishes to so long as he hews very closely to the actual thing in this method which makes it work -- which is to say, perceiving the physical universe and making contact with it. Part (A) has been enlarged by the auditor’s selecting exact spots. ‘Do you see that black mark on the left arm of that chair?’ ‘All right, go over to it and put your finger on it’, ‘Now take your finger off it’, ‘Do you see the lower bolt on that light switch?’ ‘All right, go over to it and put your finger on it’, ‘Take your finger off it’. And so forth until the preclear has a UNIFORM PERCEPTION of any and all objects in the room including the walls, the floor and the ceiling. This step can be kept up for a long time. It has an infinity of variations. But it is not the variations which work, it is the making and breaking of communication with the actual designated spots.

IF AT ANY TIME THERE IS ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE PRECLEAR’S CASE DO THIS STEP, PART (A), UNTIL SATISFIED THAT COMMUNICATION IS GOOD. A CASE WHICH WILL NOT OBEY OPENING PROCEDURE 8-C (A) ORDERS WILL ALWAYS PERVERT OR ALTER COMMANDS TO BE PERFORMED WITH LESS SUPERVISION THAN PERCEPTION OF HIS BODY.

Part (B) has these auditing commands, ‘Find a spot in this room’. No further designation is necessary for this spot. Spotting procedure gives the preclear determinism of selection. When the preclear has done so the auditor says, ‘Go over to it and put your finger on it’. When the preclear has done this the auditor says, ‘Now let go of it’. It must be emphasized that the preclear is not to act upon a command until the command is given and must not let go until told to let go. The preclear is permitted to select spots until such time as all communication lag is flat and until he is freely selecting spots on the walls, objects, chairs, etc. with no specialization whatsoever -which means that his perception of the room has become uniform. Many things turn up in running this procedure such as the fact that the preclear cannot look at walls, etc.

Part (C) of this procedure is run with these auditing commands, ‘Find a spot in the room’, ‘Make up your mind when you are going to touch it and then touch it’, ‘Make up your mind when you are going to let go of it, and let go’. A variation of this process is to have the preclear make up his mind about a spot and then have him change his mind and select another spot.

The trouble with most cases, and the trouble with any case which is hung up and is not progressing, is that an insufficient quantity of Opening Procedure 8-C has been used by the auditor. This has been found to be an invariable rule. Preclears will pretend to run commands of a subjective nature but not run them at all. In other words, the auditor is saying do one thing and the preclear is doing quite another.  Thus the process is not actually being used on the preclear. The difficulty in this case is a specific difficulty in communication where the preclear cannot duplicate. But more important than that, any preclear whose case is hanging up is out of touch with reality and the environment to such an extent that he has begun to do processes on mock-ups rather than on the actual physical universe. It will be discovered that doing processes on mock-ups such as finding spots in them, finding distances to them, and so forth is productive of no gain, and even negative gain. Only processes which directly address the physical universe are found to raise the tone of the preclear. He has to come up to full tolerance of it before he can get out of it. Thus any case bogging down somewhere in more intricate procedures can be relieved and brought into present time by 8-C.  The only caution on the part of the auditor is that he must be very precise about giving his orders and must insist on the preclear being very certain that he is actually seeing spots and touching them and inhibiting the preclear from executing the commands before they are given.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 MAY 1960

All Fran Auditors
Assoc Secs
HCO Secs

HELP

We have known for some time the importance of the button Help. It is first and foremost amongst the key buttons of Scientology. Thoroughly clearing Help alone, and on back track terminals, has made clears.

 In an essay published on the otherwise unpublished Students’ Manual, I stressed the fact that unless the preclear and the auditor had Help straightened out they were not not likely to make very much progress. Help is the key button which admits auditing. The remaining buttons of Control, Communication and Interest, give us a session. But ill we cannot even start presessioning with any other button than Help.

Since the winter of 1957/58 when this was used in an American ACC I have been working with this trying to get a better understanding of it for you.

It now appears that Help is the make-break point between sanity and insanity. That a person cannot accept help along some minor line does not mean that he is insane, but it certainly means he has some neurotic traits.

The inference level of this condition of aberration on the subject of Help would be a fear of dependency. This means that Help has already gone wrong with the person. We see in children occasionally an enormous striving to be self-reliant. We ordinarily applaud this but if we inspect the child carefully we will find that resistance to being helped goes along with an obsession to help. Parents themselves, disbelieving that the child can help them, usually inhibit the child’s help and thus worsen the condition. I have seen one child go downhill to “normal” by reason of a thwarting of help by the parents. But no matter how fondly the psychologist used to believe in the nineteenth century that childhood was a good pattern to use for estimating future social conduct, we in Scientology know that the child has already become aberrated on the subject before it is manifested in this light.

My examinations have now led me to the conclusion that a person has a make-break point of sanity on any given subject. This point is help. On the tone scale it would compare at 2.0 for any dynamic. The whole index of a personality could be adjudicated by an examination of the person’s reactions to various types of help. Above this point a person can help, and can be helped, providing, of course, the help is sincere, and really is help. Below this point help becomes betrayal.

Help is always betrayal to a thoroughly aberrated person. This explains a great deal to us when we understand it. The first example that comes readily to notice is the reaction of a very low scale pc undergoing auditing. He invariably thinks, and may even sometimes tell the auditor, that the auditor has not helped him but betrayed him.

All auditing protests except those against flagrant breaches of code denote a breakdown of the help button in the auditing session. While it does no good to run Help on a preclear and continue while running it to repeat flagrant code breaks, it does do a great deal of good to clarify the whole subject of help if a session seems to be full of ARC breaks, no matter what the auditor tries to do to patch them up.

It is unfortunately true that help can be as wrong with the auditor as it can be with the preclear where we have uncleared people doing auditing. However, it has been my experience that even while some of their efforts were completely knuckleheaded, practically no auditors exist who are not sincerely trying to help the preclear. The trouble comes about when the preclear clips the effort of the auditor into the category of betrayal. This makes the auditor react against the preclear, and the situation deteriorates.

We have, in the immediate past of this civilization, the deterioration of several of the practices which began as a sincere effort to help and which are not now classifiable as anything better than betrayal. Psychiatry and medicine are both good examples of this. The person who goes to a psychiatrist usually finds himself betrayed. He does not receive help, he receives brutality in the form of electric shocks, brain surgery and other degrading experiences. Even in the highest form of psychiatry it was common advice for the psychiatrist to tell the wife that the best cure for her troubles was to betray her husband, and vice versa.

The psychiatrist was caught in this help-betrayal deterioration. Psychiatry had so long attempted to help the insane without success that at last they began to Q and A with their patients. Of course, to an insane patient help is always betrayal. Medicine is now going a similar course unwittingly, and has lost most of its public repute through not having stayed on a research line that would bring medicine upscale, but continued with a line of application which considered man a body and would not consider him anything else. Considering a person to be a “hunk of meat” is a sort of a betrayal in itself. Naturally one betrays a thetan when he regards the thetan as a piece of meat.

World War Two pretty well saw the end of the last dregs of sincere help in psychiatry, most governments involved in the war employed psychiatry, it now turns out, for political purposes. They were set a very good example by one, Hitler. Thus the last embers of sincere help in psychiatry were more or less extinguished. Nothing like this would happen in Scientology because we are dealing with basic truths rather than basic ambitions. Where ambition becomes greater than truth any sphere of activity goes to pieces. Indeed, in the final analysis that is the fundamental deterioration of the track.

Another excellent example is found in the Mau-Mau uprising in Kenya. The terrorists killed only twenty whites as compared to thousands of natives, but the whites they chose to kill were only those who had sought to help them. The Kikuyu was evidently completely certain that anyone seeking to help him was only betraying him. Their reaction, then, in killing their best friends becomes more understandable. The action remains insane, but in their frame of reference it was entirely comprehensible. Any time we go about the task of handling large bodies of insane people or illiterate and fearful native populaces, we would do well to keep in mind the importance of this help button, realizing that to these help is totally betrayal. The thing to betray is this help-betrayal identification, not the people.

If you sort this out and find your own examples and see whether or not it holds true for you, I think you have a small gasp of relief coming to you. No Scientologist has been without a preclear who has not become absolutely certain somewhere in the course of auditing that the entire goal of the auditor was to betray. This left one hanging with an unsolved riddle. Our own sincerity was beyond question. How to be misinterpreted this wildly was so incomprehensible that we often assigned the reasons to ourselves. Perhaps some of these reasons did lie with ourselves. Nevertheless, in the final analysis the only thing we did wrong was not to clear the Help button with the preclear.

CLEARING HELP

There are many ways to clear the Help button. As this is the first step on presessioning, it may be that the button has to be cleared several times in the course of auditing.

The first thing to do is to put the preclear on a meter. If you don’t have a good meter, and you don’t know what a meter does, order one fast and get instruction. Discuss help with the preclear, and note the needle reactions. If the needle tended to stiffen and stick on any discussion of help, then you have your work set out for you. If the needle remains free and continues to be free on the subject of help, no matter what you run or how you discuss it, of course the button remains free.

It is important that any attack you make upon this button be continued as a presession activity for auditing period after auditing period, if necessary, until the meter needle is free on this subject. There is no need to go on, in fact there is no point in going on, if the preclear thinks that you are going to betray. Somewhere this will manifest itself as ARC breaks, the whole auditing programme will go to pieces, and you will wind up without a preclear, as well as an unfinished cycle of action. So pay attention to what I tell you here, where auditing is concerned: work with help and nothing but help until the needle is free on the subject.

What processes should you run? The first process, of course, is ordinary two-way comm. One discusses the preclear helping others and others helping the preclear. One gets the preclear’s views on the subject of help, and without evaluating for the preclear, lets the preclear express these views.

The next process is Help on a two-way bracket. This is, “How could you help me?”, alternated with “How could I help you?” Do not expect this to do very much to the tone arm, because it won’t. A two-way flow of this character is not a reliable way to bring a tone arm down. But it does do something, and does tend to free up the needle on this particular subject.

The old five-way bracket on help can then be employed: “How could you help another person?” “How could another person help another person?” “How could another person help you?” “How could you help me?” “How could I help you?”

This is a rough bracket but it is useful and should not be dropped out of the repertoire.

Is there any process which would clear up the help button thoroughly and totally?

Naturally, since it moved forward again into such importance, I have been doing work on it and have developed up to a stage of conditional application (which means, I leave myself free to change my mind when broad experience has been gained) a new way of loosening up any solution. I have been applying this to the central buttons in Scientology and have found it working. The general formula is to take the button one wants to clear and ask the pc what problem a certain solution could be to him.

Applying this to help, one would repetitively ask the pc, “What problem could help be to you?”

I first used this on the button responsibility with very good results, since I found that responsibility is very aberrated in its reactive definitions and, because one is often being a valence, is run irresponsibly. This version of running responsibility to a flat point seems to be quite workable.

If the preclear is inventing answers rather than picking them up off the track, you might do better to ask him the following version, “What problem has help been to you?” If invention was present one always has the remedy, in spite of the fact that no terminal is apparently present, of running, “What help could you confront?” “What help would you rather not confront?” I don’t know how far this would go as I have not tested it over a long period, but at least in its first stages it works. Responsibility, oddly enough, can be run on a no-mass terminal or significance. I have not had much chance to test out confront, but on the theory that anything you could run responsibility on you could also run confront on, I would say at first glance this is probably a workable process. I will know more about it soon and I would appreciate your telling me anything you have on it.

You have, therefore, several processes by which help can be flattened. Unfortunately, none of these processes reach an unconscious or insane person. Of course, when I say unconscious, I mean somebody with his eyes shut, and when I say insane, I mean somebody who is institutionalized, and should be. In the matter of the unconscious person, you have the CCHs and you also have them with the insane person to some extent. However, the best thing for an insane person is not processing, but rest, and when the person has had considerable rest, still processing is not yet the answer, exercise is. And when the person has had some exercise over a long period of time, you will find that group processing with other insane persons is still better than individual auditing. Only at this time is it possible to do very much for the insane. The first reason, of course, that one takes this approach is the auditor. Why attack large numbers of insane cases with individual auditing when other methods are far more economical and efficacious, so long as those other methods are only rest, exercise, group processing, hobby work, and such. Efforts to reach the insane with help, of course, simply restimulate the insane idea that help is betrayal. This is why psychiatry resorted to such savage and bestial “treatments” as shock and surgery. They were up against people who apparently would not be helped. Thus psychiatry went into total effect. This is why psychiatry failed, and is in a failed state today and has lost all of its public repute.

People have been betrayed so often on the whole track that it is no wonder they get help mixed up with betrayal, but help became betrayal only at those periods of the track where the dwindling spiral had been reached for any civilization. Even the upstanding Roman by the third century A.D. was happily using the political mechanism of inviting all the Germanic chiefs, that would accept, to feasts and then poisoning them, after vast assurances that Rome was about to help the chief’s country. A deterioration of help can occur on any dynamic and in any area, but, as I said above, it occurs at the make-break point of sanity-insanity.

One word on all this. The preclear may be sane analytically and still react violently at times in session. Remember that he is reacting in session because he has been thrown into the area of his reactive mind. In reactive zones and areas help is almost always betrayal. Thus when running a rough engram do not be amazed to find the pc (whom you have carefully cleared on the subject of help) getting rabid about betrayal. He is in the middle of an engram and, of course, the hard core of any engram is betrayal. Don’t break off and start running help on him, just run him on through the engram. He will come out of it all right, if you do your job. Help should be handled as a presession process and should be handled well and thoroughly and if in any series of sessions the preclear’s idea of help apparently deterioriates, you have gotten him into a series of incidents where help is betrayal and he should be cleared once more as a presession activity in some later session on the subject of help.

There are many possible processes, there are many possible approaches. As a Scientologist, understanding this, you should not permit yourself too far into the frame of mind of believing a pc is evil or cannot be helped, simply because he apparently will not be helped. All pcs can be helped. Most pcs have aberrated ideas on the subject. It’s up to you to take hold of these as a first order of business and clean them up, at least until the meter needle is free on the subject, no matter how many hours that takes.

								L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:js.gh.rd							
Copyright © 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 NOVEMBER 1960
Franchise
Holders
FAILED HELP

Probably the most sensational case cracker of all time is Failed Help.

In that the pc has many times tried to help his own case and failed, the most accessible button is failed help.

This is run as “Who have you failed to help?” “What have you failed to help?” alternately. More difficult cases run on either one or the other. It can be distracting when the pc hits an automaticity on who or what. However even the alternate version will win.

This flattens PTPs and ARC breaks, so on a very low case whose havingness is down, the rudiments may be omitted the first few sessions.

Failed Help may also be run on a terminal. If the pc is always having PTPs with a certain type of terminal (woman, man, etc) then failed help can be run in a specific or general fashion. How have you failed to help your wife? This is run repetitively. Or: How could you fail to help a woman?

A lower dichotomy could be run in this fashion. How could you prevent help? How could you fail to help? This last pair are experimental. They would be run alternately.

While running failed help one should attempt every now and then to find the pc’s havingness process.

If the pc’s havingness process cannot be found even with overts off, run failed help as above, but continue to search for the havingness process at least once a session. If failed help is running very well indeed do not chop into it to search for the havingness process. Do that toward the end of the session.

A quarter of a division of the Tone Arm in three hours auditing is a good shift for a low case on failed help. Do not expect big changes at first.

As any failed help run is good, it’s all right to make an error and use it on cases that could have better gains on something else. Cases that don’t need it move the least on the Tone Arm with it.

No one has yet run 75 hours of failed help on a previous CCH case. So I cannot tell you how much it will take or how far it will go. But I would be prepared to run 75 hours of it of the Who—What version on a case before it could run a havingness process.

This is a marvellous process. I thoroughly recommend it. Just be careful not to lay in ARC breaks and try to keep the case coaxed along and I think you’ll make it with some version of failed help on cases we found hard to start before.

LRH:js.cden 							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 NOVEMBER 1960
Franchise
Holders

FORMULA 13

I am having very good luck undercutting beginning or old unmoving cases in Scientology by using a new formula called Formula 13. This consists of running failed help as the confront process and O/W on specific present time terminals as the havingness process.

Failed Help is almost the lowest rung of help processes. It is run with the commands “Who have you failed to help?” “What have you failed to help?” alternated. There’s a lower help process than this. That is “Who have you intended not to help?” “Who have you helped?”, but this is not Formula 13.

Overt Withhold is a havingness process. This comes about since havingness is duplication and one will not care to duplicate what he has overts against. Therefore the source of low havingness is overts against people and mest. It might be commented that overts against mest are more important than against people in the reduction of havingness, but this again is not Formula 13.

The essence of running Formula 13 is running in model session form a little failed help, with O/W on a present time terminal. It is done in this fashion. One opens the session, even uses Presession I if needed, does rudiments using O/W to clear PTPs and ARC breaks, and then does about ten minutes on failed help. Then he makes an assessment from a prepared list of people the pc knows in PT, and assesses for a needle fall on one of these. Then O/W is run on that specific person until the fall vanishes regardless of TA position, and returns to failed help for ten minutes or so, then reassesses for a PT terminal from his list until he finds one that falls, and flattens O/W on this, and then runs failed help and so on.

It will be found that this is the best case undercutter for general use I have so far developed. It is generally recommended and urged for all HGCs.

Formula 13 is followed by finding the havingness process then the confront process, and then Regimen Three is used, assessing for a general terminal and with the havingness and confront process running alternate help on the general terminal.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :js.cden 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 DECEMBER 1960

Franchise Holders

PRESESSION 37

A presession is run without a model session.

Presession 1 and 37 are the only presessions now in regular use.

Presession 37 is a method of getting off withholds. This problem is the primary case problem. Presession 37 resolves it. This presession is now the proper way to run “What question shouldn’t I ask you?”

The auditor runs “What question shouldn’t I ask you?” for a few times.

Then the auditor runs “Think of something you’ve done.” “Think of something you have withheld.” Alternated for a short time (maximum five minutes).

Then the auditor runs “What question. . .” a few more times.

If the pc develops an evasion system such as “You shouldn’t ask me if I have murdered anybody,” the auditor asks it. The pc says, “No, I never have,” etc. Then the auditor must reword “What question . . .” to “What question would embarrass you?” or “What would you hate to have the police or your husband or whatever find out about you?” Vary “What question” so that you get off the withholds.

Always run Presession 37 until you have a no-response to question needle with E-Meter sensitivity at 16.

The O/W on this is to keep up the havingness.

FORMULA 16

A formula is always run in model session early in the case or to get it moving again.

Formula 16 is as follows:

Failed help is run with:

“Whom have you intended not to help?”

“Whom have you helped?”

This is run for about 10 minutes, then the following is run for about twenty commands or so:

Assess PT terminals. Take first one that falls. Assess every time. Run:

“What unkind thought have you had about (terminal)?”

Then switch back to the above failed help version.

This is for cases that don’t respond well on ordinary O/W.

FORMULA 17

Help is run as two-way failed help on an assessed terminal which has to do with a healing profession or religious or mystic person.

Then “What unkind thought have you withheld from a person?” is run for havingness.

This is for the person who has been to healers, hypnotists, spiritualists, psychologists, ministers, religious family members, psychoanalysts, etc, etc. This also works on doctors, psychologists, etc.

One makes the assessment list from general terminals and specific persons connected with pc’s past. One assesses each time from the list and takes the first one that drops. The drop is barely run off before switching to the thought O/W on “a person”.

Two-way failed help is run as follows:

“How could you fail to help a .... ?” 
“How could a .... fail to help you?”

Positive failed help:

“How could you help a .... ?” 
“How could a .... help you?” should also be run if indicated. (If pc insists they helped.)

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.rd 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 JULY 1960

Fran Hldrs

CURRENT RUNDOWN

CONCEPT HELP

Concept processing is very old (1953). The original version of concepts goes:

   	“Get the idea of .............”

The modern version of Concept Help O/W goes:

   	“Think of helping a .............”
   	“Think of not helping a .........”

Two-way Concept Help goes:

   	“Think of a ...helping you”
   	“Think of you helping a ............”

Five-way Concept Help would go:

(a) 	“Think of a ..helping you”
(b) 	“Think of you helping a ...........”
(c) 	“Think of a ..helping others”
(d) 	“Think of others helping a ..”
(e) 	“Think of a ..helping a ..”

Concept Help has the value of being below, in its effect, the level of articulate thought which of course means that it bangs away at reactive thought.

Just exercising a pc in thinking at command is a sort of CCH on thinkingness, with which, of course, pcs have trouble. They have more trouble with creating than thinking and concepts are more in kind with confronting than with creating. Making a pc invent answers is, of course, right on his worst button. Therefore Concept Help goes a long ways on a case. It is quite unlimited, no matter what form is run, so long as some attention is paid to flow direction. (A flow run too long in one direction gives anaten—unconsciousness, remember?)

ALTERNATE CONFRONT

Concept Help, however, has the liability of making things “muggy” at times because of its indefiniteness.

Aside from create, the primary button that is awry (but which cannot be directly attacked without often overshooting the case or involving it in heavy bank reaction), the next things mechanically wrong with a pc would be unconsciousness and confusion. Help, of course, is the primary point of association and identification and is WHY things go wrong with a pc. But a scale of WHAT is right with a pc in descending order of importance would be, as above:

      	Creativeness
      	Consciousness
      	Order
      	Control

and these would be flanked by the things wrong with these items which make them decline:

Create—Irresponsibility 
Consciousness—Refusal to confront 
Order—Unwillingness to bring order 
Control—Lack of control.

Help fits in somewhat on this order. One creates to help (and fails). One goes unconscious to help or makes another unconscious to help him/her (and fails). One sees difficulty for others in too much order, seeing that two systems of order clash, and lets down his to help.

One conceives that control is bad and ceases to control and resists control to help others. These are all wrong helps, apparently, and when done, bring about aberration.

Aberration consists, evidently, of wrong-way assistance as follows:

Optimum Condition -----> Response -----> Resulting Condition 
Creativeness -----> Irresponsibility -----> Disowned Creations 
Consciousness -----> Non-Confront -----> Unconsciousness 
Orderliness -----> Unwilling conflict -----> Confusion 
Ability to Control -----> Consequence of control -----> Mis-control.

Confront is a remedy for the consequences of the first three conditions and also communication. An auditing session itself by its TR mechanics, improves control and communication. Therefore Confront in one form or another is needed in routine sessions.

Havingness is an objective and somewhat obscure method of confronting and using it as we do objectively, it is a specialized form of confronting, possibly its best form, objective or subjective, even though a series of subjective havingness in Washington in 1955 tended to show that profile gains were not made by subjective confront, a conclusion still subject to further checking.

Confront straightens out any “mugginess” churned up by Concept Help. No vast tone arm improvements should be expected from Alternate Confront, but even if it doesn’t work well, like havingness, as a primary process, it has very good uses. Alternate Confront gives us a stabilizing tool. Pc feels weird = run Alternate Confront. He’ll feel saner. Following this subjective process with the best objective process, havingness, we achieve stability for the gains reached by a help process.

As a comment, beingness is more involved with havingness than with confront.

Confront, on short test, can be run lop-sided, and does disturb the tone arm. “What would you rather not confront?” run all by itself in one pc (a BMA type test series!) did very well. “What can you confront?” of course did very well. Alternate Confront has enough wrong with it to be poor as a process for getting gains but wonderful as a process for stabilizing a case. I’ll run some more tests on Negative Confront and let you know. But it is a fluke. By theory it is improbable as it is a cousin to the no-good “What could you go out of communication with?” But “What could you withhold?” is the greatest IQ raiser known! And it works. So perhaps Negative Confront, “What would you rather not confront?”, will work too. Of course it’s a fundamental button. All unconsciousness, stupidity, forgetfulness and enforced beingness result from problems in confronting.

IDENTIFICATION

A=A=A=A is as true today as it ever was. The inability to differentiate is, of course, a decline in awareness. Identifying Joe with Bill or Rocks with Smoke is loony.

This is identification, a word that is amusing semantically, as its exact opposite, “Identify”, is its cure, but is the same word!

Association of things or thoughts into classes is considered all right and may even be necessary to “learn” things. But this is the middle ground, already half way to lazy thinking.

Help, as assistance, is an identification of mutual interest in survival. Thus we have (1) possible confusion of beingness and (2) continuation. This makes help ripe for trouble. When one fails to help he keeps on helping! No matter how. He does keep on helping what he has failed to help. One of many mechanisms is to keep the scene in mock-up.

Help is a fundamental necessity, it appears, to every person. But it is dynamite when it goes wrong.

As a symptom of its continuance (survival factor—see Book ONE) pcs running help readily get the idea that help on some terminal “will never flatten” even though it is flattening nicely!

To handle this as a special item, one can run the confront part of a session with “Continuous Confront”, the Alternate form of which is:

(a) 	“What could you continue to confront?”

(b) 	“What would you rather not continue to confront?”

The positive form (a) can be run alone for case gain. And I am going to test the negative form (b) as a single run to see if it can be “gotten away with”. In theory, as all anaten is unwillingness to confront and as all help is continuous survival, form (b), Negative Continuous Confront, should do marvels for IQ and may become the proper companion for help processes if the session is ended with havingness.

At the present moment auditing routine is:

          	Pre-session
          	Model Session
          	Help Processes
          	Alternate Confront
          	Havingness

all in every session.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.rd 
Copyright ©1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 MAY 1960

Franchise Holders 
HCO Secs Assn Secs
HELP PROCESSING

At last we’ve found the button almost any case and all the world can run.

Help may not be everything that is wrong with the world but it is the only common denominator the world can understand.

I have known about help for some years and in 1957, autumn, used it, with fateful Step 6, in clearing people. The first clears made easily by others were done with meter assessments and five-way help brackets on terminals.

It was found that Step 6, being a creative process, was bad on some cases. The clearing formula was help and Step 6. We tended to abandon both when Step 6 became an overt. It blew us off.

The next big technical development was O/W. Overt-withhold, of course, is as old as 1954 (Phoenix) when reach-withdraw was introduced. But the full knowledge of what overt-withhold meant to cases was not released until November, 1959. Here came much new technical data, all of it vital to clearing. A person with large withholds from the auditor will not go into session. This is true, valid and useful. We could not clear many people even now without it. Further, we find all losses in Scientology personnel in Central Orgs and the field stem from O/W.

In researching O/W, as early as December, 1958 (Washington, D.C.), it was found and proven conclusively that it was what the person himself did to others that was aberrative, not what was done to him. The test of this can be made easily. Given: an ARC break between auditor and pc who have known each other some time. Note the position of the meter tone arm. Run “What have you done to me?” “What have I done to you?” Observe that after some small variation the limited value of this two-way flow (which assumes the auditor’s bad action was half what was wrong with the pc) shows up in a stuck tone arm. This two-way process is too limited to alter the tone arm after a few minutes. A lie has been introduced. This lie sticks the tone arm. Now shift to “What have you done to me?” “What have you withheld from me?” And watch the tone arm free up and eventually go toward clear reading. In other words, the situation freed wholly only when we assumed that only what the pc had done had any aberrative value.

This and other vital material learned between 1957 autumn and now was the technology necessary to do full clearing on everyone except the wholly psychotic and unconscious people (where we have the CCHs).

Everything learned about O/W is still necessary to clearing. But everything that applied in O/W also applies to running help.

It’s marvellous that a five-way bracket on help cleared people. It did clear some. But where it failed it ran into the rule that it’s only what the pc does that is aberrative, what is done to him is not. Thus, what help the pc has given and what help he has denied or failed to give are aberrative. What help the pc received, in the long run is not (no matter how the psychologists cut it).

There are probably thousands of ways help could be run. You can think of dozens. All of them would be effective in greater or lesser degree. Just add help into any process form we know. But the one general process on help that would rank high would be “What have you helped?” “What have you not helped?” alternated.

This is not a dichotomy. This is the best way I know of to run the sense of what help one has given plus what help one has withheld. This is the O/W version and we will call it “Help O/W” to keep ourselves oriented and not introduce too many new terms. I find “failure to help” instantly upsets “What help have you given?” “What help have you withheld?” This version does not run. The correct sense wording is “What help have you given?” “What help have you not given?” This lets the pc as-is his failures to help as well as his denials of help.

This is only the general form. Think how much more we know about O/W. Apply it to help.

Two-way help would have use. But would be limited. Use it. Know it’s limited.

Five-way bracket help would have use. But would be limited. Use it. Know it’s limited.

This pair has enough power to gain more constant attendance in a PE Co-audit than we have had. So use them in PE Co-audit. Two-way help has just moved a PE Co-audit case that has been in co-audit for one year without moving on any other process.

Two-way comm on help has value. It’s the presession version. No matter who is helping who, a discussion of it can get the pc closer to session.

Now here is data you’ve been wondering about. Does help in presession become an end all in the HGC. No. Hit the presession points lightly, then in Model Session form use help as the process to be run. And run it until it’s flat-flat-flat.

When the Model Session has begun, run a meter assessment. Find any terminal that drops. On that terminal, in specific or general form, “How have you helped ....?” “How have you not helped ....?”

Any experience you’ve had with O/W and meters and assessments, apply it to help.

And that’s how you’re going to clear people. It’s amazingly fast, even on a psychosomatic illness.

Now get your own reality on this.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.gh.rd 
Copyright ©1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 NOVEMBER 1965

Remimeo
Students
Level I

FIVE WAY BRACKET ON HELP

Commands

How could you help me?

How could I help you?

How could you help another?

How could another help you?

How could another help another?

The above commands are run consecutively as one process—muzzled style.

								L. RON HUBBARD 
LRH: ml.rd 
Copyright © 1965 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 JULY 1958
All Staff
ACC Instructors
and students
Field Offices
COMMAND SHEET FOR HGC

CLEAR PROCEDURE

ON ALL COMMANDS: BEFORE AUDITOR GIVES THEM, HE MAKES CERTAIN HE HAS PC’S ATTENTION ON HIM AGAIN AND OFF LAST QUESTION.

CCH 0—Starting Session:

“Is it all right with you if we begin the session now?” “The session is started.”

GOALS: “What goal might you have for this session?”

(Be certain to end session with “Have we gained anything of your goal at the session’s beginning?”)

PT PROBLEM: (Caution: Problem itself, not just its terminals, must exist in pt.) “Do you have anything worrying you so much that you will have a difficult time keeping your attention on auditing?”

(If pc has)

“Describe the problem to me.”

(Pc does.)

“Does that problem exist in present time now?”

(If pc thinks it does): “What part of that problem could you be responsible for?”—or, “Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to that problem.” (Repetitive questions.) (No further descriptive name is allowed auditor in this command.)

