B O A R D  P O L I C Y  L E T T E R
26 JANUARY 1972R
ISSUE VI
 
Remimeo	REVISED & REISSUED 11 OCTOBER 1974 AS BPL
SCN Orgs 	CANCELS
Academies 	HCO POLICY LETTER OF 26 JANUARY 1972
Level 2	ISSUE VI
Students	SAME TITLE

SCIENTOLOGY LEVEL 2 STANDARD
ACADEMY CHECKSHEET
(HCA) Hubbard Certified Auditor

THIS COURSE CONTAINS KNOWLEDGE VITAL TO SUCCESSFUL LIVING.

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

ORGANIZATION:	

STUDENT’S NAME:		POST:	

DATE STARTED:		DATE FINISHED:	

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

It covers the technology dealing with contra survival acts of commission and omission (“overts” and “witholds”).

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 XI Fast Flow Training Reinstated.

CERTIFICATE:

Completion of this checksheet entitles you to a “Provisional Hubbard Certified Auditor 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 apply the processes of the Grade flublessly you will be awarded your full permanent Hubbard Certified Auditor Certificates.

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 audits 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 terms use a Scientology dictionary and refer to the Symbols and Definitions list (HCOB 23 Aug 55 Abbreviations and Symbols of Dianetics and Scientology).

* = 100% knowledge 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.

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.
		Scientology A New Slant on Life	_________
		Book of Case Remedies		_________

C. 	CLAY DEMOS
		From New Slant on Life:
		1.    2 Rules for happy living 	_________
		2.    What is confront 		_________

D. 	CHARTS
		BPL 25 Jun 70R 	Expanded Lower Grades
			Chart of Abilities Gained
			Level II 	_________

		Additions: 
		1. 		_________
		2.		_________

E. 	CODES
	*	HCO PL 14 Oct 68 	Auditors Code AD18	_________
	*	HCO PL 2 Nov 68 	Auditors Code AD18
			Addition	_________

		Additions:
		1.		_________
		2.		_________

F. 	GENERAL COURSE DATA
		HCO PL 27 May 65 	Processing	_________
		HCO PL 1 Jul 65 	Ethics Chits	_________ 
	* 	HCOB 27 Sep 66 	The Anti-Social Personality 	_________
	* 	HCO PL 7 May 69 	Policy on Sources of Trouble	_________

		Additions: 
		1. 		_________
		2.		_________
G. 	PC DATA
		HCOB 12 Nov 59 	Acknowledgements in Auditing	_________
		HCOB 30 Apr 69 	Auditor Trust	_________

H. 	TRs
		HCOB 16 Aug 71 	Training Drills Modernized	_________
		HCOB 1 Oct 65 	Mutter TR	_________

NOTE: 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.

OT TR 0	_________	TR 2	_________
TR 0	_________	TR 3	_________
TR 0 BB	_________	TR 4	_________
TR 1	_________	Mutter TR	_________

I. 		FN DATA
	* 	HCOB 11 Feb 66 	Free Needles & How to get them on a PC	_________
	* 	HCOB 20 Feb 70 	Floating Needles and End Phenomena	_________
	* 	HCOB 14 Mar 71 	F/N Everything	_________
	* 	HCOB 21 Mar 74 	End Phenomena	_________
		Demonstrate what happens when you miss an EP. 	_________
		Demonstrate what happens when you stop an EP.	_________

J. 		E-METER DATA
	* 	HCOB 16 Nov 65 	E-Meter Sensitivity Setting	_________
	* 	HCOB 18 Mar 74 	E-Meter Sensitivity Errors	_________
	* 	HCOB 24 Jul 64 	TA Counters, Use Of	_________
	* 	HCOB 23 Nov 61 	Meter Reading	_________
	* 	HCOB 25 May 62 	E-Meter - Instant Reads	_________
	* 	HCOB 21 Jul 62 	Urgent Instant Reads	_________
		HCOB 10 Dec 65 	E-Meter Drill Coaching	_________
		From the Book of E-Meter Drills

K.		METER DRILLS
1.	_________	9.	_________	17.	_________
2.	_________	10.	_________	18.	_________
3.	_________	11.	_________	19.	_________
4.	_________	12.	_________	20.	_________
5.	_________	13.	_________	21.	_________
6.	_________	14.	_________	22.	_________
7.	_________	15.	_________
8.	_________	16.	_________

L.		AUDITOR MUST NOTS
	* 	HCOB 24 Aug 64 	Session Must Nots	_________
	* 	HCOB 12 Feb 66 	Dangerous Auditor	_________
	* 	HCOB 17 May 69 	TRs and Dirty Needles	_________
	* 	HCOB 29 Mar 70 	Auditing and Ethics	_________

M.	Q&A
	*	HCOB 7 Apr 64 	All Levels Q&A 	_________
	* 	HCOB 20 Nov 73 	Issue I 21 ACC TR, (Anti-Q&A) 	_________
	* 	HCOB 20 Nov 73 	Issue II C/S Series 89
			F/N What you ask or Program	_________
	* 	HCOB 21 Nov 73 	The Cure of Q&A - Man’s
			Deadliest Disease	_________
		HCOB 5 Dec 73 	The Reason for Q&A	_________
		Do the Anti-Q&A Drill		_________

N. 	STYLES OF AUDITING
		HCOB 21 Feb 66 	Definition Processes	_________
	* 	HCOB 6 Nov 64 	Styles of Auditing	_________

O.		RUDIMENTS
	*	HCOB 17 Feb 74 	C/S Series 91
			Mutual Out Ruds	_________
		Additions: 
		1. 		_________
		2.		_________

P. 	TAPES
		5 Oct 61	Sec Checking - Types of Withholds	_________
	* 	20 Feb 62 	What is a Withhold	_________
	* 	3 Apr 62 	The Overt Motivator Sequence	_________
	* 	22 May 62 	Missed Withholds	_________
	* 	1 Nov 62 	The Missed Missed Withold	_________
	
Q. 	CLAY DEMOS
	* 	1. Demonstrate Overt		_________
	* 	2. Demonstrate Motivator		_________
	* 	3. Demonstrate False Overt	_________
	* 	4. Demonstrate False Motivator	_________
	* 	5. Damonstrate Responsibility	_________
	* 	6. Demonstrate Why overts prevent a person making case gain.	_________
	* 	7. Demonstrate a Withold		_________
	* 	8. Demonstrate a Missed Withold & related phenomena	_________
	
R.		THEORY OF O/W
	* 	HCOB 23 Dec 59 	Responsibility	_________
	* 	HCOB 31 Dec 59 	Blow Offs	_________
	* 	HCOB 13 Dec 61 	Varying, Sec Check Questions	_________
	* 	BTB 10 Dec 72 	Integrity Processing Series 7
			Fundamentals	_________
	* 	HCOB 8 Feb 62 	Urgent - Missed Witholds	_________
	* 	HCOB 12 Feb 62 	How to Clear Witholds & Missed Witholds	_________
	* 	HCOB 22 Feb 62 	Withholds Missed & Partial	_________
		HCOB 29 Mar 62 	Summary of Security Checking	_________
	* 	HCOB 25 Jul 63 	Auditing Rundown: Missed Withholds	_________		HCOB 10 Jul 64 	Overts: Order of Effectiveness in Processing 	_________
	* 	HCOB 12 Jul 64 	More on O/Ws	_________
	* 	HCOB 8 Sep 64 	Overts, What lies behind them	_________

CLAY DEMO: The cycle of misunderstood, Overt, blowing and show how auditing could prevent this cycle front completing.	_________
	* 	HCOB 5 Mar 65 	Book of Case Remedies	_________
	* 	HCOB 4 Apr 65 	ARC Breaks & Missed Withholds	_________
	* 	HCOB 29 Sep 65 	The Continuing Overt Act	_________
	* 	HCOB 20 May 68 	Overt Motivator Sequence	_________
		HCO PL 26 Aug 63 	Sec Checking Abolished	_________
	* 	HCOB 6 Jun 69 	Prediction & Consequences	_________
	* 	HCOB 31 Jan 70 	Witholds, Other People’s	_________
	* 	HCOB 28 Nov 70 	C/S Series 22   Psychosis	_________

S. 	LEVEL II PROCESSES
NOTE: See HCOB 17 Mar 74 TWC Checksheets TWC Using Wrong Questions - before studying, drilling and running the processes.
		BTB 14 Mar 74R 	0-IV Expanded Grade Processes - Triples - 
			Part D Grade 2 Processes	_________
		USE: BTB 9 Oct 71 R 	Issue IV Rev. 12 Mar 74 
			Level II Process Drills

		VIEWPOINT SW & VIEWPOINT ARC SW
	* 	BOOK: 	Creation of Human Ability  R2-25
		DRILL: 	TR 200-1	_________
			TR 200-2	_________

		ADDITIONAL HAS PROCESSES - HAS VIII
	* 	HCOB 19 Jan 61 	Additional HAS Processes
		DRILL: 	TR 200-3	_________
			TR 200-4	_________

		MELBOURNE 3
	* 	HCOB 4 Dec 59 	Melbourne Processes 1st Melbourne ACC
		DRILL: 	TR 200-5	_________
			TR 200-6	_________

		REPETITIVE CONFRONT PROCESS
	* 	HCOB 8 Mar 62 	The Bad Auditor
		DRILL: 	TR 200-7	_________
			TR 200-8	_________

		CONTINUOUS CONFRONT
	* 	HCOB 14 Jul 60 	Current R/D   Concept Help 
		DRILL:	TR 200-9	_________
			TR 200-10	_________

		VIEWPOINT STRAIGHTWIRE
	* 	BOOK: 	Phoenix Lectures  
		DRILL: 	TR 200-11	_________
			TR 200-12	_________

		WORRY PROCESS
	* 	HCOB 5 Jan 61 	O/W - A Limited Theory 
		DRILL: 	TR 200-13	_________
			TR 200-14	_________

		CRITICISM STRAIGHTWIRE
	* 	HCOB 13 Oct 59 	A Useful Process 
		DRILL: 	TR 200-15	_________
			TR 200-16	_________

	* 	HCOB 15 Mar 62 	Suppressors
		DRILL: 	TR 200-17	_________
			TR 200-18	_________

		RECALL A SECRET
	* 	PAB 146
		DRILL: 	TR 200-19	_________
			TR 200-20	_________

		O/W FLOWS PROCESS 8
	* 	HCOB 25 Jan 62 	Flow Process
		DRILL: 	TR 200-21	_________
			TR 200-22	_________

		DYNAMIC STRAIGHTWIRE
	* 	HCOB 6 Mar 59 	How to do a Diagnosis in Dynamic Straightwire	_________
	* 	HCOB 16 Feb 59 	HGC Processes for those trained in Engram 
			Running or trained in these processes 
			Appropriate parts only	_________
	* 	PAB 155		_________
		DRILL: 	TR 200-23	_________
			TR 200-24	_________

		O/W STRAIGHTWIRE & SELECTED PERSONS OVERT SW
	*	HCOB 11 Jun 59 	Location of Terminals	_________
	* 	HCOB 3 Feb 59 	HGC Current Procedure	_________
	* 	HCOB 24 Feb 59 	Technical HCOBs	_________
	* 	HCOB 3 Jul 59 	General Information	_________
	* 	PAB 155		_________
	* 	HCOD 16 Feb 59 	Staff Auditors Conference
			Applicable parts of each HCOB above	_________
		DRILL: 	TR 200-25	_________
			TR 200-26	_________
		
		NOT-IS STRAIGHTWIRE
	* 	HCOB 22 Jan 59 	Not-Is Straightwire	_________
	* 	HCOB 3 Feb 59 	HGC Current Procedure	_________
	* 	HCOB 16 Feb 59 	HGC Processes for Those Trained in Engram 	_________
			Running or Trained in These Processes	_________
	* 	HCOB 16 Feb 59 	Staff Auditors Conference
			Appropriate parts in the above HCOBs	_________
		DRILL: 	TR 200-27	_________
			TR 200-28	_________

		O/W PROCESSES
	* 	HCOB 12 Jul 64 	More on O/Ws	_________
		DRILL: 	TR 200-29	_________
			TR 200-30	_________
		
		UNIVERSE O/W
	* 	HCOB 5 Oct 59 	Universe Process	_________
		DRILL: 	TR 200-31	_________
			TR 200-32	_________

		KNOW TO MYSTERY STRAIGHTWIRE
	* 	HCOB 17 Mar 59 	Know-Mystery Straightwire for Extreme Cases	_________
	* 	HCOB 25 Sep 7IR 	Rev. 4 April 74 Tone Scale in Full	_________
		DRILL: 	TR 200-33	_________
			TR 200-34	_________

		REGIMEN 6 O/W
	* 	HCOB 6 Oct 60 	36 New Presessions  Regimen 6 O/W	_________
	* 	HCOB 18 Aug 60 	Vital Information	_________
	* 	HCOB 20 Oct 60 	Theory 67	_________
		DRILL: 	TR 200-35	_________
			TR 200-36	_________

		O/W PROCESS ON PROBLEM PERSONS
	*	HCOB 14 Apr 60	New PE Data	_________
		DRILL:	TR 200-37	_________
			TR 200-38	_________

		BEST RESPONSIBILITY PROCESS
	* 	HCOB 4 Feb 60 	Theory of Responsibility Processing	_________
	*	HCOB 11 Feb 60 	Create & Confront	_________
		DRILL: 	TR 200-39	_________
			TR 200-40	_________

		WITHHOLD PROCESS
	* 	HCOB 14 July 60 	Concept Help	_________
		DRILL: 	TR 200-41	_________
			TR 200-42	_________

		LOCATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
	* 	BOOK: 	Scientology Clear Procedure Issue I.	_________
		DRILL: 	TR 200-45	_________
			TR 200-44	_________

		LEVEL II TRIPLE
	* 	BTB 14 Mar 74R 	Grade II Processes 
			Rev. 1 April 74 Level II Triple	_________
		DRILL: 	TR 200-45	_________
			TR 200-46	_________

		HAVINGNESS
		BTB 14 Mar 74R 	Grade II Processes Rev. 1 April 74  
			Havingness	_________
		DRILL: 	TR 200-47	_________
			TR 200-48	_________

DO IT: Audit your Pc to EP on the Grade II Processes.

_____________

T. 	AUDITING SECTION

I ATTEST THAT I HAVE AUDITED A MINIMUM OF ONE PERSON TO EXPANDED GRADE II RELEASE.

STUDENT ATTEST:		DATE:	

ACADEMY C/S: 		DATE:	

U. 	STUDENT COMPLETION

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

STUDENT ATTEST:		DATE:	

V. 	SUPERVISOR

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

SUPERVISOR: 		DATE:	
W. 	STUDENT ATTEST AT C&A

	I attest: 
	A. I have enrolled property 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 a Grade II Release.

STUDENT ATTEST:		DATE:	

X. 	CERTS AND AWARDS

	Provisional Class 2 Certificate issued.

C&A: 		DATE:	

Route to Course Admin for filing in students folder.

Training & 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

Authorized by AVU

for the 
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
of the 
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

BDCS:HH:BW:RS:AL:ME: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 27 MAY 1965

Remimeo       	Qual & Tech Divs
Sthil Cl VII Course	ALL HATS
Students
Sthil Staff                   	HCO Div
Ethics Hats                   	ALL HATS

PROCESSING

	Since 1950 we have had an iron bound rule that we didn’t leave pcs in trouble just to end a session. 

	For fifteen years we have always continued a session that found the pc in trouble and I myself have audited a pc for nine additional hours, all night long in fact, just to get the pc through. 

	Newer auditors, not trained in the stern school of running engrams, must learn this all over again. 

	It doesn’t matter whether the auditor has had a policy on this or not—one would think that common decency would be enough as to leave a pc in the middle of a secondary or an engram and just coolly end the session is pretty cruel. Some do it because they are startled or afraid and “Rabbit” (run away by ending the session). 

	Auditors who end a process or change it when it has turned on a heavy somatic are likewise ignorant. 

	WHAT TURNS IT ON WILL TURN IT OFF. 

	This is the oldest rule in auditing. 

	Of course people get into secondaries and engrams, go through misemotion and session because things are running out. To end off a process or a session because of the clock is to ignore the real purpose of auditing. The oldest rules we have are

	(a) GET THE PC THROUGH IT. 
	(b) WHAT TURNS IT ON WILL TURN IT OFF. 
	(c) THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY THROUGH. 

	These now are expressed as POLICY. 

	A falsified auditor’s report is also subject to a Court of Ethics. 

	Any auditor violating this policy letter is liable to an immediate Court of Ethics convened within 24 hours of the offence or as soon as is urgently possible. 
	Auditing at all levels works well when it is done by the book. 
	The purpose of Ethics is to open the way for and get in Tech.

	Then we can do our job. 

	THERE IS NO MODERN PROCESS THAT WILL NOT WORK WHEN EXACTLY APPLIED. 

	Therefore in the eyes of Ethics all auditing failures are Ethics failures—PTS, Suppressive Persons as pcs, or non-compliance with tech for auditors. 

	And the first offence an auditor can commit is ceasing to audit when he is most needed by his pc. 

	Hence it is the first most important consideration of Ethics to prevent such occurrences. 

	Then we’ll make happy pcs, Releases and Clears. 

	L RON HUBBARD
LRH:nt:rd
Copyright © 1965
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 1 JULY 1965
Remimeo
Tech Div Hats
Qual Div Hats	TECH DIVISION
Ethics Hats	QUAL DIVISION
Executive Hats	
ETHICS CHITS

This is a VERY important policy. When it is neglected the org will soon experience a technical dropped statistic and lose income and personnel.

The most attacked area of an org is its Tech and Qual personnel as these produce the effective results which make Scientology seem deadly to Suppressives.

The Suppressive is TERRIFIED of anyone getting better or more powerful as he is dramatizing some long gone (but to him it is right now) combat or vengeance. He or she confuses the old enemies with anyone about and looks on anyone who tries to help as an insidious villain who will strengthen these “enemies”.

Thus Tech and Qual personnel are peculiarly liable to covert, off line, off policy annoyances which in time turn them into PTSs. Their cases will Roller Coaster and they begin to go off line, off policy and off origin (see Dev-T Pol Ltrs) themselves.

This results in a technical break down and an apparency of busyness in these divisions which does not in fact produce anything, being Dev-T.

The policy then is: NO TECH OR QUAL PERSONNEL MAY OMIT GIVING ETHICS CHITS TO ETHICS ON ANY INCIDENT OR ACTION COVERED IN THE DEV-T POLICY LETTERS OR WHICH INDICATE SP OR PTS ACTIVITY.

This means they may not “be decent about it” or “reasonable” and so refrain.