Auditor frequently asks, “Describe that problem to me now.”—”Does that problem now exist in present time?”
--------------

ARC Break: “Have I done something you feel is wrong in this session?” “Describe it to me.”

Plenty of acknowledgement to pc, no further apology and certainly no explanation. Object is to get pc’s attention on auditor in present time, not earlier in session. Goal of TR 2, of goals, PT Problem and auditing is to get pc’s attention into present time, so don’t stack commands on the track or park pc somewhere in session or leave him in an out-of-session problem.

--------------

S-C-S: (Note: All formal auditing, except for final acknowledgement of cycle, which is Tone 40.) Commands:

START: “I am going to tell you to start. And when I tell you to start, you start the body in that direction. Do you understand that?” “Good.” “Start.” “Did you start that body?” “Thank you.”

STOP: “I am going to tell you to get the body moving in that direction. Somewhere along the line I will tell you to stop. Then you stop the body. Do you understand that?” “Good.” “Get the body moving.” “Stop.” “Did you stop the body?” “Thank you.”

CHANGE: “Do you see that spot?” “Good. We will call that Spot A. Now you stand here. O.K.” (Auditor indicates another spot.) “Now do you see that other spot?” “Good. We’ll call that Spot B. All right, now when I tell you to change the body’s position, YOU move it from Spot A to Spot B. All right?” “Good. Change the body’s position.” “Did you change the body’s position?” “Thank you.” “Do you see that spot?” “Well, we’ll call that Spot C. Now when I tell you to change the body’s position, YOU move the body from Spot B to Spot C. Do you understand that?” “Fine.” “Change the body’s position.” “Did you change the body’s position?” “Thank you, “

(NOTE: Change is run only to unflatten START and STOP, when both are flat.)

CONNECTEDNESS: Use: Only to unstick pc on meter when meter can’t be read well or when auditor desires to clear an object wrongly chosen as rock in order to look for another.

(a) 	“You get the idea of making that (object) connect with you.” (Auditor points.)
(b) 	(If pc isn’t looking at object with Mest body’s eyes, use following:) “Look at that (object).” “You get the idea of making that object connect with you.”
(c) 	(On blind humans:) “Feel that (object).” “You get the idea of making that object connect with you.”

--------------

HELP:

1. 	SCOUTING. This is a 2-way comm activity.

(a) 	“How do you feel about ..	?” Vary any object that sticks by asking
         about specialized form. If a specialized form frees, go back to object that
         stuck. Gradually sort object that consistently sticks from objects that stick
         by association with it only.

(b) 	If pc reads high on Tone Arm, gets inconsistent lie reaction, use following: “What have you had to be responsible for?”

To be sure pc is reacting, turn Sensitivity knob very high.

Guide him carefully around his life until he gets on a sticky point. Then sort it out, attempting to get parts of it to clear up. Do not let pc linger on matters which do not stick.

Responsibility sorts the matter out. His realization (cognition) of various zones is what does him good.

This is not necessarily a repetitive command. It can be varied with “What part of that (discovered area or item) have you had to be responsible for?”

Large area of current lifetime can be freed up and with clues from what he has stuck on repeatedly and using what would not free, return to a standard scout as above.

By using part (b) a pc can be brought down on the Tone Arm and can be made to react more normally on meter.

2. 	Running Help in general: USE generalized items, not specific people or objects (don’t pin pc in current life).

General Help bracket: 9-way:

“How could you help yourself?” 
“How could you help me?” 
“How could I help you?” 
“How could I help myself?” 
“How could you help another person?” 
“How could I help another person?”
“How could another person help you?” 
“How could another person help me?” 
“How could another person help another person?”

Running Help on an item:

“How could you help a .........?”
“How could a ...........help you?”
“How could another person help a .........?”
“How could a ...........help another person?”
“How could a ...........help itself?”
“How could you help yourself?”
“How could I help you?”
“How could you help me?”

Run in sequence as above. Do not give same command twice.

--------------

CLEARING COMMANDS: Clear each word and the full phrase once each with the following:

“What is the usual definition of the English (or other language) word .........?”

Do not ask for definitions over and over as a repetitive command. If pc’s definition is poor, clear command every few commands.

Clear only each different word in a bracket. Don’t clear each line in a bracket.

--------------

STEP SIX:

Select simple non-significant objects. Run:

“In front of that body you mock up a .............and keep it from going away.” “Did you?” “Thank you.”

Then use all directions from the body—”Behind that body...,” “To the left of that body . . . ,” “To the right of that body . . . ,” “Above that body . . . ,” “Below that body ....”

Run 6 objects each on six sides of the body on “Keep it from going away,” then proceed to “In front of that body you mock up a .....and hold it still.” Same procedure, then “In front of that body you mock up a........and make it a little more solid.” (There is no acknowledgement by auditor after pc mocks it up and keeps it from going away, etc, or the “Did you?”—there is acknowledgement only after full command is executed. Otherwise acks will thin pc’s mock-ups.)

Note: The objects should be simple at first, leading on up to complexity. But at first, keep them simple and non-significant.

LRH:md.rd							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 JULY 1960

Fran Hldrs
THE ASSESSMENT OF HELP

You should realize at this stage that we are still feeling around for the most adequate and fastest method of running HELP. Everything which has been given to you thus far is near the mark, and pre-sessioning, model session and flattening help are right on the mark. However there are certain things that make auditors unhappy with running help. Chief amongst these is the fact that it is a tremendously restimulative process when one has not had any run. This means that we had better get the staff theta clearing course or staff co-auditing going fast on a supervised basis.

The second thing is that help does not flatten very easily on a late specific terminal. Of course, this is true of all processes. But help is a peculiar process and is slower on late terminals than other buttons, and here is why.

Help resolves cases because it is the basis of all association, and as you know association leads to identification. And identification is the basis of all mental upsets. The action of help is not aberrative. The failure to help is what does it, or the lack of things to help. However all valences and all identification stem from this button and no other. Now do lights dawn and bells ring? Help is the button which, if run, settles all difficulties with association and identification and all problems of beingness.

Thus there is something peculiar about help which is not true of any other button. Any help run is a gain even (Gawdelpus) if it is left wholly bogged with a half hour comm lag. All bits of help run are chewing away at all tangles of identification. So chew away and to the Dickens with it. Any help run is better than no help run. And because the PC is a bundle of aberrated identifications, any help run untangles some of him. And any help run on any terminal tends to “get at” any other terminal.

So that’s why help run in any old way will sooner or later make the grade. But this is no reason to believe there are not also smart ways to run help.

Any late specific terminal, being so confounded far from basic-basic on the time track, runs tough and endlessly. Therefore as always it is better to run general terminals than to run specific terminals. However in the case of a PTP you can go ahead if you have to and run help on the PTP personnel, but as soon as the edge is off the PTP for Heaven’s sakes shift to the general form of the specific terminals you have been running, and flatten those a lot or a little.

Keep a very close record of what you have run on help as the only precaution you have to take, and when the PC is running toward mest clear check back with help on these terminals and make sure they are flat. When a lot of help has been run on basic material then of course you will find that what ran very arduously before will now run much better. It is almost a waste of time to run specific terminals, but still you must run things that are real to the PC, and if only yesterday was real to him then you are stuck with running the PC on later terminals or even specific terminals.

A much faster way to run help than by sorting out real terminals on an E-Meter (which is still necessary sometimes) is to do an assessment on the PC using help and the dynamics, and finding a button that is entirely off dynamic and that the PC can’t imagine helping. This is a trigger to a case. Unusual results happen very fast.

Another way to go about this is a simple questioning of the PC on the subject of his dislikes. Watch the meter and when you get a silly reaction on a dislike, like a rock slam or a heavy drop or a sudden theta bop, then pick this out, make a general form out of it that registers like the first mention, and run that on the PC. This is a rather loose and sometimes misleading assessment. But remember that all help run leads to untangling all buttons and so it is a perfectly good approach, and as the PC gets run on something he is awful darn sure he ought to be run on he is often very happy and co-operative in this. Whereas on a dynamic assessment he is made intensely curious as he didn’t know he was aberrated on what you found out. In other words just asking the PC what is wrong with him, getting it into a general form that registers on the meter and running Help O/W or concept help on it, is good reasonably fast processing. It is better than assessing for just a terminal that drops or for a specific late terminal that drops.

As a comment it should be noted that help is the last thing that folds up in the dwindling spiral of aberration. About the first thing that folds up is interest. But when it is gone there are still three buttons left on which the person can function. The next one to go is communication. This becomes a contest of overts as in the ARC breaky case. Anybody below this lives his or her life this way. The next one to vanish is control. So don’t be surprised to find somebody around who does plenty of overts and who can’t stand control who can yet be run on help and who can still function in life. When interest, communication, control and help are gone, that’s it. You haven’t got a person left. So beware people who are below help. Beware of them in living. But in auditing when you can’t get HELP to bite at all (and if he can talk to you you can get help to bite) you have nothing left but the CCHs. You can make it on them too but with tremendous investment in hours. And when you’ve got the CCHs flat then you can start running help.

But as I said above I have not yet been able to say the PERFECT way of running help. I am still investigating it like mad and am giving you all the gen as it comes visible. However have patience with me. I have learned that people not only have it twisted a bit, they’ve got it shattered, and that’s the majority of people. So we’re in there slugging away and we’re making clears, and if I get hold of any faster ways to do you’ll be the first to get the gen.

LRH:js.cden							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 AUGUST 1960
1st Sthil ACC
HCO Secs 
REGIMEN TWO

Regimen Two requires no assessment.

This regimen is run with presession and Model Session and contains a complete set of processes for the Model Session.

MODEL SESSION

It should be noted that the patter wording of a Model Session is what is set and fixed. By always using the same words to open, continue and close a session, to begin and end processes, a duplication of sessions is achieved which as they continue, runs them out. The patter wording of a Model Session should be learned by heart and not changed. The commands of regimens of processes used in Model Sessions may change. But not the patter. It is this patter which makes a Model Session a Model Session, not the commands run in it.

ASSESSMENT

No assessment is used in Regimen Two. The E-Meter is employed to determine the advance and stage of case. Advance is determined by change of tone arm position and loosening or tightening of needle, per unit time of processing, the sensitivity knob always being set the same, session after session. The stage of case is judged by the rapidity of the repetitive loosening and tightening of needle action and the width and rapidity of change of the tone arm.

CLEAR INDICATION

When a case has at last a steady tone arm near clear reading for the sex of the pc and when the needle is loose and does not respond to elementary presession questions, the person is Mest Clear. (See chapter on this in Book I and read it carefully.)

STEPS OF REGIMEN TWO

Step (a)	“What motion have you helped?”
	“What motion have you not helped?”

Step (b) 	“What can you confront?”
	“What would you rather not confront?”

Step (c) 	“Look around here and find something you could have.”

Step (a) is run for the bulk of the session and Steps (b) and (c) are given equal times at session end.

Step (c) may be run at any time if pc’s havingness drops. Step (c) must however always be run until the pc can have each one the bulk of the objects ;n the room.

Cases which do not respond to Regimen Two should be presessioned until the tone arm becomes active, no matter how many sessions this requires.

LRH:js.rd							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1960
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 MARCH 1961

Franchise

FORMULA 20

Formula 20 is an effort to run Control on a thought level. It is relatively experimental.

It is for cases that have much alter-is as represented by inability to duplicate commands. Also for cases that have unsteady engram banks that shift.

The commands are:

“Who has failed to control you?” 
“Who have you failed to control?” 
“What has failed to control you?” 
“What have you failed to control?”

      and

“Who have you helped?” 
“Who has helped you?”

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :js.rd 
Copyright © 1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

A lecture given on
21 April 1964

How are you doing today?

Audience: Fine.

Good. This is the what?

Audience: 21st of April.

21st of April.

All right. Well, you’re going to get a very complex, offbeat lecture here today—very complex, very offbeat. Nothing simple today. Tired of talking about simplicities, you just never seem to latch on. Talk to you about a complexity here, and see if we can’t do so.

As you may know, not contained in the body of Scientology but standing aloof, there are a series of research maxims, or data, which I have really never bothered to collect. You’ll find some trace of them in, of all things, Dianetics: Evolution of a Science. It’s got quite a few of them in it. You know, the rationale and the how of how you figure it out. There’s a whole book that was devoted to this—was “Excalibur,” is how you went about figuring it out. And every once in a while one of these things cracks through and you get a grip on the put-together of existence, and that sort of thing, which is extremely useful.

These things vary. I’m not giving you a big mystery. These things vary all over the place; they go from the sublime to the ridiculous. One of the maxims—I’ll give you an idea—is take a body of knowledge which has produced very bad effects and results, and if that’s the case, then you move it out and don’t pay any further attention to it. Take the one which is least productive of results and rule it out, and you can eventually corral truth on this type of an approach.

Let’s take all those things that haven’t worked and let’s throw them out, see? That’s this type of data, see? And this is of assistance on analyzing cases, you know, like mad. You do it all the time. You say, “Well, this fellow has been run on this and he’s been run on that and he’s been run on something else. and nothing happened in those instances, so it must be something else.” See? Well, this can be done on a broad philosophic basis.

But let’s take something of an unworkability and let’s throw it away. Now, that’s a research datum. Doesn’t sound like much, does it? But it has a broad workability. The reverse doesn’t happen to be true: Because something has worked on a case is no reason it will work on all cases. Isn’t that an interesting thing? That is to say, because something is true in one instance is no reason it’s true in all instances. You’ve got to have it applied in several instances and directions before you have any confidence in it.

That’s one that an auditor misses all the time. He gets a tremendous win. He’s got “Recall being drunk,” see? And he ran this on this old lady, and she got a tremendous “send” out of this whole thing, and it gave him a big win. And now he fails to apply this little research datum, this truth of the matter. You see, he’s only gotten a workability on one case here, series of one, and he has no real idea yet whether or not that is applicable more broadly. And yet out of the enthusiasm of his win, he goes ahead and runs “Recall being drunk” on this one and that one and the other one, the village parson, and all of these sort of things, and he doesn’t get any more wins with it. You see? So he feels very defeated.

Well, what he’s done is fail to apply the other side of the thing: Just because it had a workability in this instance is no reason it’s broadly workable, see? That’s the maxim that goes back of that. There are a lot of these, a lot of these. They’re sort of idiot’s-delight sort of things, and rules of thumb by which you progress.

But once in a while one of them turns up that has tremendous value. And this may or may not have some value to you. (This lecture, by the way, is about Levels.) This may or may not have some value to you as a technical datum, but it certainly has tremendous value as a research datum, to such a degree that I was able to crack through some of the wildest web work that I think I have ever gotten mixed up in, with this.

You see, you can get certain things to read on a meter. You get in the vicinity of “create” GPMs—let us just mention that in passing—and you can get, on Monday, this combination to read; on Tuesday, this other combination to read; on Wednesday, this other combination to read; and on Thursday you get an entirely new combination to read. By that time, you’re pretty caved in, so the only thing you can run on is whether or not you’ve got a creak. So you try then to rule out the creak, and you go back over these things. And it just gets to be one of the wildest swamps that you ever got mixed up in, trying to pilot through the basic morass of the individual, because you can get so many things that contradict so many things.

Now, in view of the fact that a pretty well-off auditor, I doubt very much could pilot his way through a goals plot and still have a PC sitting across from him. PC would probably be dead by the time he got the goals plot half finished and there wouldn’t be any point in finishing it. This is grim. This is real grim. I mean, you see the tiger here; he’s got teeth, see?

You get everything checked out, and then it doesn’t check out tomorrow, see; it’s something different. So I had to have a datum which would pilot through this, and I finally managed to tailor-make a datum which piloted through this. And we get a maxim that doesn’t sound like very much to begin with, but it’s very, very pervasive. And that is: A problem is as complex as it presents potential solutions. A problem is as complex as it presents potential solutions. How many wild ramifications has this problem got? Well, you want to know how many wild ramifications it’s got; how many potential solutions has it got? And that gives you an immediate index of how complex the problem is. That’s interesting, isn’t it?

All right. Well, let’s say this perhaps has some workability—there’s some more to this which I’ll just go into in a moment. But let’s dispose of this first one first. Let’s say this PC—this possibly has use in the field of figuring out what’s wrong with a PC. So the PC comes in to you, and he’s been to the chiropractors and he’s been to the doctors. And a last result, last, last, last result, why, he went and saw—something practically nobody who is decent would do—he went and saw a psychiatrist. And he went even further downscale and he saw a medico. And he’s taken up good-luck charms and so forth. Well, all of this kind of thing, don’t you see, is—those are all potential solutions, aren’t they? Potential solutions.
 
Now, medicine just gets rid of this fellow by saying he’s a hypochondriac. And I’ve run into a lot of hypochondriacs, and they were sick. They were sick enough to be worried about. I remember one famous case of a very dear lady, and her husband was practically ruined through this. He was quite a famous writer—and she always used to be worrying about her health. And she’d worry about her health and worry about her health, and all of his writing friends and all of their wives simply wrote her off as a hypochondriac. And he was dearly devoted to her and doted on her, and probably only the [the only] reason he kept on writing was because she encouraged him, you know, and she—so on. But nevertheless she was always worried about her health. And everybody was very sure that she was a hypochondriac—labeled it as such, brushed it all off as such—right up to the moment when she up and died on them. It’s quite interesting.

That was the end, by the way, of his career. He went down and went to work for the government. He started writing Herbert Hoover’s “Reorganization of the Government,” or something like that, and he quit writing. And the clique that this girl more or less held together all broke up, and so forth. But it left everybody absolutely stunned, you know? She was sick. You know? Well, she was.

Some people are sicker than others and some people talk about it more than others, you see?

And a handy way of getting rid of it, you see, if you can’t solve it or do anything for it yourself, just say “Well, he’s a hypochondriac,” you know, and dust the whole problem off, you see? And in this case, this was all very handy, but the patient died, do you see? Kind of a grim look at the situation.

You get awful tired of somebody who keeps nibbling around and worrying about this, that or the other thing. And you get awful tired of this person and so forth. But the problem they’re presenting can be measured by the complexity of the solutions.

So this hypochondriac who has tried everything under the sun—”hypochondriac”—he’s actually got a problem that’s that complex. Do you follow that? I mean, there’s that complicated a thing wrong with him, see? You got the way this works. This is another way of looking at it.

All right, now this defeats forever the idea that you’re going to slip somebody Pill 62 and have an OT. Now, you see the error? This used to be introduced to me about once a week or once a month. And we even have a cliché that comes forward from that time. It’s called a one-shot Clear, see? It means a one-process Clear or something like that, see? And for years, why, I was interested in this particular line and everybody was always dreaming up with this. A beautiful dream: all you did was sock somebody in the gluteus maximus with a couple of cc’s of “whizzo,” or something, you see, and they immediately went bing!

Won’t ever happen. Why? If this datum is true, it never can happen. In other words, the problem they’ve got is complex as the number of solutions that are pushed in its particular direction, or have gone around its edges, you see?

The problem of government, then, must be terribly complex, because you think of the number of solutions. Look at the number of political solutions there have been to the problem of government. Well, that gives you an immediate index of how complicated is this problem of government. How complex a problem is it? Well, it must be terribly complex, don’t you see?

Now, this thing which has just one little old “whizzo” solution, don’t you see, and it surrenders to that, that must have been a very simple problem. In other words, there’s a comparable line between the complexity of the problem and the number of solutions. See, it isn’t the complexity of the solution, it’s the number of solutions. Solutions, quantitative, and complexity in the problem. I want you to differentiate that rather cleanly, see? It’s not “big solution, big problem,” see? It’s complex in the problem, and numerous in the solution, see? Something you should look at.

So this tells you at once that when a PC comes in there and sits down in the chair, and you have to start running up the solutions to his case, you see, and it isn’t surrendering easily—you always blame yourself on the basis you haven’t used the right process or something of the sort, whereas you merely may be looking at this mechanism. This is a terribly complex case. It’s a very complex case and therefore is going to require numerous solutions. Do you see?

So you’re just defeating yourself. You say you’re going to run one process that’s going to resolve this particular guy’s problem in life. See, you’re defeating yourself, because you’re going to run that one process, and that’s not going to defeat his problem in life. Just make up your mind that if his problem in life has received many solutions, then it is itself a complex problem and will therefore require a complexity of processes to resolve it. See? Elementary.

All right. And let’s go on from there. Now, a solution must be as complex as the potentials of the problem. There’s the other “whizzo” here. Now, we’ll look at it in reverse here. How complex does a solution have to be? Well, it has to be as complex as the potentials of the problem. In other words, here is, again, not a one-for-one. Here you have the solution being complex, don’t you see? This is another view we’re looking at, another maxim: The solution has to be complex because of the potentials of the problem. You get the idea?

Now, what do you mean, potentials? Well, let’s just take old “survive.” This problem has this potential of knocking out of existence survival along various fronts or in various areas, you see? It’s a threat. See, here’s a problem that is a big problem. So, the thing to solve that: you look for a simplicity in the solution to solve this big threatening problem. And here’s a way you get defeated like that: This bird comes in and he’s got this dangerous problem. Now, we’re talking about a dangerous problem, see—potential of the problem, dangerous potential. He comes in and he’s got this very dangerous problem, you see? They’re going to throw him out on the street tomorrow—very dangerous; going to throw him out on the street tomorrow, and he’s going to lose his job as a result, you see, and he’ll probably be sued in court for something or other.

But he comes in and he tells you he’s going to be thrown out on the street tomorrow. All right, now you give him a simple solution. You say, “Well, I’ll loan you five pounds or five bucks,” you see, “and you can pay your rent.”

Did you ever have it happen to you, that you found out that he all of a sudden told you then, “Well, yes, but then how does this take care of Maizie?”

“Well, what about Maizie?”

“Well, she’s pregnant.”

You get it? So you’ve set up a defeat for yourself. He’s got a dangerous problem: You offer him a simple solution. That’s an immediate way of setting up a defeat for yourself. You’re going to be defeated in this. You can sit and talk to these fellows. Eventually you say they’re completely ungrateful. You just sit there and you give them solution after solution after solution, and they can’t seem to buy any of them because they always say, well, there’s always this other thing, too, see, and then there’s this other thing, too, and then there’s also this other thing, too. And then they finally shyly look at you and say, well, actually, the reason they can’t marry the girl is because they’re already paying alimony to a wife elsewhere, you see? You never knew this either. This all has to do with their being thrown out on the street tomorrow. See, this thing just travels miles. In other words, nothing ever really becomes a dangerous problem which is very simple, or the guy would have solved it in the first place.

Problems only become dangerous that are quite complex. They require, then, a complex solution. “Well, what we have to do, I guess, is so forth, and we . . .” Your level of solution—this guy is going to be thrown out on the street tomorrow, and so forth. “Well, let’s see, maybe I could get you a job with United Fruit, and we could change your name. Take a little doing; we have to get you a forged passport. And then, let’s see, I happen to know Joe—that will require that. And you better—in order to get financed for this, you better rob a bank tomorrow,” and so forth.

I mean, you get the idea, this thing is going to mount up into this. If you were going to be real in your solution, to match the thing, see, well, it’s got to be—this is a dangerous problem—if you’re going to be real in your solution, why, give them a real complex solution, see? It’s got to take care of all these ramifications this way and that, and it’s a put-together the like of which . . . Because in order to become a dangerous problem, the thing had to coast practically into an unsolvable condition, and therefore it must contain many “unsolvable” points.

It’s quite amusing to look at advising human beings from the basis of these maxims, see? If you recognize those two maxims, you’d always be a whiz. This girl comes in and she says, “Well, I’m going to leave my husband. I’m going to have to leave my husband, because . . . so forth—things have gotten too tough.”

For you to say at once, like a marriage counselor, “Oh, well, no, I think we could just patch all this up”—you better watch it, man, because this is a complex solution required here, because that’s a dangerous problem. Well, she’s got two kids. She has no means of support. She’s going to leave the guy. She’s going to have no home. Well, let’s just look at this, look at what she’s threatening to do, here, see?

It isn’t just a matter of blow, don’t you see? It’s a matter of she’s got this very, very dangerous problem: she can’t stay with him and can’t go, don’t you see? But this thing is pretty grim, see? Not just grim in her own mind, it must be that grim. Then your solution to that must be very complex. So if you just say ‘Well, I’ll just run a little O/W on him and her and then straighten it all out,” you’re going to get yourself in for a lose, see? Because there’s a tremendous number of things surrounding that problem.

She’s not saying “Well, I’m mad at Joe and I’m not going to serve him any supper,” see? That’s not very dangerous. See, it could be a few pots and pans blow up—but this is going to be a bust-up of some kind or another. This is big stuff.

Well, a marriage counselor always gets it when it’s right on the edge of the precipice, don’t you see? So you offer any simple solution, you know, to this, you’re being a fool, and you’re going to have a big lose. It necessarily requires a very complex solution—nice, complicated solution. So the thing you had better sit down and do is not give her a little “bing,” you know, and say “I’m going to do that.” Sit down and find out all the items that have to be solved in this problem.

Now, that would be your real action. How many angles to this are there? See, not just a glib “Oh, well, I’ll just run a little O/W on it; you can go home,” and so on. No, no. There’s Gertrude, his former wife, who is in Tallahassee, and then there’s the matter of his mother and father, and so forth, and they’re bringing pressure on her mother-in-law, because, you see, they own the mortgage on the house. You get the idea?

This thing builds up, and you’ll just be stonied to find out how many dead ends, see, that there are in this thing. It’s big! See? It’s not little. So if there’s a big problem, dangerous problem and so forth, then you can just count on the fact that this thing has a tremendous number of little things begging to be solved, out here in the woods, that you’re not aware of at all. And we get that just out of this maxim here: A solution must be as complex as the potentials of the problem.

You can get yourself a big win on this sort of thing, you know? This person comes in: Oh, God, they’re going to blow their brains out, see? Well, man, that’s a pretty wild solution. It’s all right for you to say “All right, he’s in GPM ‘destroy self.’ All right, that’s all. So we’ll just fix that up, and so on.” Maybe so, and maybe you would get to first base on it, except for this: The individual is not up to running at this level, and the individual has personal pressures in his immediate environment which would distract his attention to such a degree he probably couldn’t sit still. And what are we dealing with here? We’re dealing at Level 0, aren’t we? So he’s going to come in and he’s going to blow his brains out. Good. He’s going to blow his brains out. Boy, that’s a dangerous solution, you know? People get hurt doing that! You didn’t get that gag! And you just better decide at that point, just better decide that this is begging for a very complex solution, very complex. This solution is going to be awful complex by the time you get through with this threatened suicide.

My God, this goes back to World War II and the orphan asylum and the girl who is writing letters that unless . . . And it goes to this and it goes to that, and it’s something else, and it’s over here someplace.

Well, why—why get all worn out by saying, “Well, there’s just one more.” See, you’re getting in the same frame of mind he’s getting into. Just take your original assumption, which is the correct assumption to begin with, and then work with it.

Well, it’s a very dangerous problem this guy is involved with. Well, let’s see how complex the solution is here. Let’s just find out how many things have to be solved in this problem. Let’s see, let’s roll them off here. All right. “Well, all right, let’s begin. You’re going to blow your brains out. Good. All right. Now, now—ahem. What’s the immediate and direct pressure that’s causing you to do that?”

He won’t give you the immediate and direct, but he’ll give you something or other. Well, he’s worried about his income tax. He keeps figuring it out and the government keeps unfiguring it on him, and so forth.

And you say, “All right, very good.” Well, you say, “Well there’s got to be some solution to income tax, is that it?” And you don’t offer a solution. There’s got to be a solution to income tax for him.

“Oh, yeah. Yeah, but definitely has to be one.”

“All right, fine. Now, let’s see, what’s the next one here? Is there anything”—take it by dynamics, you see? “Any group you’re connected with, or anything like that?” and so on.

“Oh, well, yes. I haven’t paid my union dues, and they’re going to beat me up next week if I don’t. I’ve already been posted for being thrown out, and of course that makes me lose my job,” and that sort of thing.

“Ah, well, there has to be some solution there too. How many—how many of these are problems? Being beaten up? Is that all one problem, or is that several problems?”

“Well, being beaten up. Well, that . . . that’s a problem, yeah, and uh . . . yeah, there’s two or three problems involved there. And I’d have to go and get a job in some house that uh . . . doesn’t insist that it be union members, and so forth.”

“And you been posted, and so forth, for your dues, and that requires money—that comes down to there. All right, now, how many. . . how many solutions do you think we have to have here?”

And he adds it up, see? All right, that’s fine. You got that out of the road. “All right. Now, let’s see, is there any—there any sex mixed up with this? Any sex mixed up with this threatened suicide?”

“Oh, well, yeah, that’s what it’s all about. That’s what it’s all about.”

And, “All right. Well, how many things are there there?” and so forth.

And there has to be this and there has to be that, and there has to be something or other.

“Oh, all right. Fine. Now. Now, is there any other condition? You about to”—go up to the sixth dynamic, you see? “Are you going to lose your possessions, or you’re trying to hold on to possessions, or . . . ?”

“Yeah. Well, I . . . three-quarters completed for the payments on all the furniture in the house and they’re going to take it away.”

“Ah, there has to be some solution to that, doesn’t there? All right. Solution to the payments, time payments, on the house.”

By the time you finish up, you’ve got a big sheet of paper here, see? It’s just scribbled all over. But the funny part of it is, he won’t be blowing his brains out. You didn’t give him a single solution. You just said where they were needed. Takes him out of the confusion, of course, because it puts up the buffer “needed solution” in front of every one of these problems, don’t you see?

And he’ll come down to it, then, and he’ll be able to think his way through to that, and then you can pull it off.

“Well, let’s see, we could start these things one by one, couldn’t we? We could take these things one by . . . Which one of these things could be solved now?” See? And then run a gradient scale on the thing. Straighten out his whole life.

See, if you know this, you could handle Level 0 like a breeze. And Level 0 is the rough one to handle, man. What makes it rough? Well, these guys’ problems are so great they don’t even know they got them. That’s how great that problem is. This fellow is walking around in a body! He thinks he’s an animal! He doesn’t even know he’s a spirit! He doesn’t even know his right name! He doesn’t even know where he is or what he’s doing, and he doesn’t look at the fact of the importance’s in his vicinity at all. He’s looking at a bunch of cotton-pickin’ little pieces of nonsense here that wouldn’t have anything to do with anything. See? Level 0. This guy’s in trouble!

“But that’s the way it is. That’s life. Huh. Everybody else is like this, so I couldn’t possibly be in trouble, because everybody else is like this, see? I’m not in trouble. Blah-lah-ruh-ruh.”