This means they must know their Ethics and Dev-T Pol Ltrs.

This means they may not themselves act like Ethics Officers or steal the Ethics hat.

It means that they must chit students who bring a body and ask for unusual solutions; they must chit all discourteous conduct; they must chit all Roller Coaster cases; they must chit all Suppressive actions observed; they must chit snide comments; they must chit alter-is and entheta, they must chit derogatory remarks; they must chit all Dev-T. Anything in violation of Ethics or Dev-T Pol Ltrs must be reported.

Ethics will find then that only two or three people in those areas are causing all the upset. This fact routinely stuns Tech and Qual personnel when it is called to their attention—that only two or three are making their lives miserable.

Ethics, seeing tech statistics drop, must investigate all this and WHEN ETHICS FINDS the Qual and Tech personnel have not been handing in Ethics chits, the Ethics Officer must report them to the HCO Exec Sec for disciplinary action.

NON ENTURBULATION ORDER

What to do with the 2 or 3 students or pcs causing trouble?
Ethics issues a Non Enturbulation Order. This states that those named in it (the SPs and PTSs who are students or preclears) are forbidden to enturbulate others and if one more report is received of their enturbulating anyone, an SP order will be issued forthwith.

This will hold them in line until tech can be gotten in on them and takes them off the back of Tech and Qual personnel.

NOT THEORETICAL

This is not a theoretical situation or policy. It is issued directly after seeing tech results go down, Tech and Qual cases Roller Coaster and results drop.

Ethics found that the entire situation came about through no chits from Tech and Qual personnel about troublesome people which resulted in no restraint and a collapse of Divisions 4 and 5 Comm lines and results.

When Tech and Qual personnel try to take the law into their own hands, or ignore issuing Ethics chits, chaos results, not case gains.

Keep Tech Results UP.

	L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1966
Remimeo

THE ANTI-SOCIAL PERSONALITY
THE ANTI-SCIENTOLOGIST

There are certain characteristics and mental attitudes which cause about 20% of a race to oppose violently any betterment activity or group.

Such people are known to have anti-social tendencies.

When the legal or political structure of a country becomes such as to favor such personalities in positions of trust, then all the civilizing organizations of the country become suppressed and a barbarism of criminality and economic duress ensues.

Crime and criminal acts are perpetuated by anti-social personalities. Inmates of institutions commonly trace their state back to contact with such personalities.

Thus, in the fields of government, police activities and mental health, to name a few, we see that it is important to be able to detect and isolate this personality type so as to protect society and individuals from the destructive consequences attendant upon letting such have free rein to injure others.

As they only comprise 20% of the population and as only 2l/2% of this 20% are truly dangerous, we see that with a very small amount of effort we could considerably better the state of society.

Well-known, even stellar, examples of such a personality are, of course, Napoleon and Hitler. Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, Christie and other famous criminals were wellknown examples of the anti-social personality. But with such a cast of characters in history we neglect the less stellar examples and do not perceive that such personalities exist in current life, very common, often undetected.

When we trace the cause of a failing business, we will inevitably discover somewhere in its ranks the anti-social personality hard at work.

In families which are breaking up we commonly find one or the other of the persons involved to have such a personality.

Where life has become rough and is failing, a careful review of the area by a trained observer will detect one or more such personalities at work.

As there are 80% of us trying to get along and only 20% trying to prevent us, our lives would be much easier to live were we well-informed as to the exact manifestations of such a personality. Thus we could detect it and save ourselves much failure and heartbreak.

It is important then to examine and list the attributes of the anti-social personality. Influencing as it does the daily lives of so many, it well behooves decent people to become better informed on this subject.

ATTRIBUTES

The anti-social personality has the following attributes:

	1. 	He or she speaks only in very broad generalities. “They say ...” “Everybody thinks...” “Everyone knows...” and such expressions are in continual use, particularly when imparting rumor. When asked, “Who is everybody . . .” it normally turns out to be one source and from this source the anti-social person has manufactured what he or she pretends is the whole opinion of the whole society.

This is natural to them since to them all society is a large hostile generality, against the anti-social in particular.

2. 	Such a person deals mainly in bad news, critical or hostile remarks, invalidation and general suppression.

“Gossip” or “harbinger of evil tidings” or “rumormonger” once described such persons.

It is notable that there is no good news or complimentary remark passed on by such a person.

3. 	The anti-social personality alters, to worsen, communication when he or she relays a message or news. Good news is stopped and only bad news, often embellished, is passed along.

Such a person also pretends to pass on “bad news” which is in actual fact invented.

4. 	A characteristic, and one of the sad things about an anti-social personality, is that it does not respond to treatment or reform or psychotherapy.

5. 	Surrounding such a personality we find cowed or ill associates or friends who, when not driven actually insane, are yet behaving in a crippled manner in life, failing, not succeeding.

Such people make trouble for others.

When treated or educated, the near associate of the anti-social personality has no stability of gain but promptly relapses or loses his advantages of knowledge, being under the suppressive influence of the other.

Physically treated, such associates commonly do not recover in the expected time but worsen and have poor convalescences.

It is quite useless to treat or help or train such persons so long as they remain under the influence of the anti-social connection.

The largest number of insane are insane because of such anti-social connections and do not recover easily for the same reason.

Unjustly we seldom see the anti-social personality actually in an institution. Only his “friends” and family are there.

6. 	The anti-social personality habitually selects the wrong target.

If a tyre is flat from driving over nails, he or she curses a companion or a non-causative source of the trouble. If the radio next door is too loud, he or she kicks the cat.

If A is the obvious cause, the anti-social personality inevitably blames B, or C or D.

7. 	The anti-social cannot finish a cycle of action.
Such become surrounded with incomplete projects.

8. 	Many anti-social persons will freely confess to the most alarming crimes when forced to do so, but will have no faintest sense of responsibility for them.

Their actions have little or nothing to do with their own volition. Things “just happened”.

They have no sense of correct causation and particularly cannot feel any sense of remorse or shame therefore.

9. 	The anti-social personality supports only destructive groups and rages against and attacks any constructive or betterment group.

10. 	This type of personality approves only of destructive actions and fights against constructive or helpful actions or activities.

The artist in particular is often found as a magnet for persons with anti-social personalities who see in his art something which must be destroyed and covertly, “as a friend”, proceed to try.

11. 	Helping others is an activity which drives the anti-social personality nearly berserk. Activities, however, which destroy in the name of help are closely supported.

12. 	The anti-social personality has a bad sense of property and conceives that the idea that anyone owns anything is a pretense made up to fool people. Nothing is ever really owned.

THE BASIC REASON

The basic reason the anti-social personality behaves as he or she does lies in a hidden terror of others.

To such a person every other being is an enemy, an enemy to be covertly or overtly destroyed.

The fixation is that survival itself depends on “keeping others down” or “keeping people ignorant”.

If anyone were to promise to make others stronger or brighter, the anti-social personality suffers the utmost agony of personal danger.

They reason that if they are in this much trouble with people around them weak or stupid, they would perish should anyone become strong or bright.

Such a person has no trust to a point of terror. This is usually masked and unrevealed.

When such a personality goes insane the world is full of Martians or the FBI and each person met is really a Martian or FBI agent.

But the bulk of such people exhibit no outward signs of insanity. They appear quite rational. They can be very convincing.

However, the list given above consists of things which such a personality cannot detect in himself or herself. This is so true that if you thought you found yourself in one of the above, you most certainly are not anti-social. Self-criticism is a luxury the anti-social cannot afford. They must be RIGHT because they are in continual danger in their own estimation. If you proved one WRONG, you might even send him or her into a severe illness.

Only the sane, well-balanced person tries to correct his conduct.

RELIEF

If you were to weed out of your past by proper search and discovery those anti-social persons you have known and if you then disconnected, you might experience great relief.

Similarly, if society were to recognize this personality type as a sick being as they now isolate people with smallpox, both social and economic recoveries could occur.

Things are not likely to get much better so long as 20% of the population is permitted to dominate and injure the lives and enterprise of the remaining 80%.

As majority rule is the political manner of the day, so should majority sanity express itself in our daily lives without the interference and destruction of the socially unwell.

The pity of it is, they will not permit themselves to be helped and would not respond to treatment if help were attempted.

An understanding and ability to recognize such personalities could bring a major change in society and our lives.

THE SOCIAL PERSONALITY

Man in his anxieties is prone to witch hunts.

All one has to do is designate “people wearing black caps” as the villains and one can start a slaughter of people in black caps.

This characteristic makes it very easy for the anti-social personality to bring about a chaotic or dangerous environment.

Man is not naturally brave or calm in his human state. And he is not necessarily villainous.

Even the anti-social personality, in his warped way, is quite certain that he is acting for the best and commonly sees himself as the only good person around, doing all for the good of everyone—the only flaw in his reasoning being that if one kills everyone else, none are left to be protected from the imagined evils. His conduct in his environment and toward his fellows is the only method of detecting either the antisocial or the social personalities. Their motives for self are similar—self-preservation and survival. They simply go about achieving these in different ways.

Thus, as Man is naturally neither calm nor brave, anyone to some degree tends to be alert to dangerous persons and hence, witch hunts can begin.

It is therefore even more important to identify the social personality than the anti-social personality. One then avoids shooting the innocent out of mere prejudice or dislike or because of some momentary misconduct.

The social personality can be defined most easily by comparison with his opposite, the anti-social personality.

This differentiation is easily done and no test should ever be constructed which isolates only the anti-social. On the same test must appear the upper as well as lower ranges of Man’s actions.

A test that declares only anti-social personalities without also being able to identify the social personality would be itself a suppressive test. It would be like answering “Yes” or “No” to the question “Do you still beat your wife?” Anyone who took it could be found guilty. While this mechanism might have suited the times of the Inquisition, it would not suit modern needs.

As the society runs, prospers and lives solely through the efforts of social personalities, one must know them as they, not the anti-social, are the worthwhile people. These are the people who must have rights and freedom. Attention is given to the antisocial solely to protect and assist the social personalities in the society.

All majority rules, civilizing intentions and even the human race will fail unless one can identify and thwart the anti-social personalities and help and forward the social personalities in the society. For the very word “society” implies social conduct and without it there is no society at all, only a barbarism with all men, good or bad, at risk.

The frailty of showing how the harmful people can be known is that these then apply the characteristics to decent people to get them hunted down and eradicated.

The swan song of every great civilization is the tune played by arrows, axes or bullets used by the anti-social to slay the last decent men.

Government is only dangerous when it can be employed by and for anti-social personalities. The end result is the eradication of all social personalities and the resultant collapse of Egypt, Babylon, Rome, Russia or the West.

You will note in the characteristics of the anti-social personality that intelligence is not a clue to the anti-social. They are bright or stupid or average. Thus those who are extremely intelligent can rise to considerable, even head-of-state heights.

Importance and ability or wish to rise above others are likewise not indexes to the anti-social. When they do become important or rise they are, however, rather visible by the broad consequences of their acts. But they are as likely to be unimportant people or hold very lowly stations and wish for nothing better.

Thus it is the twelve given characteristics alone which identify the anti-social personality. And these same twelve reversed are the sole criteria of the social personality if one wishes to be truthful about them.

The identification or labelling of an anti-social personality cannot be done honestly and accurately unless one also, in the same examination of the person, reviews the positive side of his life.

All persons under stress can react with momentary flashes of anti-social conduct. This does not make them anti-social personalities.

The true anti-social person has a majority of anti-social characteristics.

The social personality has a majority of social characteristics.

Thus one must examine the good with the bad before one can truly label the anti-social or the social.

In reviewing such matters, very broad testimony and evidence are best. One or two isolated instances determine nothing. One should search all twelve social and all twelve anti-social characteristics and decide on the basis of actual evidence, not opinion.

The twelve primary characteristics of the social personality are as follows:

1. 	The social personality is specific in relating circumstances. “Joe Jones said...” “The Star Newspaper reported...” and gives sources of data where important or possible.

He may use the generality of “they” or “people” but seldom in connection with attributing statements or opinions of an alarming nature.

2. 	The social personality is eager to relay good news and reluctant to relay bad.

He may not even bother to pass along criticism when it doesn’t matter.

He is more interested in making another feel liked or wanted than disliked by others and tends to err toward reassurance rather than toward criticism.

3. 	A social personality passes communication without much alteration and if deleting anything tends to delete injurious matters.

He does not like to hurt people’s feelings. He sometimes errs in holding back bad news or orders which seem critical or harsh.
	
4. 	Treatment, reform and psychotherapy particularly of a mild nature work very well on the social personality.

Whereas anti-social people sometimes promise to reform, they do not. Only the social personality can change or improve easily.

It is often enough to point out unwanted conduct to a social personality to completely alter it for the better.

Criminal codes and violent punishment are not needed to regulate social personalities.

5. 	The friends and associates of a social personality tend to be well, happy and of good morale.

A truly social personality quite often produces betterment in health or fortune by his mere presence on the scene.

At the very least he does not reduce the existing levels of health or morale in his associates.

When ill, the social personality heals or recovers in an expected manner, and is found open to successful treatment.

6. 	The social personality tends to select correct targets for correction. He fixes the tyre that is flat rather than attack the windscreen. In the mechanical arts he can therefore repair things and make them work.

7. 	Cycles of action begun are ordinarily completed by the social personality, if possible.

8. 	The social personality is ashamed of his misdeeds and reluctant to confess them. He takes responsibility for his errors.

9. 	The social personality supports constructive groups and tends to protest or resist destructive groups.

10. 	Destructive actions are protested by the social personality. He assists constructive or helpful actions.

11. 	The social personality helps others and actively resists acts which harm others.

12. 	Property is property of someone to the social personality and its theft or misuse is prevented or frowned upon.

THE BASIC MOTIVATION

The social personality naturally operates on the basis of the greatest good.

He is not haunted by imagined enemies but he does recognize real enemies when they exist.

The social personality wants to survive and wants others to survive, whereas the anti-social personality really and covertly wants others to succumb.

Basically the social personality wants others to be happy and do well, whereas the anti-social personality is very clever in making others do very badly indeed.

A basic clue to the social personality is not really his successes but his motivations. The social personality when successful is often a target for the anti-social and by this reason he may fail. But his intentions included others in his success, whereas the anti-social only appreciate the doom of others.

Unless we can detect the social personality and hold him safe from undue restraint and detect also the anti-social and restrain him, our society will go on suffering from insanity, criminality and war, and Man and civilization will not endure.

Of all our technical skills, such differentiation ranks the highest since, failing, no other skill can continue, as the base on which it operates—civilization—will not be here to continue it.

Do not smash the social personality—and do not fail to render powerless the anti-social in their efforts to harm the rest of us.

Just because a man rises above his fellows or takes an important part does not make him an anti-social personality. Just because a man can control or dominate others does not make him an anti-social personality.

It is his motives in doing so and the consequences of his acts which distinguish the anti-social from the social.

Unless we realize and apply the true characteristics of the two types of personality, we will continue to live in a quandary of who our enemies are and, in doing so, victimize our friends.

All men have committed acts of violence or omission for which they could be censured. In all Mankind there is not one single perfect human being.

But there are those who try to do right and those who specialize in wrong and upon these facts and characteristics you can know them.

                                       					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder
LRH:lb-r.rd.jh 						
Copyright © 1966 						
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 MAY 1969
Remimeo	
Franchise
Sthil Stutents
Sthil Staff
Dianetic Course
POLICES ON “SOURCES OF TROUBLE”

SEE ALSO HCO PL 6 APRIL 69 ISSUE II “DIANETIC REGISTRATION”

Policies similar to those regarding physical illness and insanity exist for types of persons who have caused us considerable trouble.

These persons can be grouped under “sources of trouble”. They include:

(a) 	Persons intimately connected with persons (such as marital or familial-ties) of known antagonism to mental or spiritual treatment or Scientology. In practice such persons, even when they approach Scientology in a friendly fashion, have such pressure continually brought to bear upon them by persons with undue influence over them that they make very poor gains in processing and their interest is solely devoted to proving the antagonistic element wrong.

They, by experience, produce a great deal of trouble in the long run as their own condition does not improve adequately under such stresses to effectively combat the antagonism. Their present time problem cannot be reached as it is continuous, and so long as it remains so, they should not be accepted for auditing by any organization or auditor.

(b) 	Criminals with proven criminal records often continue to commit so many undetected harmful acts between sessions that they do not make adequate case gains and therefore should not be accepted for processing by organizations or auditors.

(c) 	Persons who have ever threatened to sue or embarrass or attack or who have publicly attacked Scientology or been a party to an attack and all their immediate families should never be accepted for processing by a Central Organization or auditor. They have a history of only serving other ends than case gain and commonly again turn on the organization or auditor. They have already barred themselves out by their own overts against Scientology and are thereafter too difficult to help, since they cannot openly accept help from those they have tried to injure.

(d) 	Responsible-for-condition cases have been traced back to other causes for their condition too often to be acceptable. By Responsible-for-condition cases is meant the person who insists a book or some auditor is “wholly responsible for the terrible condition I am in”. Such cases demand unusual favours, free auditing, tremendous effort on the part of auditors. Review of these cases show that they were in the same or worse condition long before auditing, that they are using a planned campaign to obtain auditing for nothing, that they are not as bad off as they claim, and that their antagonism extends to anyone who seeks to help them, even their own families. Establish the rights of the matter and decide accordingly.

(e) 	Persons who are not being audited on their own determinism are a liability as they are forced into being processed by some other person and have no personal desire to become better. Quite on the contrary they usually want only to prove the person who wants them audited wrong and so do not get better. Until a personally determined goal to be processed occurs, the person will not benefit.

(f) 	Persons who “want to be processed to see if Scientology works” as their only reason for being audited have never been known to make gains as they do not participate. News reporters fall into this category. They should not be audited.

(g) 	Persons who claim that “if you help such and such a case” (at great and your expense) because somebody is rich and influential or the neighbours would be electrified should be ignored. Processing is designed for bettering individuals, not progressing by stunts or giving cases undue importance. Process only at convenience and usual arrangements. Make no extraordinary effort at the expense of other persons who do want processing for normal reasons. Not one of these arrangements has ever come off successfully as it has the unworthy goal of notoriety, not betterment.

(h) 	Persons who “have an open mind” but no personal hopes or desires for auditing of knowingness should be ignored, as they really don’t have an open mind at all, but a lack of ability to decide about things and are seldom found to be very responsible and waste anyone’s efforts “to convince them”.

(i) 	Persons who do not believe anything or anyone can get better. They have a purpose for being audited entirely contrary to the auditor’s and so in this conflict, do not benefit. When such persons are trained they use their training to degrade others. Thus they should not be accepted for training or auditing.