So, you see, his problem is so complex, he doesn’t even know he’s in trouble. No solutions possible in any particular direction, and the man’s state is that way because no solutions have been possible in any state.

All right. Now, any time you dream up a simple solution to a complex problem you’re going to go appetite over tin cup, square on your cranial capital. Simple solution to a complex problem. Nyaaaa. This is how guys go politically bug-eared, see? You got to have something complex, as complex as the problem.

I want to point out to you that the International City—International City, and so forth: you start looking at this confounded thing, it’s terribly complex. You start getting into complexities, you see, my heavens! You’re into economics, and you’re here and you’re there, and banking, and, boy, this thing is complicated, see? Well, actually, if you just blow up each one of its simple mentions into all the potential complexities, you’ve got the size of the problem it’s trying to solve. And it might have a show.

Now, let me show you the simple solution: “Vote Republican. We have a Democrat in, vote Republican. Now, that solves everything, and that’s all you got to do, see?” And we have another four years with things just going worse, see? “All right, now the solution is to vote Democrat. Get that Republican out and get the Democrat in. That is the solution to all our affairs!” See the idiocy of the simple solution? See? Complete idiocy.

First place, you’d have to go find a statesman someplace. I don’t know where you’d find him; going to have to find him. Then you might set him up with a big team of guys that had some inkling of what they were doing, and they might figure out for a little while. And if they worked for a year or two like beavers, they just might be able to cut the fringe off of the problems that the country has. They just might be able to come into something.

Now, all right. This is Levels. Do you recognize I’m talking to you about Levels? Now, as you go on up through the Levels, you’re actually apparently confronting more and tore complex problems and more and more complex auditing. But that is not the case at all. You’re actually confronting less problems, and you have less demanded solutions.

Now, previously, people in motivation—I mean, psychoanalysis—people have been asking me for years, “Do you have any contacts with industry, or doing any work for industry?” I never really realized that they were asking me (psychologists and that sort of ilk, whenever I ran into them, and so forth; I go slumming every once in a while, I have to admit it)—but they’re always asking me, they’re always asking me, if we’re doing work for industry. I didn’t quite understand what they were talking about until I read a review of what psychology was doing for industry.

Psychology is big business now, because it’s moved in hand-in-glove with industry. It is a little bit into government, but mostly into industry, and it’s hiring and firing their employees for them, and it’s selling all their goods for them. And it’s telling them how to advertise and package their goods. And that’s what it is doing. And that is all it is doing. It isn’t doing anything else for anybody. Its testing services and so forth are all in this line. Now that’s where its money is coming from, and of course we’re cutting their throat on testing by simply giving it free in several large cities. This really upsets them.

The point here, however, is not any rant against the psychologist. He, after all, has his cross to bear. This bird is not even vaguely concerned with any of the problems of existence. He’s completely out of touch, man. But he thinks and the psychiatrist thinks that you go down in man’s psyche.

Now, let me introduce to you a brand-new principle, a brand-new principle: You don’t go down through three levels of subvolitional unawarenesses and so forth to rock-bottom motivation, and that sort of thing, the way they’ve got it dreamed up, see? You’re there, man. That’s the one point they’ve never grasped. They’ve not grasped that point. The guy is there.

You have to go up through heightened awareness in order to progress through these “deeper states,” as they call them. In other words, a guy has got to be more and more aware of these various levels of awareness. He’s got to have a better insight into existence before he can see it at all, see? In other words, his perception has got to improve.

He’s at the bottom rung of the ladder, and the only route he has available is up. He really doesn’t have any down route left. There isn’t any hidden, deep motivation. All you have left is the individual and he is motivated. You have a motivated individual. You don’t have somebody who is unaware of his “motivations.” He really is at no point where he is motivating anything; he is being motivated. And that is it. What are these areas?

Now, the psychologist and the advertiser, and so forth, trying to stir up these things which motivate the individual: to that degree they are aware of this but they think that they are proceeding through lower levels of awareness, of less awareness, to reach these things. No. These things are reached through heightened awareness. In other words, as they try to research to find out . . .
 
This is why they never get anyplace with processing, why they dead-ended in the whole field of therapy and actually jettisoned it. It had been jettisoned, if you want to know the truth of the matter.

Now, this fellow hasn’t got an unconscious to be probed. He’s unconscious. You see? He hasn’t got one to be probed. He is simply the effect of all of this. There isn’t any place you go below his level of awareness. They get this idea because a person can go to sleep, you see. And they get this all mixed up with the fact that he can not be aware and be aware, and they’ve got “sleep” and “awake,” which has nothing to do with it.

Now, they want to know what motivates this guy, so they put him out further, or they search “deeper,” or they plumb into the hidden recesses of his—”hidden?” Gone, man! He’s the fellow that’s hidden! See, they’re looking for the wrong thing. They’re looking for the deeper areas of unconsciousness, when as a matter of fact, they already have arrived there, they’ve got it sitting in the chair in front of them.

Now, in order to discover anything more about this individual at all, you can only go up. You can’t discover more about this individual, you see, by putting him in deeper, or something like this, you see? It’s hard for me to make this point because it’s so ingrained in us that we go deeper all the time, see?

Now, let’s look at it from another point of view. See? You’ve got to make him more aware in order to find out anything about him at all. So there is no shortcut, as we have eventually learned—we even jettisoned Dianetic reverie—but there is no shortcut by which you can get this guy half baked up on peyote, or something like this, so that you get to a deeper level of awareness, which you can then examine to find out what’s wrong with him. You see that as a complete detour? You’re going exactly no place.

I’ll give you an actual experiment on this thing. You could run this experiment on almost anybody. You say, “What have you been upset about lately?” or “Why are you nervous?” There’s a good one. “Why are you nervous?”

And then the fellow says, ahh . . . I—I don’t know. Am I nervous?”

“Well, you look so. You keep going like this all the time.”

“Uh . . . well, I—I—I—I don’t know. I—I didn’t—don’t—I do—don’t know what’s making me nervous. I—I—if—if I am nervous, I don’t know what’s making me nervous!”

Run this little test, like this: “Well, what considerations have you had about your state?” Run it for a few minutes and then ask him what’s making me [him] nervous, and he tells you at once.

Well, that’s very interesting, because, in other words, you had to heighten his awareness by pulling charge off of this subject of his state of beingness. And now he knows. He can tell you. Well, this isn’t him going into his subconscious, you see? This is opening up a little bit upper strata above him. You’ve made his awareness a little bit better so he can look better, and you’ve gotten him up to a point of where he can look at a little higher condition of beingness.

And that’s the route that you take with a PC. And you can very easily get terribly confused and upset by current nomenclature, Freudian nomenclature and current understanding about having to go into the lower levels of consciousness of the mind in order to . . . No, there is no spook. There’s no bogy sitting down below, you see?

It’s like on a ship, you see? It’s like you’d walk down through all the ladders of the engine room, and you finally run into this black, grimy character, covered with coal dust, and he is sitting there staring into a huge, roaring maw of a fire. And you say, “I’m looking for the fireman.” And he starts accommodatingly looking all over the whole fireroom to find the fireman.

You see, this is the exact idiotic thing that they’re doing with regard to the mind, see? And he will be very accommodating. He’ll go into every corner of that fireroom, he’ll go all through the engine room, he’ll look under the gratings, he’ll look in the bilges, and he’ll cheer you up on the road and everything else. And he’s looking for the fireman.

Now, if you were a Scientologist and you just ran a few considerations about his identity, see, made him a little bit more aware of things, and so on, he’d say, “Ha-ha. Oh! I’m the fireman!” You see what’s going on here, you see?

So we must be careful not to fall into this same parallel line of balderdash. You’re looking for man’s spirit, see? Great! Men will accommodatingly walk with you almost every place to find man’s spirit, you see? And there he is, right there! See, he’s it!

Yet how many times have you had to explain to somebody, “We’re not interested in your soul. You are your own soul!” See?

Everybody says, “A what? I—duh-uh!” See? That’s the same gag as the fireman. Duplicate gag.

No, the guy is there, see? There are no rungs—try to go further south than the bottom plating of the ship. There’s no ladder going down there because there’s nothing there!

So, the fellow is almost at total effect. He has lost his identity, he’s lost his true beingness, he’s associated himself with other things. Now, you’ve got to increase his awareness to find out anything.

There is no reason why—and by the way, I’ve made tremendous experiments in this particular direction, in all ways and directions. You can’t shoot him full of scopolamine or truth serum or something like this, or hypnotize him and ask him something or other. All you’d restimulate is the GPM “to create the past,” or something like this, you know. And he’ll create a nice past for you, because he’s less aware now than he was before.

See? So you reduce awareness, you find less person, and you’re looking for the fireman and you already got him, see? And that’s all there is there. And you’re at the complete bottom rung of the ladder.

All right. Now, how do you get anyplace else? This is your problem as the auditor, see? Well, there are seven Levels up. And these Levels are determined only by this—only by this: an increased awareness of his beingness and his relationship to existence, and the problems and solutions of life. You just increase his awareness of this. What is a problem to this man? And if you simply ask that of each one of the seven levels as you go up, you could draw those levels very nicely. What is a problem to this man? And when you raise him up the line, in some horror you get up about four levels up—oh yes, he’s calmer about everything now, but he can take a look at the problems he has got, man. He’s better able to confront them so that he doesn’t shudder with horror. But if you were to pull him out of 0 and put him at Level IV with one dull thud, and say “Now look at the problems you really do have, brother,” he is not going to be able to look at those problems at all.

One, he has never climbed a single line of the stairs, because you’ve never increased his awareness of his relationship to existence. Only by increasing the individual’s awareness of his relationship to existence can you bring about any heightened condition of ability, performance, livingness or anything else.

Now, this seems to be argued with by the fact that some guy can fill himself up full of Bromo Seltzer or heroin or something like that and perform very fantastic feats in some direction or other. And you know, I think they’re all fairy tales? l did a tremendous amount of research with drugs back in ‘49, ‘50, and so forth. And the only thing that ever happened people went to sleep.

I’ve never seen any of these marvelous experiments that I see Mitten up with such glibidity. I never see the results of these experiments. I read all about them, but a scientific experiment is something that can be duplicated in a laboratory, and apparently none of these experiments so advertised can be duplicated in a laboratory. That’s an interesting one, isn’t it?

Yes, you hear about this fellow, he drinks a half a gallon of rum and therefore he can lift up a horse, you know? I’ve seen guys drink half a gallon of rum. I’ve seen them think they could lift up a horse. I haven’t seen any horses rising off the ground, man. Their coordination gets worse.

There are some writers that think they can write better when they have some drinks. Old Dash Hammett used to have a ring, one of these fancy service things that has a shot glass in six or seven holes all in a little wheel, and all of the thing beautifully rigged up here, so all you had to do was turn it around and you could pick out the next shot glass, you know—these little salon presentation pieces of stuff. And he used to set that down the side of his desk; and when he would finish a chapter he’d pick up the next shot glass, you see, and down it, and go so . . . I heard all about this and how well he did it.

But I ran into some other writers that weren’t so good this way. And one finally put the cap on the whole thing: He says, “You know,” he says, “I can’t write when I can’t spell.” That actually wipes out the whole theory of “how much better I write when . . .” A guy thinks he writes better because he’s less aware. If he were a little more aware, he’d realize that what he was writing stunk! I don’t know if you’ve ever risen in the middle of the night and written some deathless prose or poetry. Let’s say your sense of appreciation was heightened by being half out.

See, we hear about all these things, but in actual performance, and so forth, we don’t see these things get delivered. We don’t see the half-drunk guy suddenly capable of magnificent feats of something or other, and we don’t see this and we don’t see that. But we see guys saying that they are this way. See?

So we can see here that there’s a bit of a hole in some of the logic that is presented to us whereby “if we just became a little less conscious of everything, why, we would be a lot better off.” Well, naturally, that rationale is a very current rationale, because it’s been extant since the beginning of this universe, and is probably the basic rationale that lies back of solutions to all problems— is “become unaware of them.” And that is the final solution: become totally unaware.

There’s one just before you become totally unaware, and that is “Whatever you’re doing makes you right.” Regardless of how irrational what you’re doing is, it’s this last point of assumption that, well, you’re doing right, you see? Completely irrational action.

Well, just below that, as the next solution down, is simply “become unaware.” That’s the gradient scale of solutions, if you want to know the truth of the matter.

Now, where you’ve got, then, an individual who is trying to improve himself, and so forth, he has two routes open. One is to become more aware of existence so as to cope with it, and the other is to become less aware of existence: Become less aware and hope that you don’t get run over. Or become more aware and be jolly sure that you don’t. So the dwindling solution, the solution which is going out the bottom, and so forth, is full of hope, full of a lot of things, but actually doesn’t lead anyplace. And it is a very treacherous solution, because it is simply hoping it will be all right. “Well, I’ll just forget about it and hope that it doesn’t bother me.”

We see this type of philosophy: “If you want to know why you are overworried, remember what you were worried about yesterday and realize that you aren’t worried about it today. And I’m very glad that all the things I have been worried about never happened.” This kind of philosophy Well. it’s very witty philosophy, but is it at all factual? How do we know that that fellow’s worry and the actions he took in relation to that worry did not prevent the total catastrophe? See, we’re not sure of that at all So this other solution is a complete slipshod one and is hardly any solution at all, which is just become less aware.

As one is standing there and the lion is charging down on one, of course it’s always offered as a solution: faint. See? In the nineteenth century, it’s practically the only solution womankind had. She was not in a position—she was still in a state of chattelism. She was not in a position where she could fight back in any particular way. Her word wasn’t really very good in court and that sort of thing. But she could still faint. She fainted like mad and she fainted by degrees. She “Camille’d,” also.

So, this is a solution of sorts, don’t you see? If you can’t confront it, and you can’t move away Tom it, why, you can become unaware of it. The black panther mechanism, I think we used to call this in Dianetics. Some such— “ignore it,” you see? This is worse than the black panther mechanism; this is just become unaware.

Now, therefore, it becomes somewhat terrifying to people when you reverse the flow on them. And this is one of the reasons why it’s difficult for you to do this. Although you can do this as an auditor very, very easily, it’s still sometimes quite terrifying. And you’ll have some people wondering whether or not they should run out their GPMs, or something like this, see? Almost anybody will hit that one. You know you’ve got him running pretty good if about the third time you start to audit him he becomes not quite sure that this is a good idea.

You’re asking him to reverse the flow of the universe, which is gradient unawareness. This universe has simply been a progress of less and less awareness. It’s the route to the total sleep. And the trick of the whole thing is, it’s so rigged that you never get to sleep. The lower you go, the more problems you’ve got, because now the littler problems seem bigger. And nobody ever looks at this parallel route as they go down the route of unawareness.

Actually, their becoming unaware of the big problem brought them less power or force it reduced their confront—and so now they are less able to confront little problem at that level. So therefore it seems as big now as the big problem seemed, and just one stage back. And it seems far more dangerous and threatening and—because it is! What’s the condition of some individual who, because there’s a slight wind blowing, goes into terror? What is this condition, you know? There’s a little bit of wind blowing, not much, just a little bit of wind, and this individual is in white, blanched terror.

Well, now let’s map exactly what happened to this fellow. There was some bigger problem, on the same gradient, that he ceased to confront. He became unaware of it—almost purposely—and this put him into a confront of a slight wind. See, he came down to where he could only confront this little breeze. But the big problem was full of terror, so the breeze is full of terror.

And there’s your trick when you uncover hidden memories, and this is the big invitation to go uncover hidden memories; because you often can uncover a hidden memory, and incidentally increase the individual’s awareness slightly, you see—and uncover this memory by some kind of trickery—and the individual will lose this particular little fear. That he shifts over to another fear now and doesn’t go any further than this, is something they never really bothered to investigate.

Well, I could take almost anybody who had a phobia, and most of you too, put them on the meter—you old smoothie—put them on a meter and start figuring out, “Well, what are you afraid of?” you know? “Oh, you’re afraid of this. Oh, all right.” And let’s just find the bigger fear that made them prone to the lesser fear. See? This that I’m telling you, then, has direct application— actually wraps up psychoanalysis. Freud can go back quietly to sleep in his grave. This was what he was looking for. This mechanism I am telling you right now is what he was looking for—the only mechanism he was really looking for.

All little fears are irrational and are based on a bigger fear. That’s what he considered, see? He said the little fear is irrational, so therefore we’ve got to find the bigger fear that promotes the littler fear. And he went off into all kinds of symbolism and everything else. He got lost in the rat race; he got lost in the maze before he got through. But he nevertheless was on this thing.

Now, why does that work? It works because the individual solved the bigger fear by becoming less aware. That’s the solution to the bigger fear. And let me tell you—because I’ve practiced in the field of psychoanalysis—you can throw the individual back into the bigger fear and knock him galley-west!

You can sit here with your meter and you can smoke the whole thing out very carefully—not processing him, see, not getting any charge off, no TA action or anything like that; just sort it out on the meter.

“This fear you have of cheesecakes: now, does this associate with your mother? Your father Okay. Cheesecakes, and so forth. All right. Were you afraid of your father? Did your father ever eat cheesecakes?” And all of a sudden the PC has got two directions to go: One, cognition, he blows some charge, you see, and he feels better about it. That’s almost totally an accident from your point of view, because—I’m talking to you out of experience—you can just as easily throw him over into a complete gibbering terror.

And the reason why, in psychoanalysis, 33 1/3 percent of their patients commit suicide is because they’ve put their foot into the wrong bin. They have accidentally pressured the individual’s awareness up to a point of intolerance, and the individual explodes. Without increasing his ability at all to become aware, they suddenly confront him with the tiger. And he goes boom!

See, there’re two things he can do. One is suddenly blow some charge at this point—becomes more aware and says, “Oh-ho! I’m afraid of cheesecakes merely because the old man hit my mother over the head with some when I was two. All right, fine. That’s—that’s—ha-ha! Pretty good. Yeah, oh, that’s— that’s very good. Yeah. Yeah. Feel much better now; I don’t have to be afraid of cheesecake. I can be afraid of tie pins now.”

See, that’s one route. That’s one thing that could happen to him. But remember this other thing can happen to him, too. You’re steadying him down, you’re saying “Father,” and so forth, and “Mother.” All of a sudden, a horrified look comes into his eye and he begins to shake.

“What’s the matter?”

“I don’t know! I’m really just terrified!”

See, you could play hell trying to push him any further down that track, now. He got some horrible idea, “Oh, my mother is dead!” and all of a sudden he starts screaming and howling and goes into a complete dramatization and crawls up in a ball, and you call the men in the white coats.

I’m not saying you could do this accidentally, because you don’t process this way. I’m just giving you a little bit of warning about “processing” this way: “Reaching into the deeper states of consciousness in order to discover the fears that motivate this individual.” Blooey! That’s from nowhere. There’s no route.

Because the dwindling spiral of consciousness has brought him to ignore his problems, see? And the bigger problems are less and less and less

Ah ! Let me give you a practical example—not boxing around with nothing here. Let me give you a very practical example.

First time I binged out of me bean in recent times here and started looking around about three hundred miles up and that sort of thing, I thought, “Hey, what do you know,” you know? “Ho-woo-woo! Wait a minute, you know? And aren’t these clouds high. Everything’s fine,” you know? And all of a sudden a problem hit me about eight miles high, see? I’d forgotten about that. This was one of the prices of freedom. 

Well, it was totally unintentional getting out of me ‘ead anyhow, see? And it was just a flip in that particular direction, and we were taking off some charge in another area. And I got hit in the face with a problem that I had buried beautifully! It had sod all over it. I wasn’t in any gradient up to being able to confront this problem, see? “Oh, look, I’m free! Hurray! Hurray! I’m free. Everything is fine.

“What the hell is that?” Interesting, see?

Another instance of this: I’d forgotten that some time ago I’d had a fear of being drawn into the sun—a reverse light vector. See, I’d forgotten this. Completely unbraced, all of a sudden there’s the sun—here I come, you know? Beams screech, you know, rubber burning. What’s this, you know? No gradient. See, that was just me being unwontedly brave.

Now, of course, one ordinarily retreats.. . The reason a person exteriorized, see, and then went back into the head and you couldn’t get them out again with a can opener—I’m giving you what exactly this mechanism is, see?—without taking off the charge of why they were in their head, you took them out of their head, and they suddenly confronted the problems that they had long since dwindled down on unawareness, so they’re no longer aware of these problems. They had those nicely handled. You all of a sudden bang him out of his head, he all of a sudden looks these problems square in the teeth— like, you know, little things, like “How do you keep yourself centered in a room? I don’t know. I can’t keep myself centered in the room. I keep going one side of the room. What’s all this black stuff around here? I didn’t know I had all this black stuff around.” Pang! Back into his head, see?

Or, “Gee, there’s my body down there and my car is caught in a traffic jam. What am I going to do?” Bang. “I’m liable to suddenly lose my car and lose my body too. To hell with this racket!” You see? He’d forgotten that he had to retain a certain skill to run a body remotely, see?

So back into his head he goes. Now you try to get him out of there again. Bluooh, no. He knows better now. Ho-ho, he knows better. He’s smart now!

“Come on, just one more time out of your . . .”

“No! No.”

He even sometimes gives you tremendous reality being outside just vivid, see? Everything 3-D and all set up, man. He’s all set. He’s all roaring to go. Something like this happens to him, you see, he confronts some of the old problems that he’d become unconscious of. Carefully, he made himself less conscious so he wouldn’t be aware of this problem. He never solved that problem; he just became unaware of it. He took that line of “solution,’! see?

So, back into his head he goes when he confronts that problem again, only this time he now has the awareness that there was some reason—this still sticks at him—there was some reason he went into his head. He can’t quite spot what it is, but there is some reason.

So now you give him the business, you see? You say to him, “All right. Now, but you had a good reality on it while you were outside. You know, then, that you are a spirit, that you are not a body. You know all this. You’ve got this all—”

“Ho-ho, no. I haven’t got any reality on that. Outside? When was that? When was that? I didn’t do. Not—not me! Oh, I know we thought something happened, but probably just my imagination.” You ever have anything like this happen?

Well now, this is why this happens. It’s the dwindling spiral of unawareness.

Now you’re all of a sudden going to take this individual that you’ve walked down into the bowels of the ship and asked him where’s the fireman, and he accommodatingly searched for two hours when he was it—you’re going to take this individual, and you say, “All right, it’s very nice in the crow’s-nest. You can see every place. Now, we’re going to put you in the crow’s-nest.” Swump-glump, into the crow’s-nest.

Crow’s-nests have their disadvantages. They reel. They are not warm. They are lonely. They are dark. When one falls out of them, one splashes. You haven’t got him in that crow’s-nest two minutes: He’s saying, “Why, hey, look how nice it is around here!” you know? He’s saying, “Gee whiz, oo-oo, I’d forgotten there was such a thing as the sea. Gosh!” you know? “And all this fresh air. Golly, I—no—no coal dust in it. Hey, what do you know!” And he’s enjoying all this, and all of a sudden he’s starting to look sort of haunted and he says, “Take me out of here.”

And you say, “What’s the matter?”

“Oh, don’t bother with what’s the matter; take me out of here.”

You get him back down in the stokehold; you could come down and offer him a thousand pounds cash to sign on, not back in the crow’s-nest, but even on the deck force, and he wouldn’t have anything to do with it. What happened?

Well, actually he didn’t become aware enough of what happened for him to really be aware of what happened. He came to an area of something he didn’t understand. And this was alarming to him, and he saw that his position was insecure and he was very unsafe, and that he compared it to how safe he had been—if uncomfortable—down there in the bowels of the ship. So his vote is in, with a great big X on the ballot box, for “in front of furnace door, coal dust everywhere; I at least knew, by experience, that I survived there, and I know that it’s impossible to survive in a crow’s-nest.”

This is his total rationale. In other words, you put him into a higher level of awareness. There is no deeper subconscious for the individual to go in.

You put him in this higher level of awareness, one of the things he becomes aware of is the problems he has not handled. So this alone makes it necessary for the forward progress of the individual to be by gradients. And you can make it, as long as you gave him a chance to sit down occasionally and admire the new view.

In the first place, he’s a victim of charge—self-created, tremendously restimulated, or quiescent, masses of charge. He is not aware of these things, really, at all; but the second he becomes more aware—he starts to get aware of them—he doesn’t really want anything to do with them, so he ducks out on them again. You do nothing about these things, you do nothing about this charged-up atmosphere, you do nothing to take—”just take charge off.” What am I talking about? I’m talking about you process this guy without tone arm action. Take charge off: get tone arm action on this individual. As he is getting tone arm action, he gets about so much tone arm action, he’s moved up to a new level of awareness. Having moved up to this new level of awareness, he’s able to look around, and he is perfectly comfortable where he is.

Actually, the preclear who is progressing just looks a little better and a little better and a little better. It is not a spectacular activity. Now you’ve got him up to a point of where you can take more charge off per unit of time. And the charge is more fundamental. That’s why you have Levels.

Now, actually, the charge which you can take off at one fell swoop at Level IV would practically kill somebody if you tried to do anything about it at Level 0, see? Now, as they move up the line, their problems are apparently greater. No, their problems aren’t greater, they can see better. Actually, their problems are less, and they are more capable of handling them. And so it stays in better balance. They’re more satisfied. But they can handle more breadth of problem than they could before. As they go up they can handle more problem; the problem is less upsetting to them. As they go down they can handle less problem, and these problems are more upsetting to them. That’s just the awareness of the problem, as you go up and down.

Now, the complex individual who requires the complex solution is the guy at Level 0. There is the boy who has to have the complex solutions. His problems are terribly complex, and his solutions have to be numerous. And the potentials of the problem are dangerous in the extreme to him. And therefore the solution that is handed to him must be relatively complex.

Now, how do we get around all this? Just let me give you this in a very, very rapid rundown here. How do we get around this? You know that solving somebody’s problems doesn’t do anything for him, because the new solution becomes a new malady. The old solution is all he is sick from now. Everything is a cure for a cure. Cures cure cures. It’s a gradient scale of curing somebody’s old cures. I can tell you what fellow has been a man-o’-warsman, or something like this, by his reaction to rum. This was about the only cure he had. It was a cure for fear, and it was a cure for this and cure for that, cure for being wet. Never had any dry clothes, they just gave him a drink of rum.

Rum now turns on chills, gives him a cold, and makes him terrified. Why? It restimulates rising to the zone of these old problems, which it cured. So now you have to put him through a course of treatment to cure him of rum.

Now, what gets us away from this? It’s just this: we are not giving people solutions. What is the only thing that divorces us from this in processing? How is it that we can get around this at all? Well, it’s elementary how we get around it. The basic error is the most fundamental part of the problem that can be as-ised. The basic error that you want to as-is is a fundamental part of the problem, because of this chain of solutions.

You, as an auditor, are attacking it at a problems level. You are not giving the PC new solutions for his livingness; you are taking out of existence old solutions which now exist in the form of problems. In other words, you’re as-ising past solvents. You’re as-ising what has been solved in the past. You’re taking him in the same direction up, see? See, you’re backtracking the same track he came down. You’re not giving him a new solution to the condition he is in. But you’re taking out of his think the old solution which made him drop down and become more unaware. You’re taking this out of his perimeter of existence .

In other words, you’re not attacking the problem by giving the PC new solutions. You’re attacking the problem by as-ising old problems. That they, in their turn, were solutions is beside the point. From an auditor’s point of view, just for simplicity, simply attack the problems the fellow has had. Well, you run this gorgeously in, what, 1C, 1CM—R1CM and so on—problems, solutions: What problems has he had? What has he done about these problems? What considerations has he had about these problems? Any such action as this—and particularly, how has he solved these problems? What solutions has he had to these things? And you start backing the guy up, and you’re actually backing him through yesterday’s problems.

When you start running solutions on somebody, you’re running yesterday’s problems. See, if you run it as a problem, you are running it below its point of awareness and it won’t as-is.

I’ll let you in on a little trick, here. You have been told that you must not run problems at R1C. Well, that is simply a blunt technical statement, and it’s perfectly true and valid and workable.

But let’s ask “What the devil is a problem?” You’re told that you can only run solutions on this person. Ah, but what’s a solution? A solution is a way you don’t have to confront the problem. And a problem is something you don’t want to confront. By definition, what is a problem? A problem is something you don’t want to confront. That’s why it’s a problem.

So your effort to handle it is solve it in some way, and when you solve it in the direction of becoming less aware of it or turning your back on it—when that comes in as a solution—you have now moved into less levels of awareness. So the way you as an auditor are backtracking this thing, you’re actually looking at yesterday’s solutions. And you start to ask the PC, “What problems have you had?” “What problems have you had?” “What problems have you had?”

He’s just saying, “This I couldn’t confront, that I couldn’t confront, this other I couldn’t confront.” And so you don’t get any meter, see? You don’t get this

But you say, “What solutions have you had?”

He’s saying, “This problem and this problem and this problem that I could confront.” Do you see that? It’s the difference between running no-confront and running confront.

See, today’s problem was yesterday’s solution. So you inevitably are running solutions regardless of whether you call them problems or not. But if you call them “problems,” then you’re saying the individual couldn’t confront them; if you’re saying “solutions,” then you’re saying he could confront them. You see this?

You got to backtrack this boy’s solutions, because then you’re getting rid of the problems which he set up so that he couldn’t confront anything. And this is how this all degenerated. So you’re actually cutting in at an entirely different area. You’re cutting in at the solutions the fellow has had, which of course in their turn were problems.

And therefore, processing can solve the way back up the whole track, you see? And he becomes more and more aware, he’s more and more capable of confronting, so therefore these terrifying things—you know, like going out and seeing the street—these terrifying things are less and less terrifying to him. And what’s the final there? He just graduates up through these various levels of awareness, up to a point of where he can confront the problems that made him start getting unaware in the first place, and he finds those, in turn, were solutions, so there he’s all set. And he moves on out to freedom.

And this is the route to freedom, through becoming more aware; it’s expressed on your tone arm, it’s expressed on the fact that you’re attacking the various solutions of the past. And this holds through even to GPMs at Class VI.

What were these things but very complex solutions? Extremely complex solutions. Well, there must have been a hell of a problem back of it, man. That’s obvious! There must have been quite a problem back of all that. Well, the problem back of all that and so forth was only a problem because the individual wasn’t confronting it. So he took an extraordinary-solution way out called a GPM. It was a pretty wild thing to do. But there’s where the areas of confront go.

Now, he got himself so thoroughly bogged down in all the charge and mass that his chances of becoming aware enough to even know what this problem was became very remote indeed. If he were suddenly to walk back and face this old problem, he’d fold up like a tent with its tent peg pulled. Crash!