(j) 	Persons attempting to sit in judgement on Scientology in hearings or attempting to investigate Scientology should be given no undue importance. One should not seek to instruct or assist them in any way. This includes judges, boards, newspaper reporters, magazine writers, etc. All efforts to be helpful or instructive have done nothing beneficial as their first idea is a firm “I don’t know” and this usually ends with an equally firm “I don’t know”. If a person can’t see for himself or judge from the obvious, then he does not have sufficient powers of observation even to sort out actual evidence. In legal matters, only take the obvious effective steps— carry on no crusades in court. In the matter of reporters, etc., it is not worth while to give them any time contrary to popular belief. They are given their story before they leave their editorial rooms and you only strengthen what they have to say by saying anything. They are no public communication line that sways much. Policy is very definite. Ignore.

To summarize troublesome persons, the policy in general is to cut communication as the longer it is extended the more trouble they are. I know of no case where the types of persons listed above were handled by auditing or instruction. I know of many cases where they were handled by firm legal stands, by ignoring them until they change their minds, or just turning one’s back.

In applying a policy of cut-communication one must also use judgement as there are exceptions in all things and to fail to handle a person’s momentary upset in life or with us can be quite fatal. So these policies refer to non-Scientology persons in the main or persons who appear on the outer fringes and push toward us. When such a person bears any of the above designations we and the many are better off to ignore them.

Scientology works. You don’t have to prove it to everyone. People don’t deserve to have Scientology as a divine right, you know. They have to earn it. This has been true in every philosophy that sought to better man.

All the above “Sources of Trouble” are also forbidden training and when a person being trained or audited is detected to belong under the above headings (a) to (j) he or she should be advised to terminate and accept refund which must be paid at once and the full explanation should be given them at that time. Thus the few may not, in their own turmoil, impede service to and the advance of the many. And the less enturbulence you put on your lines, the better, and the more people you will eventually help.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:cs ei.rd 	
Copyright © 1969 	
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 NOVEMBER 1959
Fran Hldrs

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IN AUDITING

Avoidance of Double Acknowledgement is vital if you ever hope to keep the preclear in session.

Double Acknowledgement occurs when the pc answers up, the auditor then acknowledges, and the pc then finishes his answer, leaving the auditor with another acknowledgement to do (and also leaving the auditor with no session).

Wrong:

Command: “What could you say to your father?”
Pc:	“I could say, ‘Hello’.”
Auditor:	“Fine.”
Pc:	“ ‘. . . Father, how are you?’ I could say that.”
Auditor:	(weakly) “Good. What could you say to your father?”
Pc:	“I could say, ‘Are you feeling well?’ “
Auditor:	(desperate by now) “Good!”
Pc:	“ ‘. . . enough to go fishing?’ “
Auditor: 	“Well okay all right. Now “

A pc is not always sure he has answered the question so he often changes his mind. If the auditor gives him Tone 40 or any acknowledgement at all in between a pc’s reply the auditor is wrong.

You just don’t “encourage” a pc with a lot of agreement OK’s and Yes’s in the middle of answers. The pc answers, the pc is sure he has answered and the auditor then acknowledges. After all, it is the pc that must be satisfied.

There are many ways to mis-acknowledge a pc. But any mis-acknowledgement is only and always a failure to end the cycle of a command—auditor asks, pc replies and knows he has answered, auditor acknowledges. Pc knows auditor has acknowledged. That is a full auditing command cycle. Don’t forget it and expect a process to work, it won’t. The roughest spot in most auditors is TR 2, not so much how to acknowledge but when.

An auditor running into this with a pc should handle it this way.

Auditor:	“What could you say to your father?”
Pc:	“I could say, ‘Are you feeling well?’ “
Auditor:	“Did that answer the question?”
Pc:	“Well, no. I could say, ‘Are you feeling well enough to go fishing?’ “
Auditor:	“Did that answer the question?”
Pc:	“Yes, I guess it did. He always liked fishing and sympathy.”
Auditor:	(sure pc is through) “Good! What could you say to your father?”

And there’s the way of it. If the pc is not sure he has answered and that the auditor has accepted the answer, the pc will get no benefit from the auditing. And that’s how important that is.

Mood can be expressed by an acknowledgement. Evaluation can also be accomplished by acknowledgement, depending on the tone of voice with which it is uttered.

There is nothing bad about expressing mood by acknowledgement, except when the acknowledgement expresses criticalness, ridicule, or humour.

You can always spot a bad auditor. He does two things: he talks too much to the pc and he stops the pc from properly answering.

							L. RON HUBBARD 
LRH :js.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
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

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 11 FEBRUARY 1966
Remimeo
All Students
All Scn Staff
Franchise

FREE NEEDLES, HOW TO
GET THEM ON A PC

Free needles can be obscured only by overruns and auditor goofs in the rehab session and ARC Breaks in past auditing.

When a TA goes up or is up it means an overrun in life or on a process or grade of release.

The only place you can’t get an overrun is at Grade VII. All grades below that are subject to overrun.

Life subjects are subject to overrun before Scientology. The mechanism is this: one conceived a purpose. He or she succeeded in it, then kept on and overran it. In auditing one hits the purpose and the overrun of it and gets a free needle on it. That doesn’t mean the person was a release then. It means that the spotting of the purpose and the overrun by auditing produces a free needle today.

It may be necessary to find whole track overruns on some pcs in rehabilitation of grades. If a lot of levels have been run past free needle it may be necessary to take apart the mess like a bundle of yarn to get the first free needle. In such a case one rehabs any grade the pc has been run on that the pc can remember. One handles this briefly until the pc is happy but not necessarily to free needle. One then finds another overrun, does the same. One goes on and on looking for moments the pc felt good about processing at one or another time. If you keep this up, suddenly you will see a free needle on the pc! Establish what grade it is free on, then quickly get the needle free on the remaining overrun grades (but not grades pc was never run on). It may be necessary to take into account a whole track overrun of a purpose or even the purpose to get release, clear or OT.

It is all very quick, deft auditing, very much on procedure using standard rehab tech—but no repetitive grind.

--------------

You won’t see a freeing up of a needle unless you set your sensitivity on a Mark V to a stiff needle for the pc. You can increase sensitivity or decrease it as the pc progresses but by setting the sensitivity so the needle is pretty still and stiff you will see easily a freeing up of the needle and then a free needle. Using sensitivity 128 will obscure every free needle as the needle is too loose already for the auditor to see any change.

--------------

Pcs are most apt to go free needle after a big cog. So don’t be so engrossed in looking at the pc during cognitions. Keep an eye on that needle. And if it goes free, don’t ask anything else. Just gently give the pc a “That’s it” and without a chop of comm, ease the pc off to “Declare?” in Qual. (Or if a field auditor, start the next grade. )

--------------

Gently, gently, smooth TRs get you free needles.

A dirty needle is always caused by auditor chops, flubs, etc. You can always trace a dirty needle right back to a TR error by the auditor. If a needle goes dirty in a rehab session, get the List 1 out right now and quickly find why. It’s always an auditor goof on the TRs or tech procedure.

--------------

Rehabs are not a substitute for processes. If a grade hasn’t been run, you can’t rehab it of course.

In rehab, never use a new process to cure an overrun. Rehab the process that was overrun, not new ruds.

And see HCO Pol Ltr 10 Feb 1966 on this subject.

---------------

You can get free needles on pcs. It just requires standard TRs, standard tech, standard rehab and wanting to get one and letting a pc have one.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:ml.rd 
Copyright © 1966 
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

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 NOVEMBER 1965 
Remimeo 
Students

E-METER SENSITIVITY SETTING

When preparing for a session, an auditor sets up his E-Meter as per E-Meter
Drill #4.

Rudiments are run at Sensitivity 16.

Lower level processes are run at Sensitivity 16.

Above Grade V sensitivity is run at 5.

LRH : ml.rd							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1965					
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 24 JULY AD14
Remimeo
Sthil Students
Franchise
SCIENTOLOGY III & IV
TA COUNTERS, USE OF

With the advent of the TONE ARM COUNTER new problems arise in Auditing and Auditing supervision.

Without an adequate written record of time and “TA” (by which is meant the total number of divisions down a tone arm has moved accurately in a unit of time such as 20 minutes or a 21/2 hr session) one does not know whether or not a process was flattened. A process is considered “flat” when it produces no more than .25 div of TA in 20 minutes. The auditor can’t recheck the last 20 minutes because he has no time noted and no Tone Arm notations. Therefore he or she audits by guess and leaves process cycles of action on the case either unflat or overflattened. This alone is enough to upset pcs.

Further, when two processes have been run in a session and only a counter was used, an auditing supervisor has no idea at all of whether one was flattened before the other was begun.

Also “TA” for a session can be a gross error by reason of poor handling of the Tone Arm. If an auditor fails to set the Tone Arm accurately each time the needle moves from “set” on the dial, less TA is shown for the session.

If the auditor habitually overworks the Tone Arm, setting it further than it should have gone to bring the needle to “set”, either up or down, then the TA Counter will show far more TA for the session than really happened.

The way to handle this dilemma is to use the TA Counter only for a rough estimate of TA for a session (or process) and to continue to record Tone Arm action at Levels III and IV. (One is too busy at Levels V and VI and by that time should be able to rely on the counter as TA in such sessions is very large.)

The Tone Arm is never touched during sneezing, body motion, etc, and no recording is made. But if the TA blew down because of it, the fact is noted in the worksheet column and the new reading entered.

All meter auditing below Level V should be recorded by Time and Tone Arm position.

To so record TA it is not necessary to use several pounds of Auditor’s Report forms. One uses one Auditor’s Report form to report on the session and similar sized rough work sheets to record Time, TA position and what is going on. These rough work sheets are divided into two or three vertical columns with a ball-point pen and each one of these is split in half vertically. In the first column enter time, in the second enter TA notes of where the Tone Arm is at that time. Take Tone Arm readings only with the needle at “set”. If something noteworthy occurs write it across these two columns, using the spaces of Time and TA position for a brief note and below it going on with the Time and TA position notes.

One writes down the TA position with the time it happened only when the Tone Arm needs to be moved to bring the needle back to “set”. A needle that moves but comes back at once (within 1 or 2 seconds) to “set” is not recorded. Point One (.1) division changes are not recorded as too minute.
One fills up these three double columns, turns over the sheet and does the same on the back.

Printed Auditor’s Reports are never used as work sheets. They give the details of the beginning of the session, condition of pc, what’s intended, the wording of the process, etc. Then one goes to work sheets and only returns to the Auditor’s Report, which is half empty, to complete the session and end it off with pc goals and gains and all that. The TA Counter is then read and written on the report.

This is all so written that one can see the whole session at a glance, including TA total, just by looking at the one side of the Auditor’s Report form. On that one side the session begins, ends, and by seeing how the pc was at start and is at the end, and the TA Counter read, what was done and the success or failure of the session is grasped at a glance.

In trying to analyze the session and help the pc more, one inspects the work sheets.

When the session is completed, the work sheets are put in proper sequence (sequence quite visible because of the time notations), the Auditor’s Report is put face up on top and the lot are all stapled together by the left-hand corner. If an ordinary stapler won’t do it easily for a 21/2 hr session, far too many notations are being made, for no III or IV pc is that active.

Faults of Tone Arm handling (over or under setting of it by the auditor) show up, process flattening can be traced, changes of process can be seen and the auditor or the auditing supervisor can find out what really happened.

I myself wouldn’t know how to guide the next session at Levels III and IV if I didn’t have a record of TA of the last session to inspect, whether the session were mine or another’s. Such delicate judgements as “was the TA just working into the process” or “was the processing dying down” or “was it being overflattened” just can’t be answered by the auditor himself, much less an auditing supervisor if no Time-TA record exists.

Also, don’t take a Tone Arm reading “every 2 minutes” or “every minute”. That’s poor because such timed readings tell nothing. When the TA has to be moved more than .1 divisions to keep the needle at set, one notes Time and the new Tone Arm reading. That’s the only answer to how often one reads and notes TA action.

Changes of process are noted across both Time and Tone Arm columns but also at session ending noted on the Auditor’s Report. One doesn’t often change processes and only when the old one has (1 ) had time to get the TA worked into it (2) had the TA worked out of it and (3) the old one produces only .25 divisions of TA action in a consecutive 20 minutes of auditing.

The Tone Arm Counter is a must or one spends ages adding up his session TA when he needs lunch or a break. But it jolly well never can supplant a work sheet. Automation can only go so far. Tone Arm Counters can’t think. The Auditors I train can.

LRH:nb.cden		                  				L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1964
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 NOVEMBER 1961

Franchise

METER READING

A survey of auditing has brought up the datum that the gross auditing error in failure to obtain results from Security Checking and Problems Intensives lies wholly in the inability to read an E-Meter.

You may some day get a huge reality on the fact that, in supervising auditing, all failures are gross auditing errors, not flukey case differences.

Auditors one is supervising often demand “an extraordinary solution” because such and such a case isn’t moving. The unwise supervisor will actually furnish “extraordinary solution” after “extraordinary solution” “to handle this different case”. It may be John Jones who “cannot think of any changes in his life” or it may be Mary Smith who “just doesn’t respond to Security Checking”. And the supervisor burns the midnight oil and gives the auditor some new involved solution. Then as often as not, the auditor comes back the day after and says, “That didn’t work either.” And the supervisor goes a quarter around the bend and again burns the midnight oil .... If this seems familiar to you as a supervisor, know you should have asked, “What didn’t work?” Usually the auditor can’t even recall the solution—it was never used. Or it was applied in some strange fashion.

For today, the reasons for failure all lie under the heading “Gross Auditing Error”.

Such an error would be, the auditor never arrived for the session, the E-Meter was broken throughout, the pc hadn’t eaten or slept for three days, the din from construction next door made it impossible to give commands or hear answers. The auditor didn’t run any known process. That is the order of magnitude of a “GROSS AUDITING ERROR”. It is never, the pc was unhappy, the pc has difficulty remembering, etc. In supervising auditing, always look for the gross auditing error and never give out with an extra-ordinary solution.

Well, taking my own advice, when I saw some tricky elements in new clearing processes taking far too much time, I didn’t look for “different” pcs, I looked for the gross auditing error. And found it.

The auditors who were having trouble couldn’t read an E-Meter.

Impossible as that may seem, it proved to be true. I put Mary Sue on this at once and Herbie Parkhouse carried through. The errors found in E-Meter reading where there had been trouble, were so huge as to have been missed on any casual inspection.

The errors went like this:

1. 	The auditor believed the E-Meter could not be read while the needle was swinging around. The auditor was waiting until it stopped every time before asking a question.

2. 	The auditor believed the needle had to be exactly at “set” on the dial before it could be read.

3. 	The auditor did not know a rising needle could be read by stopping the rise with a question or making the needle twitch.

4. 	The auditor had not done the body reaction drills in E-Meter Essentials and was reading only body reactions and ignoring all others.

5. 	The auditor thought an E-Meter could not be read if it showed breathing or heart beat.

6. 	The auditor always looked at the pc for a few seconds after asking the question, then looked at the meter, and so missed all but latent (non-significant) reads.

7. 	The auditor sat staring at the meter for twenty seconds after the reading had registered.

8. 	The auditor thought E-Meters could be fooled so easily, it was more reliable to make up his own mind about what the pc’s item or guilt was.

9. 	An auditor thought that if the needle rose on a rudiment question, the rudiment was out.

These and many, many more panned out to be:

IF A SECURITY CHECK OR PROBLEMS INTENSIVE WAS PRODUCING NO RESULTS, IT WAS BECAUSE THE AUDITOR COULD NOT READ AN E-METER.

That’s the gross auditing error.

In this bulletin, I am not trying to give you any methods to remedy this. I am just calling it widely to everyone’s attention.

The fact is big enough to merit study by itself.

And to get cases started by no other mechanism than learning to really read an E-Meter or by teaching people to read it.

This one point remedied could change the entire future of Scientology, an organization or an auditor.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: esc.rd 
Copyright © 1961 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 MAY 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise	
E-METER
INSTANT READS

An instant read is defined as that reaction of the needle which occurs at the precise end of any major thought voiced by the auditor.

The reaction of the needle may be any reaction except “nul”. An instant read may be any change of characteristic providing it occurs instantly. The absence of a read at the end of the major thought shows it to be nul.

All prior reads and latent reads are ignored. These are the result of minor thoughts which may or may not be restimulated by the question.

Only the instant read is used by the auditor. Only the instant read is cleared on rudiments, What questions, etc.

The instant read may consist of any needle reaction, rise, fall, speeded rise, speeded fall, double tick (dirty needle), theta bop or any other action so long as it occurs at the exact end of the major thought being expressed by the auditor. If no reaction occurs at exactly that place (the end of the major thought) the question is nul.

By “major thought” is meant the complete thought being expressed in words by the auditor. Reads which occur prior to the completion of the major thought are “prior reads”. Reads which occur later than its completion are “latent reads”.

By “minor thought” is meant subsidiary thoughts expressed by words within the major thought. They are caused by the reactivity of individual words within the full words. They are ignored.

Example: “Have you ever injured dirty pigs?”

To the pc the words “you”, “injured” and “dirty” are all reactive. Therefore, the minor thoughts expressed by these words also read on the meter.

The major thought here is the whole sentence. Within this thought are the minor thoughts “you”, “injured” and “dirty”.

Therefore the E-Meter needle may respond this way: “Have you (fall) ever injured (speeded fall) dirty (fall) pigs (fall)?”

Only the major thought gives the instant read and only the last fall (bold-italic type in the sentence above) indicates anything. If that last reaction was absent, the whole sentence is nul despite the prior falls.

You can release the reactions (but ordinarily would not) on each of these minor thoughts. Exploring these prior reads is called “compartmenting the question”.

Paying attention to minor thought reads gives us laughable situations as in the case, written in 1960, of “getting P.D.H.ed by the cat”. By accepting these prior reads one can prove anything. Why? Because Pain and Drug and Hypnosis are minor thoughts within the major thought: “Have you ever been P.D.H.ed by a cat?” The inexpert auditor would believe such a silly thing had happened. But notice that if each minor thought is cleaned out of the major thought it no longer reacts as a whole fact. If the person on the meter had been P.D.H.ed by a cat, then only the discovery of the origin of the whole thought would clean up the whole thought.

Pcs also think about other things while being asked questions and these random personal restimulations also read before and after an instant read and are ignored. Very rarely, a pc’s thinks react exactly at the end of a major thought and so confuse the issue, but this is rare.

We want the read that occurs instantly after the last syllable of the major thought without lag. That is the only read we regard in finding a rudiment in or out, to find if a goal reacts, etc. That is what is called an “instant read”.

There is a package rudiment question in the half truth, etc. We are doing four rudiments in one and therefore have four major thoughts in one sentence. This packaging is the only apparent exception but is actually no exception. It’s just a fast way of doing four rudiments in one sentence.