Just ask him “Go ahead and face this old problem.”

Hhahh!

You say, “Get rid of these GPMs.” You got rid of the charge now, which were the solutions, and all of a sudden he suddenly turns around and confronts the problem that he had. He will confront that portion of it that he can confront. You start handling this and work him through that and he can confront more and more of it, and then he’ll finally laugh at himself.

But that’s what Levels are, that’s why they’re there. And it just behaves on this basis on the operating principle that the individual, at any given time, is at his lowest level of awareness, no matter what level he’s in. And you’ve got to walk him up into further awareness, further comprehension, understanding, for him to be able to hold his own in the environment that he has now entered.

That’s the rationale of Levels, and why you bring the individual back up. That’s how to process an individual. That’s how you keep from stampeding an individual in some particular direction. That also explains why you occasionally turn on a manic on a PC: “Oh, it’s wonderful! Every—wonderful!” And three days later the PC collapses. He was put in there too fast, too quick, with too much.

You see, you don’t need tougher processes now, see? You need more adroit use of the processes you’ve got. And you walk an individual up this track. He might tell you he wants to become OT tomorrow, but that’s a solution. What’s an OT? “It’s a person who’s totally unaware of anything and has buttoned the problem up.” You see how that would work?

So when we look into this, when we look into this, we see how an individual can be made better, how an individual can recover, and we see the direction we’re trying to put him; and we see that trying to put him there in a disorderly fashion and not knowing what we’re doing would arrive at very little gain for the individual and a lot of loss for the auditor. If you just realize that you’re simply increasing the individual’s level of awareness, you’re getting off the charge which debars him from confronting the problems which he had deserted—and if you look at it from that point of view, with that degree of simplicity—then it doesn’t matter how complex a problem is. It doesn’t matter how complex the solution is. But always remember that a problem is as complex as it presents potential solutions. And the man down there in the firehold, you’d be surprised how many solutions it takes to keep him alive and keep him going. Man, they’re just fantastic.

These start to drop off as you walk the individual back up. The most complex being that you confront is the PC at his lowest level. And therefore this requires the most complex solutions.

But you bypass that as an auditor by having the key to the gates. You start getting rid of the solutions he has had, and therefore the complexity of the solutions he is now adding on reduces—reduces because the problem all the time is less and less complex. See, reduce the complexity of the problem by reducing yesterday’s solutions. And this is how processing works, and this is what handles it and this is the direction you steer it. If you steer it in any other direction, you will have a severe loss.

But this way, if you understand it this way, then—let me add one little point here, now: The thing it takes to drive this home real good is to ask that little proposition I gave you. Ask some individual for an answer to something (he won’t give you the answer), then take some charge off, his considerations or solutions he’s had to it, and then ask him again for that datum, and he’ll give you the datum. Well, how come he could give you the datum now, when he couldn’t give you the datum then? He was barred from the datum before, he had retreated from the datum before; you raised his level of awareness, you got the charge off, you got him—upped his confront, upped his awareness, and he all of a sudden could give you the datum.

Nothing is more positive than this than trying to get an individual to understand an item, or something like this, in a GPM. You start this one, and the guy will sit there, “How do dogs bring about masters?” you know?

“I couldn’t imagine that. What do dogs have to do with masters? Dogs don’t have anything to do with masters, and so forth. Doesn’t . . . dogs doesn’t . . . bring masters . . . Oh, it doesn’t make any sense to me at all! Dogs. Masters. No connection. No connection whatsoever.”

You say, “What considerations have you had about it?” (In other words,
 what solutions have you had to this and what have you been doing about it?) And you run this for a few minutes and say, “All right, would dogs bring about masters?”

He says, “Of course, you fool! Anybody would know that.”

Well, you say, “What was that all about?” Well, what that was all about, a very simple thing. Overcharged area, too mucked up with solutions: guy couldn’t think, he couldn’t see, couldn’t be aware in that particular area. And for you to get him anywhere at all, you had to take him through the charge.

So the road out is not by a spectacular open sesame or a wave the wand, or something like that. You take them back out through the charge they came down to avoid. What’s that charge consist of? It consists of the solutions they had to other charge they couldn’t avoid, they couldn’t—didn’t want and became unaware of, see?

So the road into this universe is successive unawarenesses. And the road out is successive awarenesses. But not just bare-breasting your chest to the whole universe. No, you have to find out why the individual didn’t want to be aware at those points, and he didn’t want to be aware because he solved it. Well, what’s this solution? Well, that was yesterday’s problem. Yesterday’s solution, problem, solution, problem, solution—they’re all the same line of cat.

He got himself into trouble by solving himself into trouble. And when he has solved himself all the way into trouble totally, he’s here, and he’s the fireman down in the stokehold. And therefore there are no lower levels of subconscious for you to explore; there are only upper levels of awareness.

Thank you.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street N.W., Washington, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 JANUARY 1959

To all Staff
HCO London

An amusingly effective process.

“Invent a problem for which (pc’s worry or malady) is the answer.”

Examples—bad leg, old age, wrinkles, bad heart, obsession about sex, pt illness, inability to work, etc.

LRH:rd		   					L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 JANUARY 1961
Franchise
ADDITIONAL HAS PROCESSES

HAS III

“Something you wouldn’t mind forgetting” unlimited. Run in particular on any pc who has the goal of improving his memory. This process may also be used in the HGC where the pc has the chief goal of getting reality on the whole track or just improving memory.

HAS IV

“Get the idea of changing.” 
“Get the idea of not changing.”

The Instructor may add “something” (HAS IVa), “somebody” (HAS IVb) or a meter selected terminal (HAS IVc) to these commands at his discretion.

HAS V

“Get the idea of solving a problem.” 
“Get the idea of not solving a problem.”

The HAS Instructor may add a terminal if the pc complains about having lots of problems with that terminal.

HAS VI

“Communicate with (body part).” 
“Don’t communicate with (body part).”

For persons who come into a co-audit chronically or temporarily ill. The person is asked by the Instructor what part of the body is ill. The Instructor takes whatever body part the pc names, not body condition, and uses it in above process.

HAS VII

“Tell me something worse than a (body part).”

For more violent chronic or temporary illnesses assessed by Instructor exactly as above in HAS VI.

HAS VIII

“Get the idea of making people friendly.” 
“Get the idea of making people unfriendly.”

Instructor may use a specific person or the singular “a person” at discretion.

In all HAS Co-audits, the newcomer should fill out a goals sheet once a week and the Instructor should pay attention to it in choosing processes.

Further HAS Co-audit processes will be released when checked over.

LRH:jms.rd                                 				L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright © 1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 DECEMBER 1957

PRESENT TIME PROBLEM

The handling of a present time problem is relatively simple but requires a certain deftness on an E-Meter.

DEFINITION: A present time problem is one which has its elements in the material universe in present time, which is going on NOW, and which would demand the preclear’s attention to such an extent that he would feel he had better be doing something about it rather than be audited.

EXAMPLE: Auditor locates girl friend as pt problem of pc. He runs problem with “invent something worse”, considers it flat, never looks at it again in intensive. Girl friend calls up pc every night, invalidates him, finally makes him so sick she carts him off in triumph to a hospital. BLUNDER: Auditor tried to clear pt problem for the whole intensive, not at the beginning of each session. BLUNDER: Auditor in this case went backtrack to a dead wife to clean up charge.

A pt problem is cleaned up as itself only. One doesn’t backtrack to get why the pc has such a problem when doing CCH 0.

A pt problem is checked at the beginning of every session—and if there is a break at noon, is cleaned up also at the beginning of the afternoon session.

A pt problem doesn’t always bop on the meter at the first question. The auditor has to spend a little time asking around and making sure. Then he audits it on if it falls under above definition of pt problem.

THINGS TO AUDIT PT PROBLEM WITH: A very bad off case: TR Ten and if it turns on a somatic, flatten TR TEN “YOU notice that object.” An average case: Isolate the terminal most closely associated with the problem and run “Invent something worse than (terminal)” and then flatten it off with “Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to (terminal).” Also can be run “Spot where (terminal) is now. Okay. Spot where you are now. Okay.” A very easy case: Two way comm about the problem and terminals, getting pc to cognite, until the charge is gone.

Where the PT PROBLEM is pain in some member of the body, the auditor can run “Recall an unwanted (member that hurts).” And when that has been run for a few cycles from present to past, “Recall a lost (member that hurts).” (Always run lost and unwanted in the same session and for the same length of time.) Short spotting will also relieve a pain but is rough on the pc unless wholly flattened and run along with medium and long spotting.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE 
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 MARCH 1958

Distribution:
All Staff
Bulletin Board
Field Offices
HCO London

PROCESSES

When running Problems of Comparable (or incomparable) Magnitude, use the following three parts. Do not omit any part:

1. 	“Invent a problem of comparable (or incomparable) magnitude to (terminal).”

2. 	“How could that be a problem to you?”

3. 	“Can you conceive yourself figuring on that?”

Note: Question 2 may be omitted only if the preclear tells you how it could be a problem to him while answering the first part.

------------------

CONNECTEDNESS:     Insertion of the word “You” in the command:

“Get the idea of you making that (indicated object) connect with you.”

                                        			Best,

                                        			L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:md.rd 
Copyright © 1958 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 JULY 1961
Franchise

ROUTINE 1A

Here is the first refinement of the Routines.

It sometimes happens that certain auditors cannot get results with CCHs and it also happens that certain pcs have heavy constant problems that prevent SOP Goals assessment, the problems being hidden standards by which all auditing progress is judged.

It also happens that Problems as a subject is the only reason why cases fail to advance (as in rudiments). Therefore problems are probably why some people clear easily and others don't.

Considerations about the stable datum and the confusion also lead toward the auditing of problems as such. For a problem consists of two opposed stable data and therefore two confusions.

The definition of a problem is “Two or more postulates in opposition to each other”.

Probably all pcs should be run on Routine One. The Change Scale was aimed at handling alter-is in doing auditing commands. Auditing Problems, you will find, cures alter-isness in a case.

The full rundown on the basic Routine 1A was given to the Sthil Briefing Course Students on July 3, 1961, and the tape of this date should be studied for full data on Routine 1A. Routine 1A can however be used without serious consequences and with great benefit without all its data; at least it will get better results than poorly run CCHs and will get results anyway. Try it.

STEPS

Routine 1A only has two steps—

1. Problems
2. Security Check HCO WW Form 3 or HCO WW processing forms.

The original command was “Recall a problem”. This is the fundamental command. A somewhat better command, since it increases ability and does more than merely as-is track, and since it moves pc off the 1st dynamic, follows:

“What problem could you confront?”

“What problem don't you have to confront?”

“What problem should another confront?”

“What problem wouldn't another confront?”

“What problem would be confronted by others?”

“What problem wouldn't others confront?”

Note: The third question may be “What problem could another confront?” also, whichever checks out on meter.

SEC CHECK

This is followed by a Security Check. The Security Check must be an HCO WW Form Sec Check and not a local version ever. A Sec Check is done with a full command of the new book E-Meter Essentials now being mailed from HCO WW. A Security Check is done (and so are goals) only by INSTANT READ and never by LATENT READ. If the needle falls or reacts within a tenth of a second after the question is asked pursue it, for this is an Instant Read. If it doesn't fall or react for a second or more and then reacts, do NOT pursue it or do anything about it. This is a LATENT Read. Only use the E-Meter if the pc says “No” or disclaims having done it.

If the pc owns up to a question, don't refer to the meter. Don't even look at the meter when asking a Sec question the first time. If the pc then says he hasn't done it, look at the needle and without looking at the pc ask again. Pc still says “No” or its equivalent and you get an instant read, pursue it with more questions. Never pass Sec Check question that is getting an Instant Read. It's hot. Always pass them if they only give a latent read. It's cold or it's something else. Only use the meter after a pc denies it. Increase sensitivity high, asking question again, before leaving any question which a pc disclaims.

RATIO BETWEEN PROBLEM AND SEC CHECK

Run Problems and Sec Checks one for one in terms of time. But never on the same morning or same afternoon or same evening. Never in the same session. Sec Check mornings, run Problems afternoons. Or vice versa. Or on alternate days. Don't wait for Problems to flatten before you Sec Check. Problems are a long run. Two different auditors can work on one pc, one at one time of the day, the other auditor at another time of day. The pc may ARC Break if a Problems session is cut off to Sec Check. So Sec Checks are one session, Problems are another session. And spread them apart into different auditing periods.

VALUE OF ROUTINE 1A

Routine 1A should be run on every pc at one time or another when going to or having arrived near clear. It is best run first as it speeds the auditing later, removing PIPs and alteris of commands.. It does not go as far south as the CCHs but almost.

Routine 1A is extremely valuable on any case. It will give you many wins.

I believe at this time, though I have no broad data on it yet, that Routine 1A will speed up cases that are hanging fire or taking a long time to clear. Therefore use
it.

LRH :jl.rd
Copyright © 1961	                    				L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 MAY 1959

SOLUTION TO SOLUTIONS

It is interesting when some old well-worn Scientology phenomena such as problems and solutions resolves.

I noted in 1956 that problems tended to collapse upon one as he solved them, if you will recall. When you asked someone to invent a problem of comparable magnitude, his problem went further away in distance. When you asked someone for a solution to his problem the problem approached closer.

Well, I have now found the reason for this—the “penalty of solving”. It is, I might comment, not an unimportant discovery for we all become victims of problem-collapse when we solve things. This is why people won’t solve their problems, why they “have to have problems”.

Failure to make solutions (or postulates) stick elsewhere makes the thetan “believe” that solutions collapse problems on him.

A process to demonstrate the first observation is well known—problems of comparable magnitude—and getting the pc to then “solve the problem” (this last of course is not “therapeutic”).

A process to overcome this collapsing of problems upon one is “What solution could you make stick?”

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:mp.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

R2-20: USE OF PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

(Exerpted from Book: Creation of Human Ability)

The use of Problems and Solutions is the second step for Procedure 30 and includes the steps already given in R1-11. [These steps come after the steps as given below.] The auditor asks the preclear, ‘What kind of a problem could you be to your mother?’ And when the preclear has found one, ‘All right, can you be that problem?’ And when the preclear has become it, ‘Can you see your mother figuring about it?’ And whether the preclear can or not, ‘Give me another problem you could be to your mother’, ‘Can you be that problem?’ etc., until the communication lag is flattened. Then one asks the same question about father and about other people in the preclear’s life, asking the preclear each time for the problem then asking him to be the problem and then asking if it makes other people worry and think about it.  Finally one asks, ‘Now what kind of a problem can you be to ... (preclear’s name)?’ And when this has finally been flattened to a communication lag constant, one can assume that he has more or less handled this situation for the moment and he uses exactly the same process on solutions. The same wording as above is used with the exception that ‘solution’ is substituted for ‘problem’. When the preclear cannot be a problem, the auditor should find some things that the preclear can be with great certainty, have the preclear be those things, then have the preclear be a problem. When processing an auditor, have him be an auditor and a preclear alternately, physically assuming the proper position for each until all auditing has been run out and the preclear is no longer waiting to find out what is going to happen. The auditor should keep in mind the fact that a preclear can be a ‘no-solution’ also that the preclear can be a ‘no-problem’ also that the preclear can be a solution that needs problems. Many various and strange manifestations take place, but this process very severely uses only the above commands.  The process can be continued, and should be, into the commands of R1-11 which take up problems in havingness.

It may occur if the preclear is a mystic or is interested in the occult, that he offers a peculiar problem in problems. Such a preclear may be looking for the solution to all problems, assuming that only one solution is possible for all problems. If he were to discover this solution, he would, of course, find himself completely out of problems. Thus his havingness in terms of problems would be so enormously reduced that he would discover himself without any interest of any kind. But even if the preclear is not in this category, the process which is given in this paragraph is definitely indicated in the field of problems. Actually it is a combination of running significances and handling problems, and it is useful for any state of case except, of course, those upon whom only Opening Procedure of 8-C may be run. The complete remedy of problems, of course, takes place when the preclear is convinced that he can create problems at will. Until he is so convinced, he is going to hold on to old problems. The way to Convince him that he can create problems is to have him pick out, or pick up, an object. Have him examine this object until he is sure it is real. Then ask him the question: ‘What problems could this object be to you?’ Have him begin to name off various problems. It will be discovered at first, as always in the handling of significances, that he begins to drain the object itself of the problems which are inherent in the object, and then will eventually begin to invent problems. The problem should be run until the preclear is convinced that he can create problems at will. Many objects can be used rather than just one if it is discovered that the preclear’s attention is fixing too strongly upon the object.

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 OverRestimulated.

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_____?”

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

LRH :jw.cden 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright  © 1964 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

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.

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.

LRH :jw.bp.cden 						L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 MAY 1970

Remimeo

UNREADING QUESTIONS AND ITEMS

(With particular reference to doing
a Group Engram Intensive)

Never list a listing question that doesn’t read.

Never prepcheck an item that doesn’t read.

These rules hold good for all lists, all items, even DIANETICS.

A “tick” or a “stop” is not a read. Reads are small falls or falls or long falls or long fall blowdown (of TA).

A preclear’s case can be gotten into serious trouble by listing a list that doesn’t read or prepchecking or running an item that doesn’t read.

On a list, this is the sort of thing that happens:

The List is “Who or what would fly kites?” The C/S has said to “List this to a BD F/N Item”. So the auditor does list it without checking the read at all. The list can go on 99 pages with the pc protesting, getting upset. This is called a “Dead horse list” because it gave no item. The reason it didn’t was that the list question itself didn’t read. One does an L4 on the pc to correct the situation and gets “Unnecessary action”.

On a list that is getting no item you don’t extend. You correctly use L4 or any subsequent issue of it. If you extend a “dead horse list” you just make things worse. Use an L4 and it will set it right.

This weird thing can also happen. C/S says to list “Who or what would kill buffaloes?” The auditor does, gets a BD F/N Item “A Hunter”. The C/S also says to list as a second action “Who or what would feel tough?” The auditor fails to test the Question for read and lists it. Had he tested it, the list would not have read. But the list comes up with an item, “A mean hunter”. It has stirred up charge from the first question and the item “A mean hunter” is a wrong item as it is a misworded variation of the first list’s item! Now we have an unnecessary action and a wrong item. We do an L4 and the pc is still upset as maybe only one or the other of the two errors read.
____________

In a Dianetic “list” one is not doing a listing action. One is only trying to find a somatic or sensation, etc that will run. The item must read well. Or it won’t produce a chain to run. In actual fact the Dn list Q does usually read but one doesn’t bother to test it.

But an item that doesn’t read will produce no chain, no basic and the pc will jump around the track trying but just jamming up his bank.

The moral of this story is:

ALWAYS TEST A LISTING QUESTION BEFORE LETTING THE PC LIST.

ALWAYS MARK THE READ IT GAVE (sF, F, LF, LFBD) ON THE WORKSHEET.

ALWAYS TEST AN ITEM FOR READ BEFORE PREPCHECKING OR RUNNING RECALL OR ENGRAMS.

ALWAYS MARK THE READ AN ITEM GAVE (sF, F, LF, LFBD) ON THE WORKSHEET.

CHARGE

The whole subject of “charge” is based on this. “Charge” is the electrical impulse on the case that activates the meter.

“Charge” shows not only that an area has something in it. It also shows that the pc has possible reality on it.

A pc can have a broken leg, yet it might not read on a meter. It would be charged but below the pc’s reality. So it won’t read.

THINGS THAT DON’T READ WON’T RUN.

The Case Supervisor always counts on the AUDITOR to test Questions and Items for read before running them.

The auditor, when a Question or Item doesn’t read, can and should always put in “Suppress” and “Invalidate”. “On this (Question) (Item), has anything been Suppressed?” “On this (Question) (Item), has anything been Invalidated?” If either one read, the question or item will also read. The Case Supervisor also counts on the AUDITOR to use Suppress and Invalidate on a Question or Item. If after this there is still no read on the Question or Item, that’s it. Don’t use it, don’t list it. Go to the next action on the C/S or end off.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:dz.ka.rd 
Copyright © 1970 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

THE PRIOR CONFUSION

A lecture given on
3 October 1961

Thank you.

Okay. This is one of those days. What’s the date? 3rd of October?

Audience: That’s right. Yes.

And my watch stopped last night. How would I know? And 1961. Special Briefing Course, Saint Hill.

Now, Suzie has been giving you an explanation up here as to the prior confusion. And I’d better give you some material on this and some other things. I could give you a lecture on a brand-new series of discoveries, but you haven’t caught up with these. I’ll mention these in passing just to get them as a matter of record, however. There is a great deal to be known about mutual motion. Mutual motion is a terribly interesting subject. It’s the motion of two generating sources. This has something to do with problems. And mutual motion runs with great rapidity, and so on. There’s a lot more about that, but I just wanted to get this little slight note on record.

You’re interested in the prior confusion, the hidden standard, because this puts into your hands what the hakim, the witch doctor, the bone rattler, the medical doctor, and all such ilk have been trying to do something with here, now, for a good many thousands of years. This puts something into your hands. And if you grasp this, you’ve grasped something. And if you haven’t grasped it, you’re stuck in one.

Chronic somatic is a stuck moment on a time track which is the stable datum of a prior confusion. A hidden standard is the stable datum of a prior confusion. Prior confusion.

Now, in trying to explain this to you, you take a look at a chronic somatic, you try to look at the prior confusion and you swing back up into the chronic somatic again, and you don’t even know that you looked at the prior confusion. This is a very, very easy one to forget. It’s a very easy one to slip on because it is, actually, the basic anatomy of how pictures and illnesses and concepts of one kind or another get very, very stuck.

The way they get stuck is the confusion and the stable datum. Now, that confusion and the stable datum has been known to us for mans! many years. And what we’ve done to it is add time to the span. The confusion is in one place and the stable datum at a later place. So in all time-track plotting. you get the confusion, and then you get, after that, the stable datum. So actually, they’re linear in time. In other words, you don’t have the stable datum and the confusion occurring necessarily—and certainly not very aberratedly—you don’t have these two things occurring simultaneously in time. In other words, the stable datum and the confusion do not occur in time, if they’re going to become aberrative, which is the same time—you don’t have the stable datum and the confusion in the same instant of time.

Now, by that we mean twelve o’clock, second of October 1961: There’s a confusion while a person is sitting at a table. Well, the confusion doesn’t make the person necessarily sit more solidly at the table. That’s not the kind of stuck that we’re mixed up with.

This is the way we get the person if the person is going to be stuck at the table: At eleven o’clock there was a hell of a confusion, and the person had an upset and had an upset stomach at twelve o’clock, and sat down in the table— at the table to ease their upset stomach, and somehow or another it didn’t ease.

Well, there was no confusion at twelve o’clock. The confusion was at eleven o’clock, just an hour before. Do you see this now?

In other words, the confusion is at an earlier instant of time than the stable datum that the person adopted afterwards. But we find that the stable datum which is adopted afterwards is the sticker. Of course, you can always adopt a stable datum in the middle of a confusion. This is it. But that isn’t the one that sticks. The one that sticks is where you have a stable datum adopted after the fact of the confusion.

The United States goes to war with Japan; nothing much occurs as a result of the war, perhaps. And then we all of a sudden have President Eisenhower talking about loss of face. Well, it’s very interesting to have an American president use a Japanese term.

We give the Wehrmacht a hell of a shellacking, and during the war nobody is being the Wehrmacht, that’s for sure. The 88s are going on one side and the 22s are going on the other side, and we have a good, solid, flat-out, knock-down-drag-out war. And nothing happens during this period of time that is at all upsetting, except people getting killed and buildings blown down, and so forth. But everybody is too interested to have any stable data to amount to anything.

And then after the war, there’s a discussion about “should American troops goose-step?” There was, you know? Now we add in World War I to it and we find American troops wearing German helmets. It’s fascinating. This gets more and more fascinating.

Now, we can understand the Confederacy all wearing Federal uniforms during the Civil War, because they didn’t have any but there were lots of Federal dead to take them off of. That wasn’t much of a stable datum. But today we find the Confederacy is very stuck in the Confederacy.

Now, we think that something happened, like the assassination of Lincoln or something, and all of this. Well, we certainly know all about Lincoln’s assassination. Well, how about a lot of the other people who got assassinated by bullets in that war? You see, we’re not worried about them. That stable datum isn’t sticking, but something that happened after the action is sticking like mad.

This is a peculiarity, and it’s not necessarily sensible. It doesn’t necessarily follow any logic; this is an empirical fact. By empirical fact I mean one that is established by observation, not established by theory or reason. This is true only because it’s observed to be true.

Now, you can develop a lot of theories about why water doesn’t flow uphill. There could be lots of theories developed about it, but you stand alongside of a river, and then you go find another river, and then you go find another river, and then you go find another river, and you observe all of these rivers, and you find out finally that the common denominator of all rivers was that water was flowing downhill. The points downstream are at less altitude than the points upstream. And we establish the fact, then, that water flows downhill. We don’t have to have the theory of gravity; we don’t have to have any other theory connected with it at all. All we have to have is the observation that all rivers we are able to contact are flowing downhill. That’s an empirical datum.

All right. Now, this “prior confusion” is an empirical datum, and that is all it is. It’s empirical. It’s just observed that this is the case: that the person is not stuck in the marriage that they are complaining about but are stuck in the marriage because of the confusion that existed before the marriage; they’re not stuck in the marriage because of the confusion of the marriage.

Now, you’ve always been assuming that the marriage got stuck because of the confusion of the marriage. All right. Now let’s get down to workability Solid, sound workability. How many marriages have you squared sup by knocking all the confusion out of the marriage? Well, it’s sort of a lot of little failed lines on that. We’ve straightened up a lot about marriages, and so forth, by knocking out their confusion. We’ve done a lot about marriages by knocking out the confusion of the marriage. But the reason we couldn’t do it rapidly, and the reason we got bored stiff trying to do something about it, is if a person is stuck on the subject of a marriage, the reason they are stuck has nothing to do with that period of time but has to do with the prior period of time that predated the marriage. And if you free up that prior period of time to the marriage, the difficulties of the marriage blow. Now, this is an empirical oddity, an oddity of magnitude.

We’ve got somebody who has got to have their liver operated on; something wrong with their liver. We find them stuck in an operation on a liver. They’ve got to have another operation on a liver. They know it’s their liver. Their attention is stuck solidly on the liver, and so we go ahead and process the liver, but we never find the basic-basic on the chain of when their attention got stuck on the liver.

When did their attention get stuck on the liver? Actually, it got stuck on the liver immediately after a confusion. Immediately after a confusion. So the way to blow this operation on the liver is to blow the confusion which preceded the difficulty with the liver. It’s so peculiar. It’s sufficiently peculiar that this occurs when you try to learn it: You immediately think of your own chronic somatic. You try to swing your attention before you had the chronic somatic, and you wind up with the chronic somatic. And you say, “Well, there is the chronic somatic, and of course, that is all there is to it.”

And then one tells you again right away, “Now look. Let’s look before you had that chronic somatic.”

And you say, “Yes. Chronic somatic.” It’s just as though we’re trying to put your attention on top of a spring. And as you put your attention on the spring, it rebounds, and blows you back into the chronic somatic, do you see? And your attention just doesn’t go on to the prior confusion. It’s quite remarkable.

You say to somebody, “All right”—you’ll do this as an auditor, now, many times. You’ll say, “Put your attention now on the period”—or “What happened,” you say in some other fashion—”What happened just before you got all upset with this marriage?”

And they say, “Well, I got all upset with the marriage.”

And you say, “Well, what happened just before you met this person and so forth?”

“Oh, well, just before I met this person, um... Uh, yeah, well, we certainly had a hell of a time in that marriage.”

And you say, “Well now, look-a-here. We’re talking about just before you met the person. What was the date before you met the person?”

Well, they’re liable to do something like “Well, I had an awful lot of trouble when I was a little child.”

You say, “Yeah. But just before this marriage. Just before the marriage.” And they say, “Yeah. Well, I had an awful lot of trouble in that marriage.” What’s happening is, is the PC’s attention bounces to later periods of time. Chronic somatics are always the result and solution of an unconfrontable disturbance which occurred immediately before them. Hidden standards and present time problems are always the result of a confusion which immediately preceded the difficulty. And when you get the PC to put his attention on the confusion, you are asking him to do what he couldn’t do, and why he pinned his attention just after the confusion. You see? He looks at the confusion, and then his attention, without his recognizing anything, bounces straight into the stable datum.

Man has a broken leg. And this broken leg has just been going on and on and on for years and years and years. He doesn’t recognize it as a broken leg. The medicos say it’s a “tibiosis of the filamoriasis,’’ and that he’s suffering from a decay of the tendon.

Well, he busted his leg sometime or another. Let’s get it down to simple language us folks can understand, and—you see, if you don’t know anything about a subject, you can get awfully fancy. As a matter of fact, the more fanciness and the more oddball opinion and crosscurrent of opinion you find in a subject, you can assume that that is in direct relation to the amount known about the subject.

The more confusion in the subject, the more crisscross, the more learnedness, the more pretended knowingness there is in the subject, the less is actually known about it. You can get a terribly complicated idea about life and the mind from fields where it isn’t known. You understand? There’s a lot of invented, pretended knowingness on the thing. For instance, I don’t know how many medical terms there are for a leg, and yet this leg won’t heal, and they can’t make it heal fast, but they can sure call it by lots of names and have lots of opinions on it, don’t you see?

Well, they’re sort of bouncing off the confusion. All right. So the person has got a busted leg. Well, the leg should have healed up in five or six weeks and that should have been all there was to it, and that’s it—finished. But it isn’t. Seven years later, like the children’s doctor, the fellow is still limping—I think two years ago.

He kids me every time he sees me. You know, he comes in limp, limp— masking the limp very consciously as soon as he’s on the premises, trying very hard not to limp. He was in a skiing accident 8 couple of years ago, and I told him I was going to process him, and it scared him within an inch of his life. And so he always has some kidding remark to make to me when he comes in to look at the children’s tongues about whether or not I’m going to process him.

But look, it’s been two years and he’s still limping. Ah, well, then this isn’t just a skiing accident, because there’s nothing really in bad shape about the bones. They were all put together by the very best orthopedic surgeons. He had the best of care; he’s a doctor.

So what must have happened? Well, he busted his leg in a skiing accident. And two years later it has yet to heal, really. Oh, well, the bones are grown together and it isn’t bleeding anymore, but it isn’t operating. All right. Now let’s take a look at that.

Was it the instant of the accident? Ah, well, we know more about the mind than they do.