A clumsy question which puts “in this session” at the end of the major thought can serve the auditor badly. Such modifiers should come before the sentence, “In this session have you ........?”

You are giving the major thought directly to the reactive mind. Therefore any analytical thought will not react instantly.

The reactive mind is composed of:

1. 	Timelessness.
2. 	Unknownness.
3. 	Survival.

The meter reacts on the reactive mind, never on the analytical mind. The meter reacts instantly on any thought restimulated in the reactive mind.

If the meter reacts on anything, that datum is partly or wholly unknown to the preclear.

An auditor’s questions restimulate the reactive mind. This reacts on the meter.

Only reactive thoughts react instantly.

You can “groove in” a major thought by saying it twice. On the second time (or third time if it is longer) you will see only the instant read at the exact end. If you do this the prior reads drop out leaving only the whole thought.

If you go stumbling around in rudiments or goals trying to clean up the minor thoughts you will get lost. In sec checking you can uncover material by “compartmenting the question” but this is rarely done today. In rudiments, What questions, et al, you want the instant read only. It occurs exactly at the end of the whole thought. This is your whole interest in cleaning a rudiment or a What question. You ignore all prior and latent reactions of the needle.

The exceptions to this rule are:

1. 	“Compartmenting the question”, in which you use the prior reads occurring at the exact end of the minor thoughts (as above in the pigs sentence) to dig up different data not related to the whole thought.
2. 	“Steering the pc” is the only use of latent or random reads. You see a read the same as the instant read occurring again when you are not speaking but after you have found a whole thought reacting. You say “there” or “that” and the pc, seeing what he or she is looking at as you say it, recovers the knowledge from the reactive bank and gives the data and the whole thought clears or has to be further worked and cleared.

You can easily figure-figure yourself half to death trying to grapple with meter reads unless you get a good reality on the instant read which occurs at the end of the whole expressed thought and neglect all prior and latent reads except for steering the pc while he gropes for the answer to the question you asked.

That’s the whole of reading an E-Meter needle.

(Two Saint Hill lectures of 24 May 1962 cover this in full.)

	L. RON HUBBARD 
LRH:jw.rd
Copyright © 1962                              			
by L. Ron Hubbard	
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED         	

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JULY 1962

Franchise
Sthil Students

URGENT

INSTANT READS
(Adds to HCO Bulletin of 25 May 1962)

On Rudiments, repetitive or fast, the instant read can occur anywhere within the last word of the question or when the thought major has been anticipated by the preclear, and must be taken up by the auditor. This is not a prior read. Preclears poorly in session, being handled by auditors with indifferent TR One, anticipate the instant read reactively as they are under their own control. Such a read occurs into the body of the last meaningful word in the question. It never occurs latent.

In other words all reads occurring when the major thought has been received by the preclear must be taken up and cleaned. This does not mean all needle reactions occurring while question is being asked must be cleaned, but it does mean that the instant read is often to be found before the last meaningful word is spoken fully, and it is catastrophic not to take it up and clean it.

Goals and items are however read only when the read occurs exactly at the end of the last word.

This will give you cleaner sessions and smoother needles.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:dr.pm rd 
Copyright © 1962 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 DECEMBER 1965
Remimeo
Academy	Tech Division
Students

E-METER DRILL COACHING

The following was submitted by Malcolm Cheminais, Supervisor on the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.

Here are some observations I have made on the coaching of E-Meter drills, which I feel could be of use:

1. 	The coach’s needle is dirty. The student’s out comm cycle has cut his comm in some way, but PRIOR to that the coach failed to flunk the part of the comm cycle that went out. Correct flunking by coaches equals students with no dirty needles.

2. 	If a coach’s TA starts climbing on a drill and the needle gets sticky, it means that the student’s comm cycle has dispersed him and pushed him out of PT. The coach is either (1) not flunking at all (2) flunking the incorrect thing.

3. 	The correct flunking by the coach of an out comm cycle, which has dispersed him and pushed his TA up, will always result in a TA blowdown. If there is no blowdown, the coach has flunked the wrong thing.

4. 	Needle not responding well and sensitively on assessment drills, although the needle clean. Coach has failed to flunk TR 1 (or TR0) for lack of impingement and reach.

5. 	Coach reaching forward and leaning on the table, means TR 1 is out with the student.

6. 	Student asking coach for considerations to get TA down, but TA climbing on the considerations—the coach is cleaning a clean, instead of flunking the out comm cycle, which occurred earlier and pushed his TA up.

7. 	Student getting coach’s considerations off to clean the needle, but needle remaining dirty—student is cutting the coach’s comm while getting the considerations off and the coach is not picking this up.

8. 	Students shouting or talking very loudly on assessment drills to try and get the Meter to read by overwhelm. The reason for this is invariably—”but I’m assessing the bank!” They haven’t realized that banks don’t read, only thetans impinged upon by the bank—therefore the TR1 must be addressed to the thetan. The meter responds proportionately to the amount of ARC in the Session.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 AUGUST 1964
Sthil Students
Franchise
SCIENTOLOGY I TO VI

SESSION MUST-NOTS

Not that you would do such a thing—you undoubtedly already know better. But just as a matter of record, the following session must-nots should be taught in letters of fire to any new auditor.

I

NEVER tell a pc what his present time problem is.

The pc’s PTP is exactly and only what the pc thinks or says it is.

To tell a pc what his PTP is and then audit what the auditor said it was will inevitably ARC Break the pc.

This of course is under the heading of Evaluation in the Auditor’s Code and is one way of evaluating, a very serious way too.

II

NEVER set a goal for a pc.

Don’t set a session goal, a life or livingness goal or any other kind of a goal.

Auditors get tangled up on this because everybody has the same R6 goals and when you call out the next goal from the list it appears you are giving the pc a goal. But an R6 educated pc knows that and it isn’t evaluation.

Other goals are highly variable. The pc’s life and livingness goals and session goals are especially variable pc to pc and even within one session on the same pc.

To tell a pc what goals to set for a session or for life is to upset the pc.

If you don’t believe it, trace some pc’s upsets with their parents and you will find these usually trace back to the parents’ setting life and livingness goals for the child or youth.

The pc’s session and life and livingness goals are the pc’s and for an auditor to deny, refute, criticize or try to change them gives ARC Breaks; and for an auditor to dream up a brand new one for the pc is especially evaluative.

III

NEVER tell a pc what’s wrong with him physically or assume that you know.

What’s wrong with the pc is whatever the pc says or thinks is wrong physically.

This applies of course only to processing, for if you weren’t auditing the person, and if the person had a sore foot and you found a splinter in it and told him so, it would be all right. But even in this case the person would have had to tell you he had a sore foot.

The main reason society has such a distaste for medical doctors is the MDs’ continuous “diagnosis” of things the person has not complained of. The violence of surgery, the destruction of lives by medical treatment rather educates people not to mention certain things. Instinctively the patient knows that the treatment may leave him or her in much worse condition and so sometimes hides things. For the medical doctor to cry “Aha” and tell the person he or she has some undefinable ill is to drive many into deep apathy and accounts for the high frequency of operational shock wherein the person just doesn’t recover.

So NEVER tell a pc what is physically wrong with him. If you suspect something is physically wrong that some known physical treatment might cure send the pc for a physical check-up just to be safe.

In the field of healing by mental or spiritual means, the pc is sick because he or she has had a series of considerations about being sick. Deformity or illness, according to the tenets of mental healing, traces back to mentally created or re-created masses, engrams or ideas which can be either de-stimulated or erased completely. Destimulation results in a temporary recovery for an indefinite period (which is nonetheless a recovery). Erasure results in permanent recovery. (De-stimulation is the most certain, feasible and most rewarding action below Level VI; erasure below Level VI is too prone to error in unskilled hands as experience has taught us.)

The reality of the auditor is often violated by a pc’s statement of what ails him. The pc is stone blind—but the pc says he has “foot trouble”. Obviously, from the auditor’s viewpoint, it is blindness that troubles this pc. BUT IF THE AUDITOR TRIED TO AUDIT THE AILMENT THE PC HAS NOT OFFERED, AN ARC BREAK WILL OCCUR.

The pc is ailing from what the pc is ailing from, not from what the auditor selects.

For it is the statement of the pc that is the first available lock on a chain of incidents and to refuse it is to cut the pc’s communication and to refuse the lock. After that you won’t be able to help this pc and that’s that.

PERMITTED AUDITOR STATEMENTS

There are, however, two areas where the auditor must make a statement to the pc and assume the initiative.

These are in the OVERT—MOTIVATOR SEQUENCE and in the ARC BREAK.

A

When the pc is critical of the auditor, the organization or any of many things in life, this is always a symptom of overts priorly committed by the pc.

The pc is looking for motivators. These criticisms are simply justifications and nothing more.

This is a sweeping fully embracive statement—and a true one. There are no criticisms in the absence of overts committed earlier by the pc.

It is quite permissible for the auditor to start looking for the overt, providing the auditor finds it and gets it stated by the pc and therefore relieved.

But even here the auditor only states there is an overt. The auditor NEVER says what the overt is for that’s evaluation.

You will be amazed at what the pc considered was the overt. It is almost never what we would think it should be.

But also, an auditor whose pc is critical of him or her in session who does not say, “It sounds like you have an overt there. Let’s find it,” is being neglectful of his job.