We know very well that before some fellow does a practiced action . . . If he’s in a smooth frame of mind, he’s used to doing this action, he goes down the slope and slaloms like mad, and everything is just dandy, and he winds up at the bottom upright and saying “Whee!”

But if a fellow is in a disturbed frame of mind, and his attention is on many other things—he just received a letter from his wife or his girl saying, “Well, I’ve just gone out again with Pete,” don’t you see? And there’s nothing he can do anything to but himself. He can’t do anything to anybody but himself. There’s nobody else around or he’s powerless or something like that. Then this practiced skier starts at the top of the slope, and he goes halfway down and he says, “This is a good place,” and wraps himself around a tree.

Then they put him pathetically in the hospital and bring him home by ambulance plane and so on, and it goes on for years, don’t you see?

So the high probability is that the accident had nothing to do with the motions of skiing. Skiing probably has nothing to do with the confusion which resulted in a broken leg, mentally. Because we have to ask the question, how did he get himself bunged up, and why?

Now, a fellow doesn’t get himself bunged up by accident. See, it’s not by accident. That’s the first thing you have to recognize—that there’s some kind of a postulate in there to bung himself up. And he’ll manage it every time.

All right. So this medico: all right, we ask him, “Now, what happened just before you broke your leg?”

And he’ll say, “Well, the snow was flying all around, and the wind was going whee, and . . . and so forth. And then there was this condemned Switzerland pine tree, and it pulled itself up by the roots and moved over in the middle of the ski track.”

And you say, “Good.”

And we keep on running this. And at the end of many hours, we actually do get the thing to remove to a marked degree. We get an abatement of the chronic somatic. Yes, we can do that. We have done that many times.

Well, how would you like to see that chronic somatic vanish? Well, that would be a much better procedure and much faster than that. Ah, well, we’d have to find out what went on before he went skiing that day.

Well, he was on vacation, we know, and we know that he felt he needed a vacation. Why did he feel he needed a vacation? An odd thing to need (me particularly, I never get one, so I don’t dare need one!). He needed a vacation. Well, what was the randomity that preceded that? What was his mail like while he was on vacation? Let’s search in this area. Let’s find out anywhere in the last six months what had been going on. And all of a sudden we wind up with the damnedest, knockdown-drag-out confusion. If it was enough to make him break his leg, it will be sufficient to bar out his inspection of it. And at first he won’t be able to inspect the prior confusion.

It takes an auditor sitting across from him to chonk his attention into that period and do an assessment of it. And all of a sudden he finds out that he thought the broken leg happened last year, when it happened two years ago. And he’s completely forgotten that he broke the same leg when he was five; and all kinds of oddball forgettingnesses turn up.

Now, what causes forgettingness? It’s the inability to confront a motion. The inability to confront a motion brings about an occlusion of that area of time. Now, you’ve got postulate—the first-, second-, third-, fourth-postulate theory. The first postulate is not-know. The second postulate is know.

All right. So you’ve got a big not-know, you see? He had a big lot of mysteries and a lot of confusion’s he couldn’t confront, and nothing he could do anything about of any kind whatsoever, and he got himself a “know” which immediately succeeded it in time. In other words, this not-know area, this confusion area, is followed by a know area later in time. Now, this is quite interesting because he follows a not-know by a know, and the know might be quite stupid, and it might be quite painful, and it might be quite destructive, but nevertheless it’s a knowingness. Some fellow who is gimping around with a bad leg certainly knows something: He knows he’s got a bad leg.
 
You might say all psychosomatics and hidden standards are cures for mystery. They give themself a knowingness, following a period of not-knowingness.

Now, people can get stuck in relief, and very often when your PC feels better, he will feel better momentarily and quite artificially and not feel better at all. Now, for instance, supposing we were all sitting here and we heard a high whine and a dull thud out in the park, and an airplane full of screaming passengers had apparently just crashed, you know, and we could hear the whole works, sitting here. And so we in a big flurry crowd out the door and rush outside to see this airplane that’s crashed, and so on. And it’s just Peter left one of his record players on.

See? Quite a feeling of relief, but the relief followed a period of confusion. Now, I’m not saying this is very aberrative. This would be so light that it’s very easy to face indeed. Then, you see, we’d have a little period of relief, and it actually would stick slightly on the track. See, it’s a period of relief. It’s a period of know.

Now, you see, at the moment we heard it crash, we didn’t know what was happening, so we’ve got a not-know. And then we go out and we find out what happened, we find out nothing happened and that it’s all all right, so we know. You get this. This is just in vignette. What I’m talking about is not at all aberrative. It takes much greater volume of magnitude to make one of these things.

All right. Now, let’s go into what Mary Sue was showing you here just before I came in. And we have ourselves a period there, which we see as a big, white chalk mark up at the top, and then there’s a little chalk mark down the line, and we’ve got a vertical time track here; and it’s got a big blob of white chalk at the up part, and a little blob, and then below that a big blob, and then below that a little blob, and some more little blobs. All right. Now, I’m not making fun of her cartooning here. But anyway, taking a look at this now, we see the time track plots linearly. Now, she’s got herself plotted from a zero at the top to 1961 at the bottom. Well, all right. We’ll take it that way because time tracks don’t run in any direction. All right.

Now, we take that little tiny, last, bottom white blob, and that’s a chronic somatic. The person has a chest wheeze, and every time you process them, they look at their chest to find out if they’re still wheezing. And they know the auditing command worked because the wheeze is less, or they think the auditing command didn’t work because the wheeze is more. This is how they know, you see? This is how they know. Well, isn’t it interesting that this know would occur in connection with a chronic somatic?

Now, a person must have a hell of an avidity for knowingness if they have to find out if their back is still broke or their chest is still caved in or if their rib cage is squashed. What kind of knowingness is this? Well, it must have followed one God-awful confusion, man. If that’s the acceptable level of knowingness—wow!—what must have happened before that? So we take this PC, and we say to this PC, pointing to that last white blob there, “yell, what was going on in your life immediately before you noticed this difficulty with your chest?”

And your first, usual, immediate response, if this is a hot subject, is “Well, my chest has always hurt me.” It’ll be something “intelligible” like this.

They haven’t answered the question at all. You say, “No, no, no. Just before you noticed this—before you noticed this—what happened in your life?”

And they say, “Well, um . . . I don’t know.”

That’s right. There you got it hot. That’s hot and heavy. And, boy, they never—they never spake more sooth than that. They were spaking sooth with all front teeth. They didn’t know, that’s for sure, or they wouldn’t have this chest difficulty. All right.
 
So we punch it a little harder—you see, it’s the auditor compelling the PC’s attention into that area—and we say, “Well, when did it turn on? What period of time was it when it turned on?”

“Well,” he said, “well, it must have been—must have been the summer of ‘59 or something like that. I know I had it then.”

You see, they haven’t said anything “before” yet, you see? They know they had it in the summer of ‘59. You say, “Now, that’s good. Now, just what happened just before the summer of ‘59?”

“Well, I had it in the spring of ‘59 too.”

See, they haven’t answered your question yet, you know? All right. But you see what’s happening here? You’re plowing their attention back toward an unconfrontable area. So you say, “Well, all right. What happened before that? Well, what was going on before you noticed this chest somatic and so forth?”

And they say, “Well . . . Oh, well, uh . . . yeah, well, it uh . . .” (And we notice this little upper white blob here, see?) They say, “Yeah, well, it turned off for a long time.” Haven’t answered your question yet. See, it’s off from the first white blob to the second white blob, see? Well, it’s off.

“Yeah. Well, I wasn’t troubled with it then, and uh . . . I remember—oh, Yes! Yes, that’s right. I recall in ‘56, I had medical treatment for this” See, they’ve told you nothing about “before” yet. But they’ve got it stretched back in time. And then all of a sudden they’ll come up and say, “Well, let’s see, ‘56.” (And we’ll call that earlier blob there 1956.) They’ll say, “Well, let’s see.”

You say, “What were you doing in ‘56?”

“Well, I . . . ‘55. That was when I was down at camp in Cornwall. No. No, no, no. Come to think about it, that was ‘52.” And they’re liable to come up with the adjudication that they don’t know what happened from 1952 to 1956. This is a curious blank period. And they figure it all out, and they say, well, it must have been this and it must have been that, and it might have been this and might have been that. And then all of a sudden they say, “Well, the truth of the matter is, I was . . . Well, I’m not sure. I’m not sure. But do you know, I had this when I was a child?”

See, way back now. Way, way back. Boom!

“Yes, I had this when I was a child. They thought that I had consumption and so forth, and I—actually I hadn’t remembered that, but I had a lot of consumption, and I remember 1 was living with my grandmother, and so forth. And uh . . . they—they had me to the doctor a lot of times, and that sort of thing. And I just had overlooked this fact.”

Now we’re up at the first white blob up there, see?

You say, “Well, what happened just before you were living with your grandmother?”

“Well, I wouldn’t know. I was awfully young. I was eleven.”

“Well, yeah. Well, where were your parents at that time?”

“Well, let’s see.”

And brother, we’ve got another blank spot, and we’ve got a nice, big, juicy blank spot. Now, we keep plowing into this blank spot, and we finally find out that Mother and Father had agreed to separate just before this, and there had been a lot of domestic difficulties, and we think we’ve got it now, and we’re trying to really pin it down. We think we’ve got it. And they were trying to separate, and this was happening, and that was happening; it was all very clouded up, and it was all very this and that. And we’re just about to get a touching short story about this whole thing, when suddenly the PC remembers that he burned down the house.

And that will be the end of that chronic somatic. Just by assessment only. See? That’s just by assessment. But your assessment is, doggedly, to find out what happened before they noticed this.
 
Now, perhaps it’s a bad thing to say “for the first time” because this is always a lie. One of the stable data of auditing is always make your auditing question as truthful and as factual as possible. Don’t make auditing questions that are nonfactual. So you say, “Well, what is the first time you remembered this?” or “What is the first time you noticed this?” Of course the PC cannot answer this because he’s going to give you fifty more first times after he’s given you the first time. So it’s much cleverer to say, “What is a time that you noticed this? When did you notice this? What happened before you noticed this?” And then just keep chugging it in.

Now, it’s not a repetitive command, and this is actually getting rid of chronic somatics by assessment. If you are very clever at assessing, you can just go on and assess and assess and assess, and you finally find out the confusion; and you pin the confusion down to such a degree that you’ve made the PC confront the confusion, the confusion will as-is. Right there. Bang! And everything else will blow after it, and that is it. You can do it by assessment only with an E-Meter. That requires a rather clever auditor to do the whole job by assessment only.

Now, here’s an easier way to do it. We finally spot the area of confusion by assessment, and then we put together Security Checks to fit that area. We find out that this person had this when they were eleven: Well, it’s some kind of a childhood activity that is all messed up. Well, you can actually take the Child’s Security Check, and bend it around one way or the other, question by question, and add your own questions to it, and so on; and you’re going to get yourself some interesting data that this PC has never seen before.

And you’re going to blow out those zones of confusion, and you’re going to find the dissipation of the hidden standard of the chronic somatic. That is a more standardized method of going about one of these things.

All right. Let’s take another example. This girl finds that she has headaches. She finds she has lots of headaches. And in auditing, she’s always sort of aware of this headache. And she knows the auditing process is working because the headache turns on or turns off, and if nothing affects the headache, she of course doesn’t think the auditing process is working. That’s her hidden standard—that by which she finds out whether or not auditing is working. That is the definition of a hidden standard.

Well, naturally, your rudiments are out as long as the PC has this condition. Why? Well, the PC is via-ing the auditing command.

Now, in all cases where a PC is not making progress on Routine 3, you can bet your bottom peseta that the PC has not and is not doing the auditing command. They might be doing the auditing command plus, plus, plus, see, or they might not be doing it at all.

I do remember back in Wichita, long, long ago, a PC coming around to me after a twenty-five hour intensive and bragging to me that they had succeeded in not answering an auditing command once, and they thought this was awfully clever of them. Yes sir, the PC was really bragging about it. What was the matter with the auditor that he didn’t find it out?

Now, here is the more usual thing: The PC does the auditing command and applies it to a certain area of the mind or body in order to find out if it has affected something else. And they do the auditing command by applying the auditing command to something in the mind, and then they look over here to see what is going on and if anything happened. And they do this continually. They’re not just doing the auditing command. They are doing something else. Now, they know they did the auditing command right or they know they did it wrong, or they know the command is right or wrong, in direct comparison to how much happens to alleviate this difficulty.

You are auditing a PC who has an attention fixed, not on the bank in general but on some particular, peculiar activity. And they’re doing something peculiar with every auditing command. You feed them the auditing command, they do something peculiar with it. Even though they verbally answer it and so on, and apparently have executed it, they do something else with it.

And when a PC is not making progress, you can say his attention is stuck someplace. Well, that’s a shortened form of saying the rudiments are out. One of the rudiments are out. The PC is not really in session. The PC is on auto. The PC is not under the auditing control, the PC is under his own control. He’s under his own control to this degree: You say something, then the PC takes over as auditor and executes the auditing command, and then gives the session back to you. And you ask the next question, and when you ask the question, then the PC takes the auditing command, goes on auto, audits the auditing command on himself and then gives the auditing session back to you. Have you got the idea? And the PC, during the entire period of execution of the auditing command, is not in session. Any PC who hasn’t gone Clear in 150 hours is doing it. PC has got a hidden standard.

What is this hidden standard? Maybe he’s got six hidden standards. Well, every one of those hidden standards is totally this stable datum stuck after the fact of the confusion. They all have the same anatomy. PC takes the session away from you, does the auditing command, finds out whether or not it moves this electronic, then sees whether or not the electronic is affecting whether or not he’s a boy or a girl.

That’s right. That was how we moved into this, with just that action on the part of a PC. We knew about this for a long time, but we’ve never really seen it in action to this flagrant degree.

This PC had been audited for about a thousand hours, and had applied every single auditing command ever given to the PC to the resolution of an electronic incident which the PC was convinced, if it were run out, he would turn from a man to a woman. Thousand hours—no progress. Well, why? The PC was never in session.

So the rudiments are out. The basic rudiment that is out is present time problem of long duration, where you have a hidden standard.

All right. Very good. Now if we take ourselves a PC, and we audit along with Routine 3, we can find the PC’s goal, we can find the PC’s terminal; oh, yes, with some difficulty, but we can find them in relatively short order, certainly under twenty-five hours of auditing, if we’re really in there. We keep the most flagrant rudiments in, don’t you see? But we haven’t noticed this hidden standard yet. Now—and then we assess the PC on the Prehav Scale, and we run the PC on the Prehav Scale, and we run the PC and we run the PC and we run the PC and nothing happens. Well, there’s where it’ll show up.

See, we can do the action of finding a goal, because the PC’s attentions are very, very solidly on goals. We can certainly find the action of a terminal, we can find this terminal, because we actually haven’t really asked the PC to do an auditing command. It’s all between you and the meter, see? We can find the assessed level of the Prehav Scale very easily, but now we go into the repetitive auditing command and the PC goes on auto.

Why does the PC go on auto? Well, the PC has got a hidden standard. The PC is auditing himself on making his nose well. PC is not running—not at all running—the terminal of a railroad engineer. He’s running a nose. And so he doesn’t go Clear.

Now, very often, in worse cases, the PC will be very resistive toward an auditor’s inquiring questions. The auditor says, “What are you doing? What did you do with that auditing command?” You’ve all of a sudden got a knockdown-drag-out fight on y our hands. PC does not like you inquiring into it.

The first time you ever notice anything like that, you say to yourself, “This PC has a hidden standard. Let’s find out what it is.”

Now, although you can find the person’s goal, terminal and level, you actually can’t run the PC on that in the presence of hidden standards. It is a waste of time.

Now, there’s one earlier action that can be taken with the PC, that the PC will do and that will produce results. But there is only one earlier action can be taken before a Routine 3 assessment, and that is a Security Check. This can be done without knowing the PC’s terminal and will produce lasting, excellent results. There is no other process—now we have all the facts in over the years—will produce easy and lasting gains on a PC. No other process will produce easy, good, solid, lasting, positive gains on a PC. You have a Security Check and you’ve got the assessment and you’ve got the running of the assessment.

So, this leaves us with a Security Check as a very powerful auditing weapon, because it will operate whether you’re running the goals terminal or not. The Security Check will operate, and those gains you make with a Security Check will be lasting gains.

Hence, we divide up auditors into: Class I—run any process on which they have a certainty. This will probably be some kind of a control process, by the way. It’ll be some cousin to the CCHs, if the auditor is wise, because that at least works out the control factors of the PC, and you do make a sort of gain. You’re running in order, and something is going to happen with this PC, and it doesn’t come under the heading, however, of a fast, easy gain. It is not a fast, easy gain. It is a lasting gain, but it is a hard, long gain, and that’s all you can say for it. That’s the CCHs, SCS—all these various things. They are long, hard, arduous things to handle, and they do produce a lasting gain, but at what cost! So it doesn’t come under the heading of a nice, easy, stable gain achieved by the auditor at all.

But Class I auditors had better be employed, even though it is very hard to achieve a long, lasting proposition. No matter how arduously, they had better be put to work doing some auditing, because any auditing is better than no auditing, and this type of gain will be quite beneficial in the long run, and so forth. And this argues that a Class I auditor is doing something, as long as he’s doing one of these types of processes.

All right. We move up to Class II auditor, and a Class II auditor can security check. All right. Security Checking produces a lasting gain, and it is very easy. It is very easy to do. It is very nice. It is very, very fast, and it is a lasting result. So we have the Class II auditor doing Security Checks. And actually when we’re talking about the hidden standard, and that sort of thing, we can envision that a Class II auditor would have set up a PC on the basis of having gotten rid of all of his hidden standards, and that’s what we look Go a Class II auditor to do, not just to sit there and prate off a Sec Check 3.

We’re asking him to do something else. We’re asking him to Sec Check in the direction of getting rid of all of the stuck points in this lifetime. We’re asking him to get rid of the confusions of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth marriages. We’re asking all of the . . . We’re asking him to get rid of that crooked neck. We’re asking him to get rid of the odd habit he has that every time you say something to him he goes drvvvvvkh! It seems rather odd this person would do that, you know? Because you haven’t asked him to smell a thing.

In other words, these things all surrender to Security Checking. All of them, now, the lot. But what kind of Security Checking does it take? Well, it takes a standard Security Check. That is always a good thing to bang into a case. The first and foremost thing you do. That’s a good thing—just go on and pick out the probable Security Check.

Let’s take an old-time auditor, he’s been knocking around and into God knows what. Well, the first Security Check we want to shove into him is the last two pages of a Sec 3, plus Sec Check 6. There’s no reason to do the first many, many pages of 3 or do anything very fancy, because he’s not going to get any benefit of something that he has overts on, and so on. So let’s get that out of the road.

And now having done this, let us get clever and apply this data about the stable datum and the prior confusion. Now, this is different than the stable datum and the confusion—the idea that we get all of the stable—we get all the confusions off the case and we will of course knock out at once all of the person’s activities, and so forth. No, that isn’t quite true. We have to knock them out selectively—has to be very selective.

So after you got the last two pages of a Form 3 and all of a 6 done, you should roll up your sleeves at about that point, and let’s go for the hidden standards. Let’s find out if there is anything by which this person measures gain or no gain.

“What would have to happen for you to know that Scientology works?” that’s the clue question.

And you get these things, and sometimes these things are detached things. Sometime these things are “Well, my mother would have to get well.” Well, he doesn’t really mean—perhaps he does, but he really, probably, doesn’t mean—that his mother would have to be sold on Scientology and brought to an auditor. No. The auditing command which he is doing, if applied to himself, would have to cure his mother. You see, he often means that, too. So this idea, this—he says, “Well, my mother would have to get well.” Well, this is marvelous. It means his mother is a stuck . . . a stuck chronic somatic.

Now, the way you would have handled this in the past—the way you would have handled this in the past—is not the fastest way to handle it. You could have handled it in the past, and it would have worked out all right in the past, but that is not the fastest way to handle it. I’m just giving you a much faster method.

When did this occur that Mother became a stable datum? And what confusion preceded it? Ahhh. In other words, we don’t run O/W on Mama, and we don’t security check Mama, and we don’t have very much to do with Mama. We want to find out what happened before Mama became a chronic somatic. Because Mama is a stable datum for a confusion before the fact of accepting Mama as a stable datum. There’s some confusion prior. Remember, it’s always prior.

Let’s reorient your thinking on this. Now, the fellow says, “Well, uhhh . . . I just have to get over hating my father. That’s what would have to happen. Yes, sir. To know Scientology worked, I’d have to get over hating my father.”

“Well,” you say, “that’s good.” So obviously you can do something about that. You do a Security Check about his father. That’s obvious, isn’t it? This is past thinking on it. And you get all of his overts against his father, and all of his withholds from his father, and you clean up Father. And what do you know? You could do it, I mean, you could have gotten a long way in this direction .

Ah-ha, there’s a much faster method. Let’s find out what happened before “hating Father” became his stable data in life. “Hating Father” must be an activity he can confront, as a retreat from earlier activities he can’t confront. And they probably have nothing to do with his father. Hatred of Father was much more acceptable to him than the tremendous confusion he had with— who knows? Probably not Father. Who knows who it is? Lord knows.

So, what do you do? You assess. And you find the area of prior confusion to the hatred of Father. Now, at first the PC is going to tell you it’s something that Father did, and it’s something that had to do with Father. But remember, it can’t have anything to do with Father if Father is the stuck somatic. Can’t have anything to do with Father, you see, if Father is the stuck personnel. If Father is the broken leg on this case, it hasn’t anything to do with Father, because he can confront Father. Well, if he can confront Father and he’s spent all these years confronting Father and so forth—it hasn’t got him well— why do you, in an auditing session, put in more hours confronting Father? Waste of time, see?

No, let’s find out what happened before this occurred. So you’d want to know, “When did you notice that you hated your father, and what happened before that?”

First answer, well, inevitably, “My father did this, my father did that.”

And you say, “Good, fine.” Give him a cheery old acknowledgment and then find out what happened before that with other people. Oh, you find out his old man hasn’t been anybody—man, his old man has been nobody in this fellow’s life. There is some kind of a person on a broomstick that has been flying around in this person’s belfry.

You know, as a child, why, this person would see—well, maybe it was his father’s mother or something, you know? And the child would see her sitting there quietly knitting and rocking in the rocking chair or something, and he absolutely just couldn’t resist, you see, spilling the cat on her, or you know, or pulling up the ball of yarn, or somehow or another stealing all of the bread dough, or putting salt in the plum pudding—just anything, see, anything. And you’ll find that these are overts, but they won’t come through that way at all.

He will finally recover the character on the broomstick, see? Total occlusion. Recover this character on the broomstick, and you will try to do a Security Check on this, and “She beat me and she socked me and she used to hold me over the well and say she was going to drop me . . .” And he’ll just go motivator, motivator, motivator, motivator, motivator, see? Of course. Why? Because he can observe the inflow, but he can’t observe his outflow.

Yeah, but what did he do? That’s what’s getting interesting here. What did he do? Did he steal her broom? Because you’ll find inevitably that this is what happened. So you make up some kind of a roster of the personnel involved prior to the stuck personnel. And you make a roster of the “missing persons bureau.” And your little list is a “missing persons bureau.” And boy, you’re really going to find missing people. PC doesn’t even know they exist. There’s going to be sections out of his life he don’t know are gone.

And you’re going to find those sections and find out who is in them and then write up a Security Check, any old kind of a Security Check, to find out what he did to them—these other people, not Father. Skip Father; he was a confrontable character. Why bother with Father? Just a waste of time. That’s what the PC is complaining about.

Now, whatever the PC complains about, do something earlier. There is your stable datum. Whatever the PC complains about, you do something earlier. And don’t pay any attention to handling the object about which he is complaining. You pay attention to his complaint. But if you continue to handle the object about which he’s complaining, such as his big ears, why, you’re not going to get anyplace. He’s complaining about big ears. “Well, I’m seeing . . . Every time I . . .” You find out every time he answers an auditing command that he finds out if his ears shrunk.

You find stuff weird like this, man. Well, did his ears shrink? Okay. “When is the first time you ever notice”—that would be wrong. “Now, when did you notice that you had big ears? When did you notice this?”

“Oh, well, I have had big ears for some time,” you see? That’s your inevitable reply.

Now, if you get a reply of this character which is a non sequitur, you know you are on to a hot area of disturbance, because the PC’s attention went onto it, and then flick!—came right up the track to the big ears. Your effort to put his attention on the area of confusion results in putting his area Attention] on the object. Whenever you try to put his area [attention] on the confusion, and then you only succeed in putting his area—attention on the object, you know you’ve got it made. You know you’re looking at one God-awful area of occlusion.

You say to him, “When did you first notice that you had big ears? Now, what happened before you first noticed you had big ears?” Any such question.

And he says, “Well, I’ve just worried about it for years—my big ears.”

Well, now, you see the mechanism at work? You asked him about a time before “big ears,” and he answered “big ears.” So it’s obvious that his attention deflected from the area you tried to put his attention on. You have located a hidden springboard. He doesn’t know it’s there, but you now do. He coasts right up the track to it. Every time you put that hull in the water it goes straight to that particular dock with a crash. It won’t head out to sea It won’t go anyplace, you see? You just put it in the water, and it hits this dock. “Father” or “ears” or something, see? Bang! And there it is.

You say, “Well, now in your—in your early life, what went on there? What went on in your early life?”

Now, this would be just asking for a whole bunch of balderdash. Now, it would take an awful lot of millions of words for the PC to tell you every single, horrible thing that’s been done to him in his early life. There’s no sense in having much of a synopsis on it. It’s up to the auditor to continue to direct the PC’s attention where he wants the PC’s attention directed, not to listen to a recount—a blow-by-blow recount—of all the beatings the dock gave him. See, that’s silly, because that’s all he’s going to tell you.

He hates his father—this is his hidden standard—he doesn’t feel better yet about his father, so not feeling better yet about his father, he knows the auditing isn’t working. And you say, “Well, tell me about your early life.”

So he says, “Well, my father . . . and he used to take me out in the woodshed, and then he did this to me and he did that to me. And he did this and he did that, and my father this and my father that.” Well, are you doing anything for this PC? No. No, you’re not doing anything for him at all, because you’re leaving his attention stuck on a refuge.

Any chronic somatic, any stuck personnel, anything of that nature is a refuge on which the PC can put his attention. And you are not doing your job as an auditor unless you get his attention eased over on to what makes him stick his attention on it. And you do that by a gradient scale, and the PC can get very restive if you jump your gradient too hard.

So you say, “All right. Big ears. Now let’s see. What happened just before you noticed that, or when did you notice that you had big ears? Tell me a time you noticed you had big ears. What’s some early period when you noticed that?”

And the PC says, “Well, well, well, well, well, well . . . I was working in London for an attorney’s firm. I used to notice it.”

“Good.” You say, “Is there any earlier time than that?”

“Oh, well . . . no. In the attorney’s firm . . .”

Oh, well, hell, you got his attention stuck there. And you say, “No, earlier—earlier than the attorney’s firm. What’d you do earlier than that?”

“Oh. Oh, well, what did I do earlier than that? Uh . . . I don’t know! What did I do earlier? Let’s see now. I went to prep school, and then I went to college, and then—so on, and that was 1952. And I got out of there, and then ‘52 and then 1955 . . . 1955, and I went to work. Yes, it must have been ‘55 I went to work—I remember that, yes. It was ‘55. Went to work for the attorney’s firm in 1955. And I got out of college in 1952.”

“Oh good,” you say, “Well, what did you do between ‘52 and ‘55?”

“I just don’t know. Now let’s see, what did I do? No, I—I met a girl. Ah, yes, I remember now. I met a girl, and she . . . Uh, yeah. I met this girl and she had a boyfriend. And we had an awful . . . No, that was ‘58. Let me see. No, no. I—I’ll get it in a minute. It’s 1952, 1955. Now, there’s a period of three years. Now, let’s see. After I got out of college, I must have gorse home for a little while. And then I must have done this, and then I must have done that, and I must have done something or other—probably. Yeah, I’m sure I must have done something like this, because, you see, you just wouldn’t ordinarily just go from college to an attorney’s firm

“Now, let me see. Oh, I know. I had an awful fight with a fellow. Yeah. Oh, that was pretty terrible. We met down in this bar, and he had some kind of a criticism of me one way or the other, and we had this hor ... No, that was ‘57. No, no. That wasn’t ‘55, that was ‘57.”

And that’s the way he’ll go on. You understand? And you say, “Well, what happened in this period of—anything that might have occurred between 1952 and 1955?”

“Oh, uhh-uh, ruh, ruh, ruh, ruh-ruh, ruh, ruh-ruh. . .”

“Well, did you ever think about big ears before 1952?”

“No, no, no, no, no, I didn’t think about that before 1952,” and so forth.

“Well, did you think about big ears after 1955?”

“Well, yes. Oh, yes, oh, yes, all the time. Used to sit there at my desk with ink all over me, and I used to sometimes get it on my ears, and they used to call me ‘ink ears’ sometimes, and so on . . . That was probably it. Actually, the firm really hated me. And the senior partners . . .” this and that.

And you say, “That’s good. Thanks! Good! Good! Good! Fine! Thank you! Thanks. Good. All right, now. Good. Now, we want ‘52 to ‘55. Now, who did you know in that period?”

“Well, I must have known my father and mother.”

“All right. Well, who introduced you to get work at the attorney’s firm?”

“Uh . . . must have been some connection with my father.”

And you know, you’re liable to find some damn-fool thing like a marriage? You’re liable to, man. You’re liable to find anything. But you will find something, and it’ll be a period there of total occlusion.

What you’re trying to do is not necessarily solve the big mystery of it all. If you were very clever, you could do the whole thing by assessment. On the meter, one of the ways you do it by assessment is “Well, ‘54: did you have a long vacation there after you left college? Was it two years? One year? Six months?”

“Oh, I went to work, something of the sort. I was doing something. I’m sure I was doing something. I must have been doing something. Over a period of three years a young man doesn’t do anything, you see? And I went up . . . I’m sure. Yes. Yeah. I’m absolutely sure. No.”

You finally dredge up a name, Agnes. Ohhhh, Agnes. Ahhhh. All right. Now, in essence—as much as you can find out about Agnes—you just do it on an interrogation basis and assess “The worst confusion you ever had with Agnes. When is the worst time you ever had with Agnes?” and so forth. And this finally peters out and you find Agnes is just a red herring. She’s hardly a girl at all, and in actual fact it was Isabel.

Isabel turns up along about this time, and now we have got a honey by the ear, and we find out that she used to stand there constantly, and say what she said, and she used to do this and do that, and she was the one who got him arrested. Arrested? ‘Where the hell did this come from? Don’t you see? We don’t find out, usually, anything about big ears. Agnes never said anything about big ears, nothing of this sort, but she went off with a boy who had big ears. And Isabel, Isabel, she went off with a boy who had big ears. Something stupid like this. So big ears got to be something in here. And in some of the wild, devious way that all of a sudden works out and becomes completely sensible, we find out how he wound up with a stable datum of big ears.

This person says, “Well, I have a ball of light and it is just back of my eyeballs, and when the ball of light glows, then I know the auditing question worked. And when it doesn’t glow, it didn’t work.

You want to find out “When did you notice this?” And then you want to find out what happened before that. “Now, what happened before that?”

And the person said, “I—well, I haven’t got the faintest idea. I’m . . . Let’s see, now. What happened before that?”

And we run into some kind of a blank period. Then all of a sudden, marvel of marvels, we find out that between 1945 and 1948 the person was deeply immersed in the Temple of Black Magic, someplace or another, and all this seems to have dropped out of sight. And what they did, really, there, was “see the light.” And he’s been seeing the light ever since, but it was one awful confusion. Because after the police raided the joint, you see . . . It wasn’t so much that, it was being sued for being the father of the child. That was what got him.

But all of this has been fantastically occluded, you see? And all of these stable data that the person has lead back to a prior unknown, and it’s just the not-know followed by the know. It’s the confusion followed by the stillness. The confusion, then the stillness.

All right. Now I’ll give you something I’ve got some kind of a reality on. It works like this: You find the bird . . . This works out on a broader track basis. You find this PC standing on a rock in the middle of the sea waiting for somebody to pick him up. And he has this pain in his stomach, and he had that pain in his stomach for many lifetimes. Many, many lifetimes he’s had the pain in his stomach.

And you say, “All right. Let’s run this out.” So we run him standing on the rock in the middle of the sea. And we I guarantee you—we can run it and we can run it and we can run it and we can run it and we can run it, and he will still have a pain in his stomach and still be standing on a rock in the middle of the sea. And this is the old engram that wouldn’t resolve.

And this is why finding the earlier on the chain resolved the later engrams —the engrams that wouldn’t erase: Because, of course, in finding the earlier engram you accidentally went across the confusion, and you got the confusion knocked out. Well, there’s nothing precedes that incident that’s hardly worth recounting except mutiny, shipwreck, sudden disaster, half drowning seven times, and there’s something kind of strange and spooky about the whole thing. And then we finally find out that he’s standing on the rock without a body and hasn’t noticed he’s dead. And this finally resolves the whole thing.

Up to that time he knew all about it. But trying to get his attention immediately before the incident when this occurred will be one of the tougher jobs, because you say, “All right. How did you get on the rock?”

And he says, “I was just standing there. Well, I must have gotten there some way. Uh . . . oh, I get a picture now of the surf. I must have come to the rock through the surf.”

Well, any fool could tell that, man. He didn’t land there by helicopter, that’s for sure. But he’ll make these suppositional actions.

Now, a person trying to do this, all by himself, begins after a while to appreciate an auditor, because his attention is pinned in a certain category.
 
And as it tries to go back to areas that are unknown to him, it of course deflects onto the chronic somatics. So he tries to put his attention back on this and then comes up into the chronic somatic, and then he’s stuck with the chronic somatic; his attention is on it, so he starts auditing the chronic somatic, and he never does put his attention back on the earlier incident, see? So he leaves himself stuck with chronic somatics.

See, his attention goes back up, and he needs an auditor sitting there to tell him to put his attention back again. You know? “What happened before that? What’s the worst kind of motion you possibly could experience on a ship?”

“Well, it wouldn’t be a ship. It’d be a submarine. I don’t know why I said that.”

“Well, what’s the worse kind of motion you could experience on a ship?”

“Well, being torpedoed by a submarine. Let’s see. Or torpedoing a ship by submarine? Being torpedoed by a submarine. Let’s see, torpedoing a ship or a ship torpedoing you? No, a ship wouldn’t torpedo you, you see? And the ship . . . It’s the worst kind of motion . . . worst kind of motion . . . Be standing on a rock waiting for a ship to come in.”

You see exactly where the attention goes. Then he’ll get all interested in the thing. “Worst kind of motion. Let’s see. Well, what might have preceded that? Must be some kind of bad motion.”

“What kind of a bad action could a person perform that that would pay for?” You know, asking him for a direct overt—just suppositional.

“Oh, oh, oh, well, you’ve really asked one now, you know? I get a picture of a foredeck of a galley. And all the galley slaves are there. And they’re all chained and their blood is running down underneath the fetters. And the overseers walk up and down the ramp, and the whips go wham! you see, and so forth. And in a battle, in a battle, when they start throwing Greek fire in amongst the galley slaves . . . No, that was much earlier. That isn’t the same period at all. I got that. That was much earlier. Much earlier.”

And you say, “Well, how much earlier was that?”

“Well, that was another lifetime. That’s a completely different lifetime. I don’t know what I was doing in this thing. It just seems kind of blank, the whole thing seems sort of blank. There’s this sailing ship, you see? And it’s sailing along, and I think I actually stood on the rock, and I managed to coerce a ship to come in and wreck itself on the rocks. Or maybe . . . or maybe . . .” And we finally find out that it wasn’t very dramatic. He just got dead drunk as a captain of a ship and ran it square aground on the rocks and killed off all the crew, and they all died in the jagged reef, and they were all screaming around him and so forth. But it wasn’t so much that. He had stolen the ship and was guilty of barratry.

Oh, we’re getting someplace now, yes. Actually, he had murdered the owner’s agent the second day out of port. Now we’re getting someplace. And the next thing you know, he isn’t standing on the rock anymore. See what happens? You get the overts and that sort of thing off on the prior confusion and it blows. And that is the end of standing on the rock.

But the more you Q-and-A with the PC and let him stand there on the rock, the less you’re going to get done. It get pretty obvious? The less you’re going to get done.

Now, you can keep chasing a PC’s attention back, back, back, back, back, back, back, and wind him up at the beginning of track, probably. Of course, that’s a kind of a Q and A too, because that’s a method of not confronting. He puts his attention on an incident much earlier that he can confront, rather than confront the incident immediately before. We’re much more interested in that span of time just before, that seems so mysterious, and that keeps landing him back on the rock. That’s the period we’re interested in. We’re not necessarily interested in his whole career as a space commander. We’re not interested in that period, because space commanders very seldom take ships to sea. All right. So what we’re interested in is the period which we have encountered.

Now, you’re going to find this technique very interesting in the handling of engrams, just to branch off on to something else. You’re going to find this very, very interesting.

When you’ve got a person’s hidden standards and he’s been running well, and he’s running his goals terminal on the Prehav Scale, and you get up to Class IV-type auditing and you’re going to run some engrams, you find these are usually very easy engrams and you haven’t got to resort to very much trickery to run them. Because the PC, with the rudiments in, he’s in valence, he’s already contacted these pictures many times as he runs up and down the track; and you find out they kind of run like hot butter. Take about a half an hour to run one of the things, an hour and a half. Three hours is the longest I’ve had so far. And they run very easily.

But let’s suppose in some peculiar way that we didn’t really get this thing wheeling, and the person seems to be stuck in it, and there’s a hell of a “burp” someplace in this engram we’re running, you see? And the person goes—every time they go through this area, they go “burp.” And every time they go through the area, they go “burp.” And we’re having trouble running the engram, we should assume that something confusing happened just before that, and try to get that up rather than try to knock the burp out. Get the incident just before, and he will blow whatever is hanging.

Now, of course, the whole engram is hanging up, isn’t it?

Now, how does a person get stuck on the track in the first place? Oh, let’s ask a much more important question than that: How does a person get on a time track in the first place, and what are you doing on the time track in this universe? That’s an interesting question. Why are you plodding along the time track with such orderliness? Could it be that there’s a confusion at the beginning of track that you can’t face? I find that a very fascinating question. I won’t bother to give you any answers to that particularly. But what is time? Time very possibly could be retreat from a confusion we cared not to confront. So we retreated en masse and have been going ever since.

But that gives you, now, a basic rundown on the prior confusion—trying to find the prior confusion to find the stuck datum. A person’s ability to confront confusions, improved, of course will blow a lot of chronic somatics. But I wouldn’t count on it. I wouldn’t count on just improving their ability to confront and then having it all work out magically. I would much rather that you just sawed into it from the word go and picked up these things and blew them selectively, one by one and very intelligently. Because a goals terminal run on the Prehav Scale will give them lots of confrontingness and it’ll give them lots of changes and that sort of thing, and you’re much more interested in that.

Trying to run a person, though, with a present time problem of long duration—one special kind of which is a hidden standard—trying to run a person on the Prehav Scale with five-, six-way brackets and that sort of thing is highly profitless, because the PC never does the auditing command.

When analyzing whether or not a case is running, look to find out whether or not the PC is materially advancing, the sensitivity is coming down and the needle is getting progressively looser.

All right. That all betokens advance of the case. Now we go just a little bit further than that and we say, if the case has not gone Clear in 150 hours of Routine 3, which includes, of course, Security Checks and assessment and runs, we’d better say to ourselves right about there, this case has never done an auditing command. This case has done something else too, or has done something else, or has not done it at all. And that would be the ne plus ultra of being kind of stupid to wait that long, now that we know this. But if it did reach that time, then we would say, well, there’s hidden standards here, and we would determine what they are. And determining what they are, we would get rid of them on this basis of a prior confusion or any refinement thereof. We’d blow these hidden standards. We’d straighten out these things. We return to a goals run. If the case still hung up, we would suspect another hidden standard. We would blow that and go on. So it might be a very good idea to blow all the hidden standards that you could blow on a case before you do very much worrying about the case getting on the way with a goals run.

In other words, by all means get their goal. By all means, get their terminal. By all means, assess a level on the Prehav Scale. By all means, give them some running on this sort of thing.

But on a Security Check angle, first, let’s get off those last two pages of Form 3, and let’s get off all of Form 6 on an old auditor. On new people, let’s straighten up Security Check in general, let’s get this pretty well ironed out, and then let’s find out if the person has any hidden standards. And then let’s undercut those by finding the prior confusions; let’s fill in these blank spots, at least in this lifetime. Let’s get them sailing so that they can actually do a straight auditing command. And then, doing that, you’ll find you make very rapid progress with clearing.

All summer and all last spring, I’ve just been working on speed of clearing. That is all I’ve been working on. And this is another seven-league-boot stride in that particular direction.

Thank you.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 SEPTEMBER AD 12

Franchise

PROBLEMS INTENSIVE USE

The only fully valid lower level process today that achieves enormously effective results, is the Modern Problems Intensive.

It does the following:

Eradicates feelings of illness 
Adds years to life 
Subtracts years from appearance 
Increases IQ.

It is very easy to run as it can be done with errors and, so long as the Tone Arm moves, will achieve marvellous results.

It is the ideal HGC process for HCA/HPA staff auditors as it gives them countless wins.

It is a natural for the field auditor who knows his Model Session and the rundown.

It can be combined with the CCHs or used without.

Its rundown is simple.

One does a Case Assessment. Assesses for the Change, predates it by a month and runs the Prepcheck Buttons on it over and over, flattening each one so far as possible.

When one assessed change is run, another list of changes is made and assessed and it is all done again.

It can be interrupted by an end of intensive without consequences to the pc if something was left unflat.

The public may scream to get clear, but most of it could only be audited on a Problems Intensive anyway.

Unlike partially completed or badly done goals assessments, there is no liability to a Problems Intensive.

All the gains envisioned in Book I can be achieved with enough Problems Intensives, even a 1st Dynamic clear in many cases.

So don’t risk your pc’s health and good will if you’re not a Saint Hill graduate. Get good, solid gains with the Modern Problems Intensive. Only if you fail to find and pull his or her Missed Withholds in the course of sessions could you estrange a pc.

You may have to clear the buttons for the pc who doesn’t understand the words, but other than that it’s all plain sailing.

People are suddenly losing all manner of things they thought were illnesses and were calling arthritis and ulcers and what not. They weren’t sick. They were just suppressed.

Please realize what you’ve got here in a Modern Problems Intensive. I’ll be giving you lots of data on how it’s done.

LRH:dr.rd							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

PROBLEMS INTENSIVE ASSESSMENT

A lecture given on
11 October 1961

Okay. Now, we have before us, on this 11th of Oct., the little handy jim-dandy, the Class II auditor’s pride. It’s called a Problems Intensive for Staff Clearing. And you notice it says Staff Clearing. Staff always gets the best. [See HCO PL 10 October 1961, Problems Intensive for Staff Clearing]

Okay. October 11th, 1961, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. And this is Problems Intensives for Staff Clearing. This is the second lecture on this subject.

All right. Now we take this up, we look it in the teeth and we find that we are looking at basically the Preclear Assessment Form.

And you’ve been using this on preclears or should have been using this on preclears for a very long time. The earliest edition of this is 1950 Elizabeth and Los Angeles Foundations, 1950. So you’re not looking at anything new. This has come a long way, and all that’s happened here is we’re now using it to resolve the case.

Now, it is of vast information to you and vast importance for you to know what the devil your PC is all about. I have seen an auditor, believe it or not, process a PC for weeks on end and not find out that the PC was having a dreadful time with a court or a child has been taken off by the authorities or something. Now, you’d say that would show up in present time problems.

But it gets worse than this. I have seen an auditor process a PC forever, and not know their right name; not know if they’ve ever been operated on; not know they suffered from various ills; not know whether they were married or single. We’d say that auditor was running a big not-know.

Now, the basic part of this and the early parts of it right up to section O. but not including section O. if you’ll look it over, simply consists of vital information on a PC. And that is all it is, vital information on a PC.

HCO Policy Letter of October 10th, 1961, Problems Intensive for Staff Clearing. Every organization has this under the guise of Preclear Assessment Form, right up to but not including section O. You notice the directions have been modified on this. They’ve just been deleted a little bit, so I had better say something about when you do this.

If you have a new PC who is brand-new to Scientology, you certainly do one. But if you have somebody you are going to give an intensive to that you have never done one of these things on, you should do one. It gives the PC some little confidence to know that his auditor knows something about him. And that in itself is an interesting factor in holding a PC in session—all by itself.

Now, we see here that it starts out “Who Does the Assessment. The auditor assigned to audit the preclear does the assessment.” Now, what does that mean? It means that’s his first action. That’s the first action the auditor undertakes. He doesn’t go in and run fifteen hours of “Create a reactive mind. Thank you. Create a reactive mind. Thank you.” He doesn’t do that. He sits down and he doesn’t do rudiments and he doesn’t do anything else; he simply sits down and runs off this form. And he sits there and makes out the form. But it is auditing. It is auditing. It is done in the paid auditing time of the PC, because it is auditing.

And when an auditor gets a preclear that he has not had before, he takes one of these forms, and he fills it out on the PC. Now, why is this?

The PC has a sneaking feeling that the auditor doesn’t know anything about him until this form is filled out. And therefore, you have a hard time keeping the rudiments in. But it’s because the PC is certain that there is a not-know sitting in the auditor’s chair. But as soon as you’ve filled out this form, then the PC feels that the auditor knows something about him or her, and is happier thereby—feels more comfortable about this. PCs always have certain things that they feel that somebody should know, and those things are pretty well covered in this assessment form. All right.

The assessment form is for information. Auditors’ reports are for information. Not your information: they are almost never for the auditor’s information. He knows. So if you can read your own writing, that would be for your information if you wrote that way. But it’s for somebody else’s information. An auditor’s report form in a Central Organization goes from the auditor to the Director of Processing, goes from the Director of Processing—very often is inspected by HCO, sometimes—but is certainly forwarded into here, or one copy of it. And in a class of this particular character, you are . . . If I ever see Mary Sue complaining about her eyes and so forth, why, I’m just going to go back and find all the badly written forms and put a curse on you.

You want to know something, and bad handwriting is just another method of running a not-know on somebody. It is withholding the information, writing illegibly. Now, some of these fellows in commerce that we occasionally do business with, you look at their signatures. Look at their signatures. Can you read their signatures? It’s a blah, and so forth. And you’ll find that fellow has withholds. You look over the letter he has written you, and you wonder how much of that letter is true, how much of it is false. The fellow is withholding information from you, ordinarily.

Now, that’s true of all handwriting, and you would be amazed how your handwriting improves after you’ve got a Sec Check Form 3 flat. There’s a direct coordination.

So, it is made to be read, and if it’s illegible, somebody trying to check up the case is denied information that might be of value.

Now, we look down the line here, and we find out that we want information on the name of the PC, the age of the PC, and we want the tone arm position at the start of the assessment. Now, this will give us some sort of an idea, as we look this over, whether or not this PC is going to respond to ordinary and routine auditing, because as they give you the answers to this form, they should get some tone arm shifts. And if they get no tone arm shifts, talking about themselves, of any kind whatsoever—oh-oh, oh-oh—this is a pretty desperate situation. You’re almost running into a CCH situation when you’re doing that.

So that gives you that information. If you carry your tone arm position notations throughout this form, why, you’ll be fine.

Now, we have—the first questions are Family, and we want to know this data about Father and Mother and so forth. And this gives us reactive personnel, as you will see here at once.
 (I’m going to pull this microphone closer to me.)

Okay. You will see this at once, that the individual had very bad relationships with his father, and that you’re going to be running into Father, Father, Father, Father, Father. And that he can’t remember anything about his mother, and so he’s going to be trying to run into his mother, his mother, his mother throughout the auditing. You see what we can divine from that at once.

Now, the next thing that we go into here is the other relatives who are in immediate line. Now, at this stage of processing, if this is the beginning of an intensive—at the first intensive the PC has—you’re going to have missing personnel here like mad. Well, should you try to find them? No. Just let it ride. Let it ride. The significant allies of the case are going to be missing, always, during the first Preclear Assessment Form. Great-aunt Agatha, Uncle Bill, the fellow who made a drunkard out of the PC, you see—he is never going to be mentioned at this stage of the game, if he is aberrative.

Now, if it is known to a PC, it isn’t wrong with the PC. If the PC knows about it, it is not aberrative.

Someday you will hear me, and you will stop auditing all these big knowns, and you will start making some progress with cases that is rapid. That’s one difference between my auditing and, sometimes, yours.

If the PC knows about it, I pat him on the back, shake him by the right hand, cheer him up and go on hastily to something else.

And you all too often say, “Well, obviously, look here, his father was a drunkard and a jailbird and beat him, he says, every day. And obviously we’ve got to spend a lot of time on Father.” And you do. You waste a lot of auditing time on Father, because Father has nothing to do with the case. How do we know that? The PC knew about it! If the PC knew about it, it doesn’t have anything to do with his aberrations.

The only time that crosses up is a hidden standard, but a PC usually doesn’t even know about a hidden standard until you start interrogating him.

So, this gives us all of the areas we don’t have to monkey with in auditing. You see, it’s a negative assessment. We’re not going to have to worry too much about these.

It’s going to say Family: Mother.

“Mother living?”

“Yes.”

And you don’t then, of course, ask what was the date of her death. And the PC makes a statement of relationship with Mother.

“Well, Mother was a dear, sweet person. Mother was always very good to me, much better than I deserved—much better than I deserved. She lives with us now. And somehow or another, she keeps the marriage from going on the rocks. She tries. She’s nice—nice person,” and so forth.

Well, you get trapped into this, you see? You say, “Well, what the hell is this? Some kind of an overwhelm here of some kind or another?” you see? “And just exactly how does this thing stack up?” you say to yourself. “Mmmmmm-mm. Tries to keep their marriage from going on the rocks—I’ll bet!” See, and you actually get trapped into this, because you have a little piece of knowingness that is intriguing.

Well, go ahead and be interested in it, but the PC knows all about this. Well, there are some things the PC probably doesn’t know about it, but that will turn up in the line of auditing. But what the PC knows about, we couldn’t care about.

Then we get into Father, and we—same thing applies. And the PC says, “Oh, yes, well, the old man died when I was eighteen, and uh . . . so forth. And it was good riddance. Uh . . . he used to beat me every day, and he shot me on Sundays, and uh . . . he’s what’s wrong with me!” Oh. Well, that’s one area we don’t have to have anything to do with. Get the idea? It’s just negative rundown.

If you were to shake that down, you could find some surprising data in it. And the PC, sooner or later in this particular type of intensives will find very surprising data in it extremely surprising—such as his father spanked him once. Very ordinary. His father beat him every day and shot him every Sunday and so forth. And you find out the father spanked him lightly once. That’s the truth of the matter; see, he’s got some kind of a synthetic.

But this is something that’s going to come up, sooner or later, and you’re not going to have to worry about it too much, particularly if he says that is everything that is wrong with him.

If the PC knows that is wrong with him, and has known that’s what’s wrong with him for a long time, why has it continued to be wrong with him? See? That’s the £156,000 question. Why has it continued to be wrong? Why hasn’t it as-ised? Well, it hasn’t as-ised because it isn’t there, and it never was there. But it gives us a method of skirting these things. We’re not going to take that up. It’ll all come out on withholds sooner or later.

Now, Relationships: and there you’re going to have missing personnel. And Married—very often you find missing personnel.

Now, there’s one thing that may possibly go haywire, is numbers of times divorced on this. That is important to know, because the PC is very often holding this up, and it’ll hold up his case. But it’s the number of times divorced. Well, maybe he didn’t get divorced. Maybe he got married five times and only divorced once. And that would be quite a withhold, wouldn’t it? So nevertheless, you fill that in, try to get the data on there.

Any difficulties the PC presently has. Now, that gives you some sort of an idea how many present time problems you’re going to have to cope with in session.

And if divorced, the reasons for the divorce and the PC’s emotional feeling about divorces. And you had better remember again that it doesn’t say how many times he is not divorced, or something of this sort. There might be some sleepers back on the case of some kind or another that never get mentioned. So you better get that question answered very, very well and very thoroughly.

And then Educational Level: This has some interest in the matter. Very often you will find a PC squirming around and telling you that he is not educated and he has never been to school and so forth. And it would actually turn out to be a withhold if you didn’t go over it slightly. You every now and then find a PC who’s ashamed that he hasn’t been educated, and you very often find a PC who is ashamed that he has.

You know, I have a lawsuit I’ve been very laggardly in filing. It’s against the University of Texas and so forth. And these things do come up in education. But I want to claim all of the German courses that Mary Sue had there. I want to claim back the fee and considerable damages, because every time we’re around Germans—she’s had four years of German, see? And every time we’re around Germans—I’ve only had a couple of lifetimes as German, you see, I’ve had no courses on it, and I have to order all the beds and breakfasts, you see, and so forth. And I turn around to her and I say, “Suzie, ask the lady to sell us a loaf of bread,” you see? And Suzie looks sort of blank, you know? And then finally—I finally get Brot. Let’s see, Brot, Brot, Brot. Restimulates hell out of me. After you’ve been killed in a country a few times, you know, you try to talk its language, you get restimulated.

So, the University of Texas is going to get sued sooner or later on this business.

But you run into oddball angles on education of some kind or another. And if you were processing—well, I think probably if you were processing dear old Mr. Penner out here—he’s quite a fireball. He’s our bricklayer Tad he’s quite a boy. You go out there, and-if the materials are available, and if the East Grinstead merchants have been talked into letting go of something, you go out there and you will see a low wall of bricks—a low wall of bricks being put up—and you go back about a half an hour later, you know, and the wall is over your head. You just never saw bricks throw themselves and plant themselves and get masonried into shape as fast as Mr. Jenner can do it. He is terrific. Right now, I don’t know how many cubic yards of dirt they’ve moved out there this afternoon, and bricks flying in all directions and that sort of thing. But I don’t know particularly that he has a thing on education, but he rather considers, to a slight degree, that he is not educated. And he is likely not to inform you on this subject. And it sort of is a withhold, because you are processing him in some highly intellectual line, see—Scientology, and that would be intellectual.

And then he tries to kind of measure up to all this and he gets into some kind of an impressive fog. You got the idea? And his relationship could be actually twisted and made poor with the auditor if this point wasn’t straightened out with such a PC.

Other people, they’ve had twenty-nine years of education, postgraduate courses and all that sort of thing, and they can’t write their name, so they’re ashamed too. And they try to say “No. Eve never been to school.” But you get a lot of lies in this particular area. And so you’d better get that pretty well straight.

It’s not that it has anything to do with whether he can run the process or doesn’t run the process, but it’s a fruitful subject of withhold. And you’ll find most of this is.

All right. And you ask him about his professional life and main jobs he’s held, and so forth. You ask him about serious accidents and the date of such, and any permanent damage, and that sort of thing. You ask about principal illnesses, and now you’re getting into an interesting zone, because if you didn’t know some of these things, you could run into them head-on. You could keep running into engrams of one kind or another that you wouldn’t have any information on whatsoever because he never mentions them.

And then you go into Operations. And that’s one that you should do briefly. Accidents, illnesses and operations are all subject to restimulation. And you can restimulate the living daylights out of a PC if you start auditing these things as he brings them up. Now, how do you audit them? All you have to do is ask about them. Just ask about them, thoroughly, and he’ll be in it. You can throw him, as an auditor, straight into such an incident.

Now, you get somebody out in the Middle West and you ask them if they’ve ever had any illnesses or operations, and of course there goes the intensive. Don’t know if you’ve ever read any letters coming from the Bible belt, but as I’ve mentioned before, they read something like what was that quack’s name that was arrested down in Texas for practicing medicine without a license? And somebody awarded ten million dollars damages for his having— Morris Fishbein of the AMA. Morris Fishbein, the head of the AMA. This is all true about Morris. He was arrested for practicing medicine without a license. But they actually read like his primary textbook: “How to Get Sick and Go to the Doctor,” I think the textbook was called.

And you get somebody started on this, and, my God, here we go. You get some PCs started on this who have a slight strain of hypochondria, and man, they will give it to you blow by blow, and writhe around, and run their havingness down and so forth, and then start on their families’ illnesses, and so forth; and then they get to all the mistakes the doctor made, and how the
 doctor had to open them up again in order to—in order to recover his nurse, or something. And this can become far too windy.

So your ability to acknowledge is the only way you turn this off. Your ability to acknowledge, in making out this form, must be good and never better than under Accidents, Illnesses and Operations. Your ability to acknowledge— wonderful. And you can say to them, if it doesn’t turn off, “Well, you know, we’ll be taking up that sort of thing in processing—in the direct processing. We’ll be taking that up more directly.” That shuts it off. You will, too, because inevitably, if they’re going to talk about it that much, they’re sort of hung in it. But this is not an auditing moment of running engrams. This is not the engram situation that you are running into.

All right. Now, what do we have here essentially? What do we have as we go down this line but data? And that data can be confused with the auditor— isn’t ordinarily; auditors do well filling these things out. But an auditor’s natural impulse is to take these things up with the PC. Well, don’t take them up with the PC while doing such a form. That’s all. Just don’t take them up, that’s all. Forget it. Acknowledge it and get off of it and get on to the next line—you got the idea?—without creating an ARC break.

Now, sometimes that is neat. Sometimes you have to be very neat in order to get off of a subject and shut a PC off, because, you see, an ARC break is composed of “not able to talk to the auditor.”

But if you’ve ever watched a PC talk his havingness down, you’ll agree with what I am telling you. They can tank their havingness straight out the bottom, just as nice as you please. Down it goes with a dull thud.

They talk themselves right down the Tone Scale: enthusiasm, and the next thing you know, they’re a little antagonistic; and the next thing you know, they’re crying; and the next thing you know, they’re not talking.

You can watch them. They’ll slide right on down the Tone Scale if you don’t hold up this. So it’s best, in entering these, to tell the PC—this is Accidents, Illnesses and Operations I’m still talking about, E, F and G on this form—it is best to say, “Now, I just want to know these things very briefly; exactly what these things were, very briefly.” And you sort of emphasize this “very briefly,” and you won’t run into him talking himself straight back into an engram and finishing his first auditing session with a Christ-awful somatic he doesn’t know where the hell it came from. Got the idea? That’s a good prevention.

Remember that a PC can talk down his havingness. If you’re accustomed as an auditor to ever letting a PC run on and on and on and never stopping him from talking, you are doing him an unkindness. And don’t think you’re doing him a kindness, because you’re not. You’re doing him an unkindness. The best thing you can do is to get on with the auditing, but this can sometimes create an ARC break, and so you have to handle it carefully.

And the best way to handle it is to pre-organize it. Don’t try to handle it after the fact if it’s going to be difficult. Handle it before the fact. So that part of your auditing statement is “Now in the next minute or so, I want you to list for me all of the accidents you have had.” You get that kind of a trick? “In the next minute or so,” you see?

Oh, well, he’s put in a sort of a little games condition now, and it’s how fast can he do it, and he says, “Well, let’s see, there were fifteen automobile accidents and twenty-five bicycle accidents and seventeen times when I fell off of railway bridges. I always seem to be falling off railway bridges. And uh . . . let’s see. And that’s about all. Ha-ha, I beat you. It didn’t even take me a minute, you see?”

Bang. Fine. You got all your data. You write it down.

Any kind of trickery like that is better than letting a PC talk his havingness down. You got the idea? So you get the data without the ARC break.

Present Physical Condition: Once more I refer you to the letters which you might see coming from the Bible belt. This is one of these marvelous subjects.

“Well, I have misery. It’s—misery has been going on for a long time.” And you very often will see a PC, very often, just sit back and heave a long sigh, and you’re just setting in for a long chat. This is going to be a nice, quiet afternoon we’re going to spend And that’s not what we’re there for at all.

Once more, the “briefly,” the this and that, the inference that we’ve got to get this listed so that we can get on to the next item. You know, the next item is something else, and we don’t care what the next item is, you see? Briefly, you know: “Let’s get this briefly so that we can get on to the next item. Now what is your present physical condition?”

And they say, “Long after . . . Oh, no. He—uh—she—she really wants to know. (sigh) Terrible.”

“All right. Now how is it terrible? All right. Where are the pains exactly? Inform me exactly what parts of the body,” and so forth.

“Oh, well,” she says, “all over my eyes, my head, my back, and I have athlete’s foot,” and so forth, and so on, and et cetera.

Now, you remember that the PC is on a meter. So at this point, it’d be an artfully good time to look at that E-Meter. Now, we’re not interested much in the E-Meter except for the tone arm, up to the point we get to this H. Is there a withheld physical condition? That we’re terribly interested in. And so we read the needle. And you can put right opposite that H that it’s a little old needle-reading stunt right here.