The real test of a professional auditor, the test that separates the unskilled from the skilled is: CAN YOU GET AN OVERT OFF THE PC’S CASE WITHOUT ARC BREAKING THE PC AND YET GET IT OFF.

The nice balance between demanding the pc get off an overt and getting it off and demanding the pc get off an overt and failing to get it off but ARC Breaking the pc is the border line between the unskilled and the professional.

If you demand it and don’t do it you’ll ARC Break the pc thoroughly. If you fail to demand it for fear of an ARC Break you’ll have a lowered graph on the pc. The pro demands the overt be gotten off only when necessary and plows on until it’s gotten off and the pc brightens up like a lighthouse. The amateur soul-searches himself and struggles and fails in numerous ways—by demanding the wrong overt, by accepting a critical comment as an overt, by not asking at all for fear of an ARC Break, by believing the pc’s criticism is deserved—all sorts of ways. And the amateur lowers the pc’s graph.

Demanding an overt is not confined to just running O/W or some similar process. It’s a backbone auditing tool that is used when it has to be used. And not used when it doesn’t have to be.

The auditor must have understood the whole of the overt-motivator theory to use this intelligently.

B

Indicating by-passed charge is a necessary auditor action which at first glance may seem evaluative.

However, the by-passed charge is never what the pc says it was if the pc is still ARC Broken.

By-Passed Charge is, however, found by the meter and the pc has actually got it or it wouldn’t register. So the pc has really volunteered it in a round-about way—first by acting like he or she has by-passed charge and then by bank reaction on the meter.

Always indicate to the pc the by-passed charge you find on the meter.

Never tell a pc what the by-passed charge is if you don’t know.

A Class VI auditor knows all goals but the goals are wrong and often sloppily just tells people at random they have “a wrong goal” knowing this to be probable. But it’s very risky.

If you find it on the meter, telling the pc what the by-passed charge is is not evaluation. Telling the pc “what it is” without having found it is evaluation of the worst sort.

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 12 FEBRUARY 1966
Remimeo
Staff Auditors’ Hats
Tech Hats	THE “DANGEROUS AUDITOR”
Qual Hats	

We long have had a term for an auditor who consistently did things that were upsetting to a pc’s case. We call this a “dangerous auditor”.

There are certain exact specific actions or omissions that make such an auditor dangerous.

These are:

1. 	Breaks the Auditor’s Code or ignores it as “only applying in certain cases”.

2. 	Audits past floating needles or directs additional auditing on that process when a floating needle has occurred.

3. 	Ceases to audit a process before the needle has gone free.

4. 	Starts a new grade of release without rehabilitation or making sure at least by record that an earlier grade has been rehabbed and was not overrun.

5. 	Does not locate the right SP on S & D but over or under lists or misses while assessing.

6. 	Goes on auditing the pc after an ARC Break without caring for the ARC Break (and believes it possible or usual to continue past one).

7. 	Consistently has hostile and derogatory opinions about his pcs.

These are the really dangerous points that make an auditor who does them dangerous.

(This list is composed by tracing back upset cases to the errors which made the upset.)

An auditor who merely makes the five Gross Auditing Errors is just a bad auditor. (See HCO B 21 Sept 65 “Out Tech”.)

A dangerous auditor often seems to be quite accomplished, but does the above. On some pcs he seems to get away with it and so will argue the virtue of his approach or violations. But on the next pc he doesn’t and has a mess on his hands.

A “careful” auditor is not necessarily not dangerous. One doesn’t audit carefully. One audits with a relaxed competence that follows the rules and avoids the errors listed above.

There is no compromise for knowing one’s business.

Most auditors, when they are trained and no longer make the 5 Gross Auditing Errors, become very excellent auditors and do a fine job and I am proud of them.

LRH:ml.cden 						L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1966 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 MAY 1969

Remimeo
Dn Checksheet	
DIRTY NEEDLE

A “dirty needle” indicates that a pc has withholds or is ARC Broken.

When a pc is to be audited on Dianetics as a student or org pc he/she usually goes to the Examiner after a Dn C/S I (training pc) is done.

If a DIRTY NEEDLE (ragged, jerky, ticking needle, not sweeping) is seen by the Examiner or the auditor the pc should have a Scientology Review before Dianetic auditing is begun with an order for “GF and pull all withholds”.

LRH: an.rd							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1969						Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard						
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 MARCH 1970

Remimeo 
HCO Sec Hat 
E/O Hat 
Tech Sec 
Qual Sec
C/S Checksheets
AUDITING AND ETHICS

Cases undergoing Ethics actions, Comm Evs, amends projects or low conditions should not be audited until the Ethics matter is cleared up and complete. It only louses up their cases to audit them when under such stress.

                                       					L. RON HUBBARD
								Founder
LRH:dr.ei rd		
Copyright © 1970
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 NOVEMBER 1973
Issue I
Remimeo
All Levels
Flag Internes
LRH Comms
Reissued from

21st ADVANCED CLINICAL COURSE
TRAINING DRILLS

NAME:   Anti-Q and A TR.

COMMANDS:   Basically, “Put that (object) on my knee.” (A book, piece of paper, ashtray, etc can be used for object.)

POSITION.   Student and Coach sitting facing each other at a comfortable distance and one at which the Coach can reach the Student’s knee with ease.

PURPOSE:

(a) 	To train Student in getting a Pc to carry out a command using formal communication NOT Tone 40.

(b) 	To enable the Student to maintain his TRs while giving commands.

(c) 	To train the Student to not get upset with a Pc under formal auditing.

MECHANICS:   Coach selects small object (book, ashtray, etc) and holds it in his hand.

TRAINING STRESS:   Student is to get the Coach to place the object that he has in his hand on the knee of the Student. The Student may vary his commands as long as he maintains the Basic Intention (not Tone 40) to get the Coach to place the object on the Student’s knee. The Student is not allowed to use any physical enforcement, only verbal commands. The Coach should try and get the Student to Q and A. He may say anything he wishes to try and get him off the track of getting the command executed. The Student may say what he wishes in order to get the command done, as long as it directly  applies in getting the Coach to place the object on the Student’s knee.

The Coach flunks for:

(a) 	Any communication not directly concerned with getting the command executed.

(b) 	Previous TR.

(c) 	Any upsetness demonstrated by Student.

                                        	
LRH:nt.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1958, 1959, 1973 	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 NOVEMBER 1973
Remimeo	Issue II
All Levels
Flag Internes	
C/S Series 89

F/N WHAT YOU ASK OR PROGRAM

Ref: HCO B 23 Dec 72 Integrity Processing Series 20
HCO B 21 Nov 73 The Cure of Q and A

When an Auditor asks one question but F/Ns something else it is simply a version of QandA.

Example: AUDITOR: Do you have a problem? PC: (ramble-ramble) I was thinking of last night’s dinner. AUDITOR: That F/Ns.

Every few folders you pick up, if you can find examples of this:

The Auditor is not trained not to Q and A.

He is NOT getting answers to his questions.

When the Auditor starts something (such as a question or process) he MUST F/N what he started EVEN THOUGH HE DID SOMETHING ELSE DURING IT AND GOT AN F/N ON SOMETHING ELSE. HE MUST F/N THE ORIGINAL ACTION.

The result can be:

(a) 	Missed W/H phenomena.

(b) 	High or low TA an hour after the pc “F/Ned at Examiner”.

(c) 	A stalled case.

(d) 	An undone program.

(e) 	An unhandled pc.

(f) 	Continual need for repair programs.

To get this disease out of an HGC requires that Auditors go through an Anti-Q and A handling.

C/S Q AND A

C/Ses can also Q and A. They simply handle whatever the pc originates to the Examiner or Auditor, over and over and on and on.

The result is:

A. 	Incomplete Programs.
B. 	Tripled or quadrupled C/S effort as the case never seems to get solved.
C. 	Loads of repair programs.

Yet a C/S who does it will never look for it as THE primary error being committed.

The remedy is to have the C/S do an Anti-Q and A program.

LRH: nt.jh 	L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright © 1973                             	Founder 
by L. Ron Hubbard                             
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 NOVEMBER 1973

Remimeo
All Auditors
All Levels
Flag Internes
LRH Comms
THE CURE OF Q AND A
MAN’S DEADLIEST DISEASE

Q and A is a dreadful malady which has to be cured before an Auditor (or an Administrator) can get results.

THE DISEASE OF Q AND A

Auditor: Spot that wall. Pc: My neck hurts. Auditor: Has it been hurting long? Pc: Ever since I was in the Army. Auditor: Are you in the Army now? Pc: No but my father is. Auditor: Have you been in comm with your father lately? Pc: I miss him. Auditor: That F/Ned, end of process. The Auditor has failed to note that he never  got the pc to spot the wall or that he has run the pc all over the track flattening nothing, restimulating the pc.

A DEADLY BACTERIA

When an Auditor asks a Question and F/Ns something else he can mess a pc up badly.

Auditor: Do you have a withhold? That reads. Pc: It’s just a 2D perversion. What I was really thinking about was my raise I got today. Auditor: That F/Ns. Pc (later in session): You run a lousy org here. Charge too much .... Auditor in mystery, caves in. THAT IS SIMPLY Q AND A IN ANOTHER COAT.

ADMINISTRATIVE DELIRIUM

When an Administrator Qs and As it puts him straight down the org board and into a spin.

LRH Comm: You have a target here to move the file cases. Staff Member: I didn’t understand some of the words. LRH Comm: Here’s a word clearing order for Qual. (Next day.) LRH Comm: Did you go to the