And you want to know if there are any illnesses the PC hasn’t told anybody about, if there are any worries about health the PC has not imparted to anyone.

PCs sometimes go around thinking they’re dying of some dreadful disease and they never let anybody in on it because it’d be too terrible for others to know—all that sort of thing. And also, and very, very much to the point, “Are there any diseases you would hate to have people know about?” Ah, and you’re liable to collide with a freight train, where it can save yourself one God-awful amount of dodged processing. Just get it right there. Let’s just get any possible withhold on the subject of present physical condition off of this case now. And you’ll save yourself a lot of trouble, because a withhold about present physical condition is one of the most serious withholds there can be on a case.

All right. We come to section I. And section I is Mental Treatment. And it says “List any psychotic, psychoanalytic, hypnotic, mystical or cult exercises, or other mental treatment which PC has had, the date of the treatment and the E-Meter reaction.” And you could very well add to that “any treatment he is now receiving,” and you would get yourself something else.

Now, this, too, you want to shake down with the needle. You want to get any withhold in the area of mental treatment off, off, off.

You know, a person who is withholding the fact that he has been adjudicated as stark, staring insane, is of course sitting on the one withhold that can stop his processing in its tracks. And, right here on this course, there has been an instance or two of somebody continuing treatment while training. And evidently this was not shaken down well, because you find no trace of it in their Preclear Assessment Form in the beginning of their folder. The auditor just did not find it.

Those things are important. Those things are very important during auditing. They’re very important in an HGC. The person gets auditing all day and then has somebody cracking his spine all night while they’re hypnotizing him or something, and you’re going to get no place, man. He’s going to be out of session every morning, going to have a high tone arm every morning. And then it takes about the middle of the morning to get the tone arm down. And then the next morning he comes in and he has a high tone arm again. And about the third time this happens—that he goes off with a low tone arm and comes back with a high tone arm—you can suspect that there’s a withhold on present physical condition or mental treatment, or current treatment. That is the most fruitful source of that particular activity. There is something wrong. There is something going on here. The person is doing something else and they don’t want you to know about it.

Although running Prehav Scales, of course, puts up the tone arm, the usual cause of high tone arms . . . It’s not that a tone arm must not be high. As a matter of fact, they can’t run the Prehav Scale properly without getting high tone arms, you understand; but I’m talking about the mechanism of the PC is always showing up with a high tone arm. You know, you process a PC for a week, and then all of a sudden for a week the PC only has a reading of five and a half. Well, there’s just something wrong in this division. The PC is either physically ill and doesn’t want to tell you, or the PC has some bug on the subject of the mind and doesn’t want to tell you, and so on, or the PC is actually getting treatment in between your treatments and doesn’t want to tell you. So if you shake those things down during the Preclear Assessment Form to get the withholds off . . .

Now, this is not a chatty afternoon over a cup of tea. You’re just going to go right to it and you’re going to get the withholds off on this subject. Now, he actually won’t mind you getting the withholds off on this subject. Be kind of a relief to him, as a matter of fact. If he does have withholds on this subject and if he doesn’t get them off, you won’t be his auditor. That’s it.

But if he does have withholds on this subject and you do get them off, then you of course are his auditor. Obviously. You know about these withholds and nobody else knows about them, so therefore you must be his auditor. Follows, doesn’t it?

You know things about him, now, that other people don’t know, so therefore that follows, then, that you are the person’s auditor. You’ll find in-sessionness increases very well if you do that.

Now Compulsions, Repression’s and Fears doesn’t necessarily follow in that same category at all, and we just couldn’t care less. It’s going to be of no value to you to know of his compulsions, repression’s and fears to amount to anything, except as a gauge of how daffy he is or isn’t. And that’s the only gauge you’re going to get out of that. It’s just a measure, and you can already read that off the graph. So you go over that rather rapidly.

And you get down to Criminal Record, and this, too, is a matter of grave interest to us. Because people who have criminal records and don’t want us to know about it: that can make a bad show in auditing. So let’s, when we get to K, let’s once more bear down on the needle, and let’s examine that needle very carefully on this interrogation on the subject of crimes, prison sentences, and so forth. And let’s make sure that we’ve got that thing showing up.

It’s interesting that I had a letter from a preclear that has gone through London HGC on several occasions over a period of time, and he’s complaining about his case gains. He is; he’s not blaming anybody. He’s not mad at anybody or anything, but he’s just written me a letter and asked me to please, can’t I tell him why, or do something about it.

And the side note that appears on this thing, of course, is the man has a record as long as your arm. Now, we know that here, but does his auditor know it there? See, that could just account for no case gain, right there in a lump sum, bang! Well now, if each new auditor he hag had has not done a Preclear Assessment Form, then he feels he has a withhold to some degree from that auditor, and maybe nobody has ever dug this up in this particular fashion. I haven’t followed back the other data concerning this, but that is just of interest, in point.

I very seldom get such letters. My letters are usually quite the reverse. They’re “Dear Ron, I just this and so on, and wonderful processing and I feel better, and so on.” But this chap—he’s just worried about himself, that’s all. So we would also have found him under Present Physical Condition, and we would also have found him under Compulsions, Repression’s and Fears, and we might have found him under Other Mental Treatment. See, it would all have dropped out of the hamper on the Preclear Assessment Form, had we done one properly and if every new auditor that had the case had done one for himself.

Although I have said you have to write on this legibly, remember it is for you, the auditor, to facilitate your auditing of the case.

All right. Now we get down to one that we couldn’t care less about: Interests and Hobbies. This will have no great bearing on a case. It’d be very unusual. Once in a blue moon, he has the hobby of “killing little girls in dark woods” or something like that, but it isn’t often, and it has very little case bearing. It, however, can serve as a cross-index to his goals terminal. Not very important.

Now we have Previous Scientology Processing. And this is far too specific When we list the auditors, the hours, and the E-Meter reaction, and everything else, in the HGC or the Academy. This is just too confoundedly specific. Now, we don’t have to be this specific. There isn’t any reason to be this specific.

The number of auditing hours he has had, he will seldom recall. The auditors you want to get to on the case will be buried, for the purposes of this preclear assessment. So we press him very lightly in this particular line. Very, very lightly.

So, you would do much better to ask him a general idea. A general idea is what you want, and that’s all. Otherwise, you’re going to plow up all of his auditing, restimulate all of his auditing; you’re going to have to take up all of his ARC breaks; you’re going to have to take up all of his ARC breaks and failures with past auditors; you’re going to have to take up all of his successes. And you’ve got another afternoon’s activity all mapped out in level M, unless you say, “Well now, briefly, and just in general—just give me some sort of an idea: When were you first processed—some date? And . . . yes. And you had some organization processing, and you had . . . All right. And field auditors?” so on. “All right. That’s good,” and so on. “Thank you.” You know, it’s very brief.

The best way to get this data is to run the ARC break process on the PC. And you’re not running it at this time. And you’ll find all their auditors, and he’ll find the auditors that are aberrative, and so forth. But you just want to know how long this fellow has been in processing. And this fellow tells you he’s been in processing now for 8,642 hours and so forth. Well, you know he’s lying. He hasn’t lived long enough. I think it takes one lifetime to get that many hours of processing at some fantastic figure per week.

Now, when you say “List briefly the processes run,” man, that’s a grim one. You take somebody that’s been around since 1951—the number of processes run. In the first place, the PC almost never remembers them, and you’ve got a big hang-up there, and so forth. So I would say, instead of that—instead of that sort of thing—I’d want to know, “What’s been run on you, more or less, that made a change in your case?”

Oh, they’ll tell you those glibly, and very rapidly; they can remember those. But those things that have made no change on his case, we couldn’t care less. But at the time this thing was first compiled, it was important to know what engrams had been started and hadn’t been started, you see? And then this was taken off the earlier form, so it has arrived that way.

And “List the goals attained from such processing.” Well, now you’ve asked him the same thing, if you just asked the one I just gave you. You said, “What processes have given you a change?” you see? Well, that just write them diagonally across the (2) and (3) all at once.

And “goals not attained from such processing” is an adventurous question to ask a PC, but should be asked. And it’d be a very good thing to find out what he has not been able to do about processing; because you’ll be able to refer to that later on, and it’s part of the O section.

It gives you a clue of coordination. You want to know what he’s been trying to do with processing that he hadn’t done. He might even give you a hidden standard.

All right. The Present Processing Goals. Now, he’s going to give you some brief goals of one kind or another. These are not very important at this particular stage, but you want to know what he’s trying to do with processing. But very often at this stage of the game he just gives you a social response: “Well, I would like to be better,” and that sort of thing. Well, you don’t want anything more than that.

Now, we have a whole section here, which is the ne plus ultra of the whole thing, and we get to what makes this a Problems Intensive. We get to section O.

Now, that was where we wanted to get; that was “where, at, to” we wanted to arrive. And this we are going to do now with the greatest of care. We are going to write this up ad infinitum, and if there are not enough spaces, we’re going to make some more.

Here we have “O. Life Turning Points: List each major change the PC has experienced in life.” And that means his whole life, ever since he was a very small boy or girl.

And of course, you’re going to have the PC giving you—you’re going to see the perfect example of cyclic recall as you do this. So don’t try to ask for a certain period at any given time, because you’re going to get near present time ones, then you’re going to get middle range, and then you’ll get early, and then you’ll get near present time ones, and then you’ll get early ones, and then you’ll get middle, and then you’ll get near present time, and it’ll just go back up and down this way.

But you want to list each one of these carefully, because you are now going to use these for assessment, so they have to be listed with precision They have to be listed with great precision.

Now, what precision? Well, it’s going to be so that you can say it easily on an assessment. You’re going to have to say this several times. So we don’t want it long, lengthy and long-winded. We want a precise statement, so that’s what we keep asking the PC for.

Major change the PC has experienced in life. And the PC may want to know what you mean by a major change. “Well, when you didn’t any longer do what you were doing and started doing something else; when you didn’t any longer live where you were living and moved elsewhere; when you didn’t any longer have that state of health but had another state of health.”

“Ah, well, oh, well, you mean—you mean . . .” and he’ll tell you something else.

All right. Well, we’ll get those changes and you take that up very carefully and then get these changes this way:

“Uh . . . well, after I had an operation for goiter, I found out that I couldn’t go out as much.”

So you put down “operation for goiter.” That’s all you write. Major change point. Then, “All right. What was another major change point?”

“Well, um . . . uh . . . it was when I . . . it was when I uh . . . finished my first year in college. Uh . . . uh . . . I had to leave.”

“Oh? Well, did you go back?”

“No. No. Never went back. Yeah. First year in college.”

So that’s what you want. So it’s “leaving college” is a very, very excellent way of expressing that, see? So that’s expressed very briefly. Your next point. Express them briefly, succinctly.

Now, each one of these is followed by a date. And his idea of the date is going to be the wildest scramble you ever heard of. So don’t press him for an accurate date, particularly, and don’t go pushing on it, because the person will do enough hemming and hawing here to last a lot of people a long time, and the dates you get aren’t going to be very accurate unless you sit down with an E-Meter and go through a timing exercise of putting the things on the time track. And we’re not asking you to do that, particularly. So “ten years ago” is good enough. But write down something like “around 1948.” See, that’s plenty good. Anything the PC tells you is the date.

And we go on down the line and we fill out all these major changes. Now, you may find yourself needful of more space in order to get all these major changes, and if you do, you just clip another piece of paper up at the top of page five on this assessment form. And you just keep writing them in the same wise. PCs might have lots of them. This would be fairly adequate for the usual case, but you might find somebody with a lot more.

Now, he’s probably missed a great many of these changes. He probably hasn’t looked at these other things as changes at all. So you continue the list with specific requests. You want to know when the PC newly joined any religious group. That’ll be a major change point in a person’s life, you see? And the PC didn’t. All right. He didn’t.

Now, “When did the PC start going to church again?” Of course, that’s a major change point. Ha-ha. Start going to church again: well, that tells us something.

If I had been doing this on an archbishop in northern Greece one night down in Athens—if I had been doing just this—I would have pulled half of his aberrations by asking him why he joined the church when he was nineteen in New York City. Because his sole goal was to die and go to heaven. He did have a psychosomatic goal, which was to keep himself from going blind. But he gave me the whole story about, he was in a terrible upset and so he joined the church, and here he is at 70 or 80 or 205 or something like that—there he was, and he’s still riding the same stable datum.

This, by the way, is interesting. Maybe in the National Geographic, sometime or another, you’ve seen a picture of a monastery in northern Greece, where the people can’t ever walk in and out of the place. They have to be lifted in baskets. And they’re lifted up the face of the wall in a basket.

This was the archmadrid [archimandrite] I think, of that particular monastery. And he had come down to—he’d heard of Scientology, and they had a couple of sisters with him. I could have pulled his whole case right there —clank! Interesting. Because the major “When did he start going to church again?” would in this particular case have become “When did he become a member of the church?”

Well, he became a member of the church after a long period of confusion back in his middle teens. And that was almost sixty years before. Interesting. And he’d been riding the same confusion, and he was sitting right there on the same chronic somatic. Fascinating.

“When did the PC subscribe to a fad?” Now, he’s liable to give you anything, and even insult you with saying Dianetics is one, or something like that; we don’t care what the PC said. But when we say “fad,” we mean anything everybody else was doing with enthusiasm. But we also mean food fads or clothing fads. He joined the Edwardians; he became a Teddy boy. Anything like this, you see? He joined up into something or other, but it will indicate a change.

“When did the PC begin dieting?” And the PC’s normal first response is to tell you that he never did. And you should be very careful about that particular point—ha-ha—because after a moment or two, he’ll find a dozen periods of his life when he had to change his eating habits.

Well, he was in the army. And yes, well, he did start dieting, “if you want to call it that.” You’ll get that kind of response, you see? He couldn’t stand Spam. He just couldn’t stand Spam, and he stopped eating Spam, and he hasn’t been able to eat meat of that composite type ever since. And he Won’t eat meat of that composite type ever since. That’s it. “That—if you want to call that a diet, fine. All right. That’s a diet. But they just served me one more piece of Spam and they would have had it.” That was a diet. It’s a negative diet.

Of course, at that particular level, you write down when it was, and you want to know what it was. So you’d say “1943, Spam.” That would be your notation.

“All right. What other diets have you started off on?”

“No other diets. I’m not dieting. I’m no vegetarian, or food faddist, or anything like that. I have no other unusual diets of any kind whatsoever.”

Well, this one has to be followed up. You have to get a little bit clever.

So you have to ask a question like this: “Well, do you eat differently, or have you ever eaten differently from other people that were around you?”

“Oh, well, you put it that way, yes, they eat these poisonous meats all the time, and uh . . . they eat these meats, and they didn’t care what meat it was and what meat it wasn’t, and so forth. And actually, for some years, I haven’t eaten any meat.” But you see, this, to the PC, is not a diet. He doesn’t define it as such because that is ordinary, that is usual. And the thing he is doing ordinarily with food is the thing to do with food. It isn’t what everybody does on the subject of food. He never notices that.

All right. He’s liable to give you some answer and say, “Well, I was out on the China coast, and all the Chinese were eating rice, and who the devil could live on rice all the time, but I managed to get some food. And I was eating differently than other people then—very differently from the other people that were around me then. They were all eating rice, and I knew you couldn’t live on rice, and so forth. And I had to eat other food from that, and there was a lot of trouble getting other food at that particular time.”

You say, “When was that?” And you put down “1948, China.” Not “rice.” That will all give you clues, clues, clues. Something was happening there. Something weird was going on. His life was changed. That won’t be much of a point, but this is liable to liven up the next point, you see?

“Well now, did you have any other food changes, any other diets or anything like that?”

And he all of a sudden tells you for the first time, “Well, my family only eats kosher food.”

“When is the first time you had any difficulty eating kosher food or finding kosher food, and so forth?”

“Oh, well, you want to know that, that was when I joined the army. Had a lot of trouble. Had a lot of trouble.”

Put down “kosher food” and some sort of a date. There’s upsets associated with all this sort of thing, but those are not as important as this one: He said, “Well, uh . . . I uh . . . started to uh . . . eat . . . live on lettuce and uh . . . muldeberries—dried muldeberries and lettuce uh . . . in urn . . .1951.” That’s right out of the blue, you see? There’s no explanation to this of any kind whatsoever. You don’t say “Well, you did?” you know?

You better write down “dried muldeberries and lettuce”, 1951 right there—bang! Because, boy, be must have run into a freight train.

If you look back of this, you see, you look back here, you won’t find anything else happening in 1951, you don’t think, you know? You look back here and Mother’s death, Father’s death—1951? Where the hell is 1951? Nothing happened in 1951. Nothing. That is just a stroke out of the blue, and you’ll get it on such things as diets and fads and that sort of thing, much more rapidly than you’ll get it on something else.

All right. “When did the PC leave a job?” And, of course, this may get very lengthy, but you better take down every one of them. Much more important than the auditing he’s had is how many jobs has he left? How many, how many, how many, how many, how many? And you get some sailors, for instance, and they never show you all their discharges. But they were on a ship in 1949, and they were on a ship for two months in 1955 and they were on a ship for one month in 1958.

“What have you been doing the rest of the time?”

“Well, I’ve been going to sea.”

What the hell goes on, you see? There’s holes all up and down the line, don’t you see? And something going on during that period; it’s all a big not-know as far as you’re concerned. And as far as the PC is concerned, it’s just all a big withhold.

So when the PC starts to give you his job lines and there’s something going wrong with this, you want to start asking, “How long did you hold that job?” And get his job record so that it’s somewhat chronological. Find out his leaving points, and at these leaving points . . .

He says, “Well,” he’ll say, “I left a job . . . I left a construction company in 1951. And I left the uh . . . yes, and I left uh . . . the uh . . . merchandising uh . . . department of Taylor & Sanford’s in 1955.”

You say, “That’s good.” Now, you’ve made an unreasonable assumption: You think that from 1951 to 1955 he was in the merchandising establishment at Taylor & Sanford’s. He wasn’t. There had been about eight job changes in the middle of the thing, see?

So always find out how long he kept the job. That is the only keynote there. Find out how long he kept that job, and then you will see where the missing links are.

Now, because the changes are sufficiently interesting in that particular line, you had better E-Meter needle it. “Any other jobs you’ve left?”—blang! “What was that one? Any other jobs you left?”—blang! “What was that one? Any other jobs you left? What was that?”—blang! And so forth. And you get a pretty good employment record, just as number 13’s number of lines imply. Because every one of those, he was in co-action with a group. And a person who has too many jobs is having difficulty with co-action, mutual motion. He’s having great difficulty with mutual motion.

And this lends itself peculiarly to the development of tremendous overts and withholds. Overts and withholds all stem from mutual motion—that is, the whole theory moves out of that particular field. And job and employment and work are things which notably milestone a man’s decline and aberration, and that sort of thing.

It’s not that they’re aberrative in themselves, but he is in mutual action with some group, and then finds himself in violent disagreement with some group. And then he’s in mutual action with another group, and finds himself in violent disagreement there. Well, there must have been some confusions; some hidden confusions are in that period. And by getting a job record, you can spot a lot of hidden confusions.
 
Now, supposing the person is not a working person at all. Then you change the question over to “When did the PC leave a certain type of activity?” And you’ll find out she was a housewife, and then she was a club member, and then she was a this, and then she was a that. And you’ll get a type of “job record” which is just an activity record. But this whole number 13 of section O is devoted to spotting departed areas of co-, or mutual, motion on the third dynamic. You won’t have much other record if you don’t make a full one here.

Now again, that all has to be written in such a wise that you can easily assess it later because you’re going to use this and use this and use this data.

Unlike everything up to and including M and N. you’re going to use the O section till you practically wear out the paper. So do your best writing in this particular area; make sure that you can read your own writing. That would be a good thing to be able to do, because you’re going to assess it and assess it and assess it and assess it.

All right. “When did the PC have to take a rest?” Ah, that’s splendid. That’s real good. And those are marvelous, because you’re going to find those are the points just before which there were prior confusions of magnitude.

So you’re going to find out all these points when he had to take a rest, and you’re going to write all those down.

And “When is the time the PC noticed a body difficulty?” Well, you’re going to write all those down, but this is going to be awful comm-laggy. Going to get all that straightened out.

Now, “When did the PC decide to go away?” Now, of course, you get wives, husbands, little children, almost anybody, subscribes to this one, and of course, it is always preceded by an area of confusion. So here’s a very fruitful source of confusions.

Now, if these things suddenly start, about this stage of the game, to be the same areas as you’ve already recovered, don’t worry about it. Just keep writing them down, see? Don’t call this to the PC’s attention at this stage and say, “Well, I see that you left a job in June of 1955; you left a job June of 1955, and you started going to church again in June of 1955, and you decided to take a rest in July of 1955. Well, what about that?”

Well, you’re jumping the gun. You are jumping the gun. That’s the sort of thing you do in section P. So let’s not take up anything here but data. You just want data from the PC, data from the PC. And you’ll find out soon enough that it adds up and cross-checks and does all that sort of thing.

Now, the catastrophe for this whole procedure would be if the PC gave you nothing under the sun but the same date and the same incident. Of course, a PC doing that would be nuts. But an institutional case would do that. And you have one thing to assess.

All they talk about is when they brought them to the institution, or something like this, you see? That would leave you with just one thing to assess. But people that you ordinarily audit aren’t that daffy. But remember that if you did that, you’d have to, next time, fill out another O form. If you haven’t got enough data on the O form, you fill out another O form after you’ve handled a P form.

All right. “When [Whom] did the PC decide to leave and when?” Now that’s almost the same question, but not quite: “decide to leave.” He didn’t leave. He decided to leave.

After you’ve got all the departures, then you find out that there were eighteen periods of deciding to depart and not departing. And what are you running? You’re running leave and then failed leave. Ask him questions about leave and then questions about failed leave. Simple.

Now, “When did the PC start being educated in some new line?” That is doubled over with “What have you taken up?” “What have you taken up?” “When did you take up a course in this, a correspondence course in something else?” you see? “When did you start to study something else?”

Now, I just had a maintenance man out here suddenly take up pottery. Hadn’t studied anything for years and he’s suddenly taken up pottery. I know there’s been a catastrophe and a confusion in his life someplace. Isn’t any reason for him to take up pottery. He’s had little connection with pottery around here to amount to anything. But that’s Mr. Jenner’s job.

That’s very interesting, isn’t it? He’s suddenly moving over into another field from carpentry, over into masonry, you know? And what’s happened? Well, I also notice he looks a little upset. Now, I haven’t interrogated him in any way, but I’m just giving you something there that is a cross-question.

Now, it isn’t anything wrong with taking up new lines. Isn’t anything wrong with studying something new. But it might be an indicator. It might be.

That’s true of most of these things, is the bulk of them are might-be’s.

Now, “When did the PC’s physical body change characteristics?” Getting this out of women, you will have to take the E-Meter and beat them over the head. A woman at 110 will never admit that her body changed anything from that of a beautiful 16-year-old girl, or something like that, you know? It’s just things they won’t talk about. So you have to pull that the hard way. Go ahead and grab it.

Now, “When did the PC collapse?” They’ve probably omitted telling you anything about this up to that point.

And “When did the PC start a new life?” That’s just the same question over again in some other line, but this is with magnitude. They may have omitted any of those.

And then “When did the PC stop going to parties?” Most girls tell you this, they look very sad, and they say, “Well, I met . . . I met Bill, and uh . . . he was a stay-at-home type, and uh . . . so forth. And so we stayed home thereafter.” Well, I’ll let you in on something: That wasn’t the reason they stopped going to parties. You’ll run into it in the P section, if this ever assesses out.

They did various things. There were various things occurred about parties. There were various heartbreaks and upsets. Because stopping a girl going to parties is only done with sixteen-inch guns! You can just mark a big underscore under that. They don’t easily stop going to parties. Might have been last lifetime, but it took something to stop them.

Now, “Who has the PC never seen again?” Now, you notice this is down toward the end of the O section, so that if we have to send for the fire department and so forth, and get them to dam up the grounds because of the resultant flood, the end of this is very much in view, because the PC is liable to spill a grief charge. Because you’ve shaken the PC up considerably by this time, you see?

You ask him for change, change, change, change, change; you’re auditing him like crazy all through this O section. Now all of a sudden you say—all of a sudden you say, “Who have you never seen again?”

“Waah! “

And we finally finish up, “what does the PC now consider his or her major life change?” And we don’t care what the PC said it was. We just don’t care, but it’s a good thing to ask.

All right, let us go back now; let us go back now to what we are going to do with all of this data. We have now assembled the doggonedest potpourri of data that was ever recorded, and if employment offices ever interrogated employment sheets to the degree that we have shaken this one down, don’t you see even though we did it fairly rapidly—man, would they know something about their applicants.
 
Miss Jones comes in, applies for a job as a typist. “Where did you work last, Miss Jones?” Lie. “Why did you leave?” Lie. Here it is, you see? “Is there any reason you would not be able to continue long on this job, Miss Jones?”

“Well, no reason at all, except the doctor has only given me two months to live.”

You know, you’d have the lot.

So we’re going to take the O section. We’re not interested in any other part of this now except as a review and a cross-coordination. And we’re going to tackle the P section.

Now, if you are very wise, you will have stopped at the end of the O section and you will have taken a break. Because you didn’t start this thing with rudiments, and the P section has to be started with rudiments.

So you either finished that whole thing off and ended the session and that was the auditing for that day or something of the sort, or that morning, and you start up the P section again, so it might take a little bit of interesting timing to get this thing straight.

Now, this, bluntly, starts an assessment of the PC’s major life changes. But you start it in Model Session, and you start right going here with Model Session, and you want to clear the rudiments. You want to know if anything upset them, you know, about what you just covered with them. You kind of aim the rudiments, you know, a little bit in the direction of what you’ve just been doing earlier.

And if you’ve only got fifteen minutes left of the session, and I find out that you started a P-section with fifteen minutes left of the session, I will be upset. You could possibly get away with a rapid assessment, but you certainly couldn’t bank on the assessment and so forth.

Now, if you had a half an hour or an hour left of your auditing period, well, by all means do your assessment, but don’t go any further. Don’t try to do anything with it. And the best thing would be to have them in completely different assessment periods, because you’re going to shake this person up like mad doing an assessment. They’re going to be in a fit state to be audited, let me tell you.

Now, you’re going back here to O, and I don’t care how many doodledaddles or code marks or symbols you put on the side of this. You could put “1.0 divisions,” you know, “fall,” or something like that. You could make little notations. But all you’re going to do is read them this.

Now, you go down the line. You make that notation: fall, rise—don’t ever note rise. Just fall, theta bop, whatever it is, how much. And you’re going to make it, and this time I’m going to ask you to get clever.

It doesn’t matter much if you assess this wrong. But this is a wonderful opportunity to get clever on a one-pass needle judgment. After you’ve finished up reading through this thing once, your record and recall and so on are quite adequate to tell you which change point of the person’s life registered most. You just read it through once, rapidly.

Now, of course, you can do that by saying to the PC, “You don’t have to say a word while I am doing this. You just sit there and hold those cans, and I am going to read all of this off”—you’ve got him in session, your rudiments are in and so forth—”and I’m going to see what this is all about.”

And you simply read this thing off, each one, and note the reactions that greet each one of these change points. When you get over here, you will be able to say that it is number 13 something or other was what assessed. That’s good. That got the most reaction on the needle.

Now, that completes step one. Step one consists of that reading, it consists of your adjudication of picking out from the E-Meter reaction, needle reaction, which one of those life changes that you have gone over in O produced the greatest needle response—not just fall, but what had produced the greatest needle response.

Ordinarily, that needle response will be much bigger than the remainder, and it will not be unusual for it to be a theta bop. A nice, wide, staggering theta bop—if you found something like that, you’re right on his rock chain, and it audits like mad.

All right. You’ve got to note that down and square that around.

Now, this is a disposable form, this form P on page seven. And you notice it’s just on one side of the piece of paper only. And in mimeographing this thing and repeating its mimeographs, that format should be followed, because that’s —this is disposable. This is “add-it-able.” After you’ve done this, this gets added to the PC’s record. And then without throwing away anything from one to six pages, you get another form P. See, and you just keep running a new form P. and it’s just on one page, one side of the paper. (Very well done here, this mimeographing job) And of course you look straight at the PC and you say to the PC very meaningfully, now that you’ve got the point. . . It was their leaving Taylor & Sudrow’s, biggest change in their life, you see? That’s the most reaction. And you ask the PC, “What problem existed . . .” This is very meaningful. It’s just, you plow that question right into him. Everything else has been rather conversational, don’t you see, and this and that, but you just plow this one into him hard. And you say, “What problem existed immediately before you left Taylor & Sudrow’s?”

All right. He’s going to tell you. Now, he may give you a fact. And if he only gives you a fact, you say, “Yes, yes. All right. That’s fine. Good. But state that as a problem. Now what was the problem connected with this? What was the problem? The problem connected immediately before you left Taylor & Sudrow’s?”

“Uh . . . well, it was that I did the accounts wrong.”

“Yes. Good. All right. What was the problem?”

“Oh. Oh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh, ah . . . I ah . . . I—I see. I—I see what you mean. You want to know what the problem was. I didn’t like my boss.”

“All right. Good. Thank you. Now state that as a problem.”

“How to keep from going to jail.”

Ba-bang! You see? That’s a problem, but it’s the first problem they actually state as a problem.

Now, they may be mystified as to why you won’t accept these as problems, because they seem good enough problems to them. But you could even say to them, “A problem is who, when, what, where, how. There’s some question about a problem. There’s something undecided about a problem. We want the undecided thing, you know, the thing that was worrying you, the thing you were anxious about, before you left Taylor & Sudrow’s.”

“Oh, well. Uh-huh-huuuuuuu, well, that’s different. Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. Oh, well, you ask me that way. I didn’t like my boss.” You know?

“Yeah. But what anxiety did you have about it?”

“How to keep from going to jail.” So you write it down.

Now comes a little bit of a problem: “How to keep from going to jail.” Now, how do you phrase a rudiments thing? You’ve got to do a shakedown on this sort of thing. You’ve got to do a little assessment here sometimes You got to find out what this was all about. But it’s not much of an assessment, because it’s obviously jail that is a worry here.

So your with would have to be changed to about, you see? And you’d say, “What was unknown about that problem . . .” “What was unknown with that problem about jail?” You’ve got to change the about to with and change it around. “What was unknown with that problem about jail?” Any such phrasing that gets it across to the PC so that you’re running an unknown on it.
 
Now, if he gives you some significance—”How to keep from worrying.” Oh, man, that’s a rough one because there’s no target. You’re not running any kind of a terminal.

Now, how do you state this around so that you run about “What was unknown about that problem with worrying?” Man, that is not going to be any process that makes any sense to anybody. Are you going to say “Just worrying? Worrying? Is that what it was? Worrying about what? How to keep from worrying—worrying about what?”

“Oh, just worrying.”

Boy, you’re really getting a defeat here, you see? A problem just about worrying.

“I just found myself worrying. All the tome I just found myself worrying and worrying.”

All right. In the last moment of defeat, you can give up and say, “What was unknown about your worrying?” Because that’s as far as you’re going to get.

In other words, don’t cave the PC in and don’t abandon it. Just try, successfully if possible, to find a proper terminal to add into this problem. If you can’t find a proper terminal, you can move off a bit and say what it was. Because you’ve got to have the thing run as the PC has it. There is no sense in doing anything else. And he could have a problem just about worrying, you see?

So if you can’t get him to state a noun, or get him to state something else about this problem, or if you don’t get a noun out of him, you will have to use the exact thing that he said.

“Oh, well, worrying,” but this is liable to be your response: “How to keep yourself from worrying. Yeah, well, all right. How do you keep yourself from worrying? Were you worrying about something specific?”

“Well, of course. Of course, naturally. Bill.”

“Well, what is the problem then?”

“Well, how to keep from worrying about Bill, naturally, naturally. I mean, idiot!” You know, that kind of reaction.

All right. So your process is “What was unknown about that problem with Bill?” See, you’ve gotten the terminal out of the thing. But the PC could have a problem just about worrying. The PC knows that people who worry go to pieces. And the PC finds himself worrying. And that is the most problem the PC has got. And that’s as close as he can come to any terminal. And you actually would defeat your purposes by being too forceful about giving him a terminal. There are times to be reasonable about this sort of thing.

Try to get a terminal if you can. If you can’t get a terminal, run the condition. And you’ll still make it.

But if you do, you better watch your havingness. And when you finish up that session with Model Session, just hardly ask him if it’s all right with the room. Just run TR 10. Because if you’re running a conditional problem, his havingness is going to go down. It can be done, you understand, but his havingness is going to go down, and in end rudiments you’re going to have to run some havingness.

All right. Let’s take up the next brutal step here rapidly. “What was unknown about that problem?” has got to be flattened on the tone arm. It’s got to be flattened on the tone arm. And that may take a long time, and it may take a short time, but you’re going to get the tone arm action out of it and going to get the twenty-minute test on it and so forth, because that problem— you’re really going to take it up and beat it to death.

Now he’s in a position to answer number 5. We’ve got to “locate the confusion before that change (as [per] number above)”—not before the problem but before the change. And now you’re going to “list the persons present in the confusion.” And this is going to give you some difficulty because there will be innumerable persons missing. So you got to shake that assessment down on the E-Meter needle.

“Were there any more people in that confusion?” And you keep reading that until you no longer get a needle reaction. You’ve shaken all the people out of that. And the most important person to the whole confusion will be the person who comes up last. Just take that as a general running rule and you’ll be safe.

All right. You make a list of those persons, and then let’s just read that list off, as you’ve written it right here on the form—don’t write it anyplace else than on the form—and you run a rapid assessment which just gets your most needle reaction, not by elimination, and you write down the name of the person who reacted most on the needle as you read that list.

And now you’ve got to get the withholds off, from that person. Now, that means that you might have an additional piece of paper. That means that you might have written up an additional withhold section. It might mean that you have used a standard form to get the withholds off, or it might mean that you just sat there and got the withholds off.

“What were you withholding from that person?” “What had you done to that person?” “What were you doing at the time, that you didn’t tell that person about?” And we want to get the basic withholds off that person.

But we’re not going to do a fantastic hour-after-hour grind to get the withholds off of that person. We’re just going to get the major withholds off of that person. You’re going to try to clean that person up till that person doesn’t react. And that’s as far as we want it cleaned up. We say the person’s name. We don’t get a meter reaction. And then we’re going to assess the list again, leaving the person’s name in. We don’t take names off as we clear them up. We just keep leaving their names in because they will turn up again. That tells you why we’re not being terribly thorough.

So you run down the list, get the most reaction, and you get the withholds off, from that person. You get what the person has done to them, what he hadn’t told them, what he was unable to tell them. Remember the three classes of withholds, see, involuntary withhold—the unintentional withhold, rather. All of those things. We get that off, and we’ll find out that we’ve eventually—when we’ve taken care of all these people and none of these people react anymore on the needle, we’ll have cleaned up the confusion.

But the end of that is when the needle does not react while you read the list, with the rudiments in. And you don’t get a reaction. All right. Great. Great. That’s the end of that confusion as far as you’re concerned,-and that is it.

Now, you’ve just—run that again. And then you—again, as it says it in 9 and 10—you know, just keep repeating the same thing till you get all that, the people in the confusion, off. And now, you return to the O assessment and do all of P again, which is to say that you take this P form as complete and you file it with the person’s record, and you make out a brand-new P form in exactly the same way. And you go over that thing exactly as you did before.

Now, that is the extent of a Problems Intensive. How long does it take? I don’t know how long it’ll take you to do this on how many PCs. But I know that this is terribly productive. And this will get out all the hidden standards, and it’ll straighten up all the present time problems of long duration. You’ll have all kinds of interesting things occurring as a result of it.

It becomes better when you get the Havingness and Confront Process of the PC and run at the same time. You could do a lot of things. They could get a lot more complicated, and so forth. But if you just do this, just as it says through here, and keep up until you finish every one of these change points of a person’s life, you’ll find the last ones are going just fast, fast, fast. They’re just disappearing quickly. He gets the problem, and he finds a confusion, bang! And he finds the withholds on it, boom!

Don’t be too surprised if the person goes terribly backtrack. Let them go backtrack all they want to while you’re running the problem. But that they went back running the problem doesn’t let that lure you into getting the confusion before the engram. No, we want the confusion before the change in this life, always. And we never wander on to the backtrack from a standpoint of getting off the confusion.

But they will of course run into engrams while they’re being audited on the problem. And we don’t upset them by trying to get them off of it. We just audit them.

But we want the confusion prior to that change in this lifetime. So that this thing—we don’t prevent them from going backtrack—but this thing basically, mainly handles, and is only designed to handle, the present lifetime.

Okay?

Well, I wish you lots of luck with it. I think you’ve got a piece of dynamite in your hands that won’t pre-explode in your face. I think it’ll do your PCs a lot of good. Okay?

Thank you.

B O A R D  T E C H N I C A L  B U L L E T I N 

15  NOVEMBER 1976
ISSUE III
Remimeo
CANCELS BTB 4 JANUARY 1972RB
“0-IV EXPANDED GRADE 
PROCESSES - TRIPLES
PART C GRADE 1 PROCESSES”

( Revisisions in italics )

0-IV EXPANDED GRADE PROCESSES - QUADS 
PART C 
GRADE 1 PROCESSES        

This BTB gives a checklist of the Expanded Quad Grade Process commands. It is not all the possible processes for this level. If more are needed to attain full EP for this level additional processes can be found in LRH Bulletins, Books, Tapes, PABs and other issues.

Each process is run to its full end phenomena of F/N, Cog, VGIs. Any processes previously run are rehabbed or completed and any missing flows run. A copy of this checklist is placed in the folder of a pc being run on Expanded Grades and the processes checked off with the date each is run to EP.

On any of these processes where the pc answers only yes or that he did it find out what it was by asking “What was it?” This keeps in the itsa line from the pc to auditor. (Ref: 30 June 62 HCOB)

THIS BTB DOES NOT REPLACE THE ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIALS.

LEVEL “I” PROBLEMS

1.	CCH’s I to X

	See Refs:	HCOB   2 Aug  62   CCH ANSWERS
		HCOB   7 Aug  62   CCH’S MORE INFO
		BTB    12 Sep   63   CCH DATA
		HCOB   1 Dec   65   CCH’S

	CCH I:

	“Give me that hand”	

	CCH II:

	Tone 40  8-C

	“You look at that wall.”  “Thankyou.”
	“You walk over to that wall.”  “Thankyou.”
	“You touch that wall.”  “Thankyou.”
	“Turn around.”  “Thankyou.”	

	CCH III:

	Hand Space Mimicry

	“Put your hands against mine, follow them and contribute to their motion.”
	“Did you contribute to their motion?”

	Gradually increase the space between pc and auditor hands per HCOB 12 
Sept 63 CCH DATA.

	On increased distance:

(1)	Use:  “Put your hands facing mine about one inch (or whatever distance is 
	used) away, follow them and contribute to their motion.”	

	NOTE:  When distance increases auditors chair gets moved back, and 
auditors chair is always between pc and door.

	CCH IV:    Ref:  HCOB 1 Dec 65

	Book Mimicry

	(No set commands)

	Repeat CCH 1, 2, 3, 4 through and through until all are FLAT and the pc 
has reached full EP per LRH HCOBs.
			TO EP	_________

	CCH V:    HCOB 11 Jun 57  TRAINING & CCH PROCESSES

	Location by Contact

	“Touch that (room object).”   “Thankyou.”
			TO EP	_________
	
	CCH VI:

	Body Room Contact

	“Touch your (body part).”  “Thankyou.”
	“Touch that (indicated room object).”  “Thankyou.”
			TO EP	_________

	CCH VII:

	Contact By Duplication

	“Touch that table.”  “Thankyou.”
	“Touch your (body part).”  “Thankyou.”
	“Touch that table.”  “Thankyou.”
	“Touch your (same body part).”  “Thankyou.”
	etc.  pc walking.
			TO EP	_________

	CCH VIII:   HCOB 11 Jun 57  TRAINING & CCH PROCESSES
		  PAB 80  “Terrible Trio”

	“Look around the room and tell me what you could have?”
			TO EP	_________

	“Look around the room and tell me what you would permit to remain.”
			TO EP	_________

	“Look around the room and tell me what you could dispense with.”
			TO EP	_________

	CCH IX:   Ref.  HCOB 11 Jun 57  TRAINING & CCH PROCESSES

	Tone 40 - Keep it from going away

	“Look at that (indicated room object).”
	“Walk over to that (indicated room object).”
	“Touch that (indicated room object).”
	“Keep it from going away.”  
	“Did you keep it from going away?” 
			TO EP	_________

	CCH X:   Ref.  HCOB 11 Jun 57  TRAINING & CCH PROCESSES

	Tone 40 - Hold it still

	“Look at that (indicated room object).”
	“Walk over to that (indicated room object).”
	“Touch that (indicated room object).”
	“Hold it still.”  
	“Did you hold it still?”
			TO EP	_________

	R2-67   OBJECTS

	“Locate some objects.”

	Run repetitively.  Pc looks at them and notices what they are.
			TO EP	_________

	3-PART LOCATION PROCESS:

	Ref:  PAB 153  1 Feb 59

	Locational

	“Notice that ______.”  “Thankyou.”
	(Auditor points to object but NOT in pc’s direction.)
			TO EP	_________

	Locational, Body and Room

	“Look at that ______.”  “Thankyou.”
	“Look at your ______ (foot, hand, knee etc.).”  “Thankyou.”
			TO EP	_________

	Run alternatively:
	Objective Show Me

	“Show me that ______.”  “Thankyou.”

	Run above at first, and then alternate with
	
	“Show me your ______ (foot, hand, knee etc.).”  “Thankyou.”
			TO EP	_________

	OPENING PROCEDURE BY DUPLICATION - R2 - 17

	Ref:  HCOB   4 Feb 59   OP PRO BY DUP
	         BTB    24 Oct  71   OP PRO BY DUP - END PHENOMENA
	         CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY

	Have pc handle and place book on table, bottle on another table.

	“Look at that _____.”  “Walk over to it.”
	“Pick it up.”  “What is it’s colour?”
	“What is it’s temperature?”  “What is it’s weight?”
	“Put it down in exactly the same place.”

	Done alternately with a book and a bottle.
			TO EP	_________

	START, CHANGE, STOP

	Ref:  CLEAR PROCEDURE Issue I
	         HCOB  2 Feb 61 UK CASES DIFFERENT
	         PAB  97
	         HCOB  29 SEP 58

	NOTE:  Keep a solid comm line with pc when giving commands.

	STAND STILL:  (NOTE:  On a very bad off case you can run SCS on an 
object; use same commands.)

	“Now I want you to get your body moving down the room when I so 
	indicate and when I tell you to ‘stand still’, I want you to make that body 
	stand still.  Do you understand that?”  “Good.”

	“Stand still.”
	“Did you make that body stand still?”
	“Thankyou.”

	START

	“I am going to tell you to start.  And when I tell you to start, you start the 
	body in that direction.  Do you understand that?”  
	“Good.”  “Start”
	“Did you start that body?”  “Thankyou.”
			TO FLAT POINT	_________

	STOP

	“I am going to tell you to get the body moving in that direction.  Some
	where along the line I will tell you to stop.  Then you stop the body.  
	Do you understand that?”
	“Good.”  “Get the body moving.”
	“Stop.”  “Did you stop the body?”  
	“Thankyou.”
			TO FLAT POINT	_________

	CHANGE

	“Do you see that spot?”  “Good.”  “We will call that spot A.  Now you 
	stand here.  OK.”  “Now do you see that other spot?”  “Good.”  “We’ll 
	call that spot B.”  “Alright, now when I ask you to change the body, I 
	want you to change the body’s position from A to B.  Do you understand 
	that?” 

	The preclear says he does and the auditor stepping back from the preclear 
	says  “Change.”  The preclear then changes the body’s position.  Similarly 
	in using the various points and combinations of points A, B, C & D, the 
	auditor runs the preclear on change until that particular process seems to be 
	flat or goes to EP.
			TO FLAT POINT	_________

	These steps (as above) are now repeated as they will have unflattened.  
Each is re-flattened in turn and run over and over again.
			TO EP PER ABOVE
			REFERENCES	_________

	CONTROL TRIO:
	Ref:  PAB 137 & PAB 146

1.	“Get the idea of having that (indicated object).”
			TO EP	_________

2.	“Get the idea that it is all right to permit that (indicated object) to continue.”
			TO EP	_________

3.	“Get the idea of making that (indicated object) disappear.”
			TO EP	_________

	GOALS:
	Ref:  PAB 137 & PAB 146

1.	“What are you absolutely sure will happen in the next 2 minutes?”

	Auditor 2 way comms it, to pc certainty and gradually increases span of 
time: 1 hr, 3 days, 1 week, 3 months, 1 year etc.
			TO EP	_________

2.	“Tell me something that you would like to do in the next 2 minutes.
			TO EP	_________
	OR

1.	“Tell me something that you are sure will be there in 2 minutes.” Etc.
			TO EP	_________

2.	“Tell me something that you would like to have in the next 2 minutes.”
			TO EP	_________

	OPENING PROCEDURE SOP 8 - C:
	Ref:  PAB 34.  Creation of Human Ability.

	PART A

1.	Select objects in room, direct pc’s attention to them.

2.	“Do you see that _____?”  “Go over to it and put your hand on it.”
	“Now look at _____.”  “Now walk over and put your hand on it.”

	(This is done with various objects without specifically designating spots 
of a more precise nature than an object until pc is very certain that he is in good 
communication with these objects & the walls & other parts of the room.)

3.	PART A HAS BEEN ENLARGED by the auditor’s selecting exact spots. eg.
	
	“Do you see that ‘black mark’ on the ‘left arm of that chair’?”
	“All right, go over to it and put your finger on it.”  
	“Now take your finger off it.”

4.	Done until the pc has uniform perception of any and all objects in the room.

	PART B

5.	“Find a spot in this room.”  “Go over to it and put your finger on it.”
	“Now let go of it.”

6.	Done until pc freely selecting spots in the room - this means that his 
	perception of the room has become uniform.
			TO EP	_________
	PART C

7.	“Find a spot in the room.”  “Make up your mind when you are going 
	to touch it and then touch it.”  “Make up your mind when you are going 
	to let go of it and then let go.”

8.	Run the process repetitively until all comm lags are reduced and until the 
	pc’s very certain he’s seeing, selecting, and touching the spots and to F/N, 
	Cog, VGIs.  (Check for F/N on the meter.  If no F/N check for unflat or 
	overrun and handle accordingly.)
			TO EP	_________

	HELP PROCESSES:
	Ref:  HCOB  5 May 1960  “HELP”

	2 way comm on help is the first process to clear the help button.
	
	Discuss another helping pc.  Pc helping others.  Others helping others.  
	Pc helping self.  Get the pc’s views on the subject of help.

			F1 TO EP	_________
			F2 TO EP	_________
			F3 TO EP	_________
			F0 TO EP	_________

	ALSO

F1.	“What problem could another’s help be to you?”
			TO EP	_________

F2.	“What problem could your help be to another?”
			TO EP	_________

F3.	“What problem could another’s help be to other’s ?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“What problem could helping yourself be to you?”
			TO EP	_________

	OR  (If the pc is inventing answers rather than picking them off the track)

F1.	“What problem has another’s help be to you?”
			TO EP	_________

F2.	“What problem has your help been to another?”
			TO EP	_________

F3.	“What problem has another’s help been to other’s ?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“What problem has helping yourself been to you?”
			TO EP	_________

	Another remedy for invention where there is no terminal apparently present:

F1.	“What help of another’s  could you confront?”
	“What help of another’s  would you rather not confront?”
			TO EP	_________

F2.	“What help of yours could another confront?”
	“What help of yours would another rather not confront?”
			TO EP	_________

F3.	“What help from others  could others confront?”
	“What help from others  would others rather not confront?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“What help of yours  could you confront?”
	“What help of yours  would you rather not confront?”
			TO EP	_________

	LOWER DICHOTOMY OF FAILED HELP - OR 
	TWO WAY FAILED HELP:
	Ref:  HCOB  3 Nov 1960  “FAILED HELP”

F1.	“How could another prevent your help?”
	“How could another fail to help you?”
			TO EP	_________

F2.	“How could you prevent another’s help?”
	“How could you fail to help another?”
			TO EP	_________

F3.	“How could others prevent others help?”
	“How could you fail to help others?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“How could you prevent help for yourself?”
	“How could you fail to help yourself?”
			TO EP	_________

	FORMULA 16:
	Ref:  HCOB  10 Nov 60 FORMULA 13.  
	         HCOB  15 Dec 60  PRE-SESSION 37.

F1.	“Who has not intended to help you?”
	“Who has helped you?”
			RUN ALTERNATELY TO EP	_________

F2.	“Who have you intended not to help?”
	“Who have you helped?”
			RUN ALTERNATELY TO EP	_________

F3.	“Who has intended not to help others?”
	“Who has helped others?”
			RUN ALTERNATELY TO EP	_________

F0.	“How have you intended not to help yourself?”
	“How have you helped yourself?”
			RUN ALTERNATELY TO EP	_________

	FORMULA 17:
	Ref:  HCOB  15 Dec 60  PRE-SESSION 37
	         HCOB   3 Nov 60

	This is especially for the person who has been to healers, hypnotists, 
spiritualists, psychologists, ministers, religious family members, etc.  Run on 
charged terminals (general terminals and specific persons connected with pc’s 
past.)

F1. 	“How could a _____ fail to help you?”
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“How could you fail to help a _____?”
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“How could a _____ fail to help others?”
			TO EP	_________

F0. 	“How could you fail to help yourself regarding a _____?”
			TO EP	_________

	ALSO:	
	
F1. 	“How could a _____help you?”
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“How could you help a _____?”	
			TO EP	_________
	
F3. 	“How could a _____ help others?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“How could you help yourself regarding a _____?”	
			TO EP	_________

FIVE WAY CONCEPT HELP:			
Ref:  HCOB 14 July 1960  CONCEPT HELP 
F1. 	“Think of a _____ helping you.”	
			TO EP	_________
	
F2. 	“Think of you helping a _____.”	
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“Think of a _____helping others.”	
			TO EP	_________

F4. 	“Think of others helping a _____.”
			TO EP	_________

F5. 	“Think of a _____ helping a _____.”
			TO EP	_________

	Run on charged (reading) general terminals, culled from the worksheets.		

CONCEPT HELP O/W: 
Ref: HCOB 14 July 1960  CONCEPT HELP 
BTB 30 May 1960  DYN ASSESS ON HELP 

	Run on charged reading terminals (also a confusion, an unconscious person, 
a responsible person, a creative person. HCOB 21 Jul 1960 Some Help Terminals.)

F1. 	“Think of a _____ helping you.”
	“Think of a _____ not helping you.”
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“Think of helping a _____.”
	“Think of not helping a _____.”		
			TO EP	_________
	
F3. 	“Think of a _____helping others.”
	“Think of a _____not helping others.” 
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“Think of you as a _____ helping yourself.”
	“Think of you as a _____ not helping yourself.”
			TO EP	_________

HELP O/W:
Ref: HCOB 12 May 1960  HELP PROCESSING 
	This lets the pc as-is his failures to help as well as his denials of help.
	
F1. 	“What help has another given you?”
	“What help has another not given you?”	
			TO EP	_________
		
F2. 	“What help have you given another?  “
	“What help have you not given another? “
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“What help have others given others?”
	“What help have others not given others?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“What help have you given yourself.”
	“What help have you not given yourself.”
			TO EP	_________

FIVE WAY BRACKET ON HELP:
Ref: HCOB 5 Nov 1965  5 WAY BRACKET ON HELP

1. 	“How could you help me?” 

2. 	“How could I help you?”
	
3.	“How could you help another?”	

4. 	“How could another help you?”

5. 	“How could another help another?”

	The above commands are run consecutively as one process - muzzled style.
			TO EP	_________

	RUNNING HELP ON AN ITEM:
	Ref: HCOB 28 July 1958  CLEAR PROCEDURE 
        	HCOB  7 July 1960  THE ASSESSMENT OF HELP

	Run on charged terminals. (Also: Dynamic Assessment of Help, HCOB 
7 July 60 The Assessment of Help. Do an assessment on helping the Dynamics, 
finding the Dynamic on which helping is the least real to the pc, run help on it.)
	
F1. 	“How could a _____ help you?”
			TO EP	_________
	
F2. 	“How could you help a _____?”
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“How could a _____ help others?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“If you were a _____ how could you help yourself?”
			TO EP	_________

REGIMEN TWO:
Ref: HCOB 26 Aug 1960  REGIMEN TWO 

F1. 	“What motion has helped you?”
	“What motion has not helped you?”
			TO EP	_________

F2.	“What motion have you helped?”
	“What motion have you not helped?”
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“What motion has helped others?”
	“What motion has not helped others?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“What motion have you helped yourself with?”
	“What motion have you not helped yourself with?”
			TO EP	_________

FORMULA 20:
Ref: HCOB 2 Mar 1961  FORMULA 20
	
F1. 	“Who has failed to control you?”
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“Who have you failed to control?”
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“Who have others failed to control?”
			TO EP	_________

F-0.	“How have you failed to control yourself?”
			TO EP	_________

	ALSO: 

F1. 	“What has failed to controi you?”
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“What have you failed to control?”
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“What have others failed to control?”
			TO EP	_________

F0. 	“What have you failed to control in yourself?”
			TO EP	_________

	ALSO:		

F1. 	“Who has helped you?”	
			TO EP	_________
	
F2. 	“Who have you helped?”	
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“Who has helped others?”	
			TO EP	_________

F0. 	“How have you helped yourself?”	
			TO EP	_________

INVENT PROBLEMS PROCESS:
Ref: HCOB 11 Jan 1959  AN AMUSINGLY EFFECTIVE PROCESS

	Fill in the blank with pc’s worry or malady. Several different items can be 
run; in turn. 

F1. 	“Invent a problem you could have with another for which _____ is the 
	answer.” 
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“Invent a problem another could have with you for which _____ is the 
	answer.” 
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“Invent a problem another could have with others for which _____ is the 
	answer”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“Invent a problem you could have with yourself for which _____ is the 
	answer.”	
			TO EP	_________

HAS V:
Ref:  HCOB 19 Jan 1961  ADDITIONAL HAS PROCESSES

F1.	“Get the idea of solving a problem.”
	“Get the idea of not solving a problem.”
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“Get the idea of another solving a problem.”
	“Get the idea of another not solving a problem.”
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“Get the idea of others solving a problem.” 
	“Get the idea of others not solving a problem.”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“Get the idea of you solving a problem of your own.”
	“Get the idea of you not solving a problem of your own.”
			TO EP	_________

	The Case Supervisor may add a terminal if the pc complains about lots of 
problems with that terminal.  The commands used would be:

F1.	“Get the idea of solving a problem with (terminal).” 
	“Get the idea of not solving a problem with (terminal).” 
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“Get the idea of (terminal) solving a problem with.you.” 
	“Get the idea of (terminal) not solving a problem with you.”
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“Get the idea of (terminal) solving a problem with others.” 
	“Get the idea of (terminal) not solving a problem with others.”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“Get the idea of solving a problem you gave yourself about (terminal).”
	“Get the idea of not solving a problem you gave yourself about (terminal).”
			TO EP	_________

PRORLEMS PROCESSES FOR PTPs:
Ref: HCOB 16 Dec 1957  PRESENT TIME PROBLEM 
Run on key charged terminal in PTP.

F1. 	“Invent something worse than_____.” 
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“Invent something worse for _____ than you.”
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“Invent something worse for others than _____”
			TO EP	_________
F0.	“Invent something worse for yourself than _____”
			TO EP	_________

	ALSO RUN:	

1. 	“Spot where (key terminal in PTP) is now.” 
	“Spot where you are now.”
			RUN ALTERNATELY TO EP	_________

	PROBLEM OF COMPARABLE MAGNITUDE:
	Ref: HCOB 16 Dec 1957  PRESENT TIME PROBLEM 
	        HCOB  1 Mar 1958  PROBLEM OF COMPARABLE MAGNITUDE 

	Run on key charged terminal of problem.

F1. 	“Invent a problem that is of comparable magnitude to _____”
	“How could that be a problem to you?”

	NOTE: The above question can be omitted only if the pc tells you how it 
could be a problem in answering the first question. 

	“Can you conceive yourself figuring on that?”
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“Invent a problem that is of comparable magnitude to you for _____”
	“How could that be a problem to _____?”
	“Can you conceive _____ figuring on that?”
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“Invent a problem that is of comparable magnitude to _____ for others.”
	“How could that be a problem to others?”
	“Can you conceive _____ figuring on that?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“Invent a problem that is of comparable magnitude to _____ for you.”
	“How could that be a problem to you?”
	“Can you conceive yourself figuring on that?”
			TO EP	_________

	31 MAR 60 PROBLEMS PROCESS:
	Ref: HCOB 31 Mar 1960  THE PTP

F1. 	“What problem could you confront?”
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“What problem could another confront?”
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“What problem could others confront?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“What problem about yourself could you confront?”
			TO EP	_________

	ALSO:

F1.	“Tell me a problem with another.”
	“what part of that problem have you been responsible for?”
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“Tell me a problem of another with you.” 
	“What part of that problem has another been responsible for?”
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“Tell me a problem of others with others.”
	“What part of that problem have others been responsible for?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“Tell me a problem with yourself.”
	“What part of that problem have you been responsible for?”
			TO EP	_________

	ALSO: 

F1. 	“What two things can you confront?”
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“What two things can another confront?”
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“What two things can others confront?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“What two things about yourself can you confront?”
			TO EP	_________

	ROUTINE 1A PROBLEMS PROCESS:
	Ref: HCOB 6 July 1961 ROUTINE 1A

F1. 	“What problem could you confront?”
	“What problem don’t you have to confront?”
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“What problem could another confront?”
	“What problem wouldn’t another confront?’
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“What problem could others confront?”
	“What problem wouldn’t others confront?’
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“What problem about yourself could you confront?”
	“What problem about yourself don’t you have to confront?”
			TO EP	_________

	On Flow Two the command may be “What problem could another confront” 
which ever checks out on meter.

	SOLUTION TO SOLUTIONS:	
	Ref: HCOB 3 May 1959  SOLUTION TO SOLUTIONS

F1. 	“What solution could you make stick?”
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“What solution could another make stick?”
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“What solution could others make stick?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“What solution about yourself could you make stick?”
			TO EP	_________

	R2-20 USE OF PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
	Ref:  CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY

	Have pc pick out or pick up room object, have him examine this object until 
he is sure it is real.

F1. 	“What problems could this object be to you?”
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“What problems could this object be to another?”
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“What problems could this object be to others?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“What problem have you caused yourself over _____?”
			TO EP	_________

	On each flow the Command is run repetitively until pc is convinced that he 
can create problems at will.

	PROBLEMS INTENSIVE:
	Ref: HCOB 27 Sept 62  PROBLEMS INTENSIVE USE 
	and  TAPE 6110C11 SH Spec 65  PROBLEMS INTENSIVE 
	and  BTB    10 Apr  72  PREPCHECKS 
	and  HCOB 30 July 62  A SMOOTH HGC 25 HR INTENSIVE

 	(a) Pc gives all self determined changes he made this lixetime. (Only self 
determined major changes.)

	“What self determined changes have you made this life?”

	You can vary the question to get all different angles of changes. (per tape 
Problems Intensives.)

	(b) Take the biggest reading change and ask when the prior confusion was.

	(c)  Auditor predates the time of the prior confusion by a month.

	(d) Auditor Prepchecks - “Since _____ (date in stop c) has anything been 
	      (button)?”
			TO EP	_________

	LEVEL ONE QUAD :

	Run 2nd command to bleed all charge off 1st answer.

F1. 	“What problem have you had with someone?” 
	“What solutions have you had for that problem?”
			TO EP	_________

F2. 	“What problem has another had with you?”
	“What solutions has another had for that problem?”
			TO EP	_________

F3. 	“What problem has someone had with another?”
	“What solutions have they had for that problem?”
			TO EP	_________

F0.	“What problem have you caused yourself?”
	“What solution have you had for that problem?”
			TO EP	_________

	HAVINGNESS:

1H-F1	Point out something desirable.
			TO EP	_________

1H-F2	Point out something another would find desirable.
			TO EP	_________

1H-F3	Point out something another could get others to desire.
			TO EP	_________

1H-F0	Point out something you would find desirable.
			TO EP	_________

Revised and Re-issued as
BTB by FMO 1234
I/C:  CPO Andrea Lewis
2nd:  Molly Harlow

Revised by
FMO 1689 I/C
for Training and Services Aide

Approved by Snr C/S Flag
and CS-5
and LRH Pers Comm

Authorised by
AVU

for the 
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
of the 
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:DM:KU:JE:DM:JG:PD:MH:AL:dr
Copyright © 1972, 1974, 1976
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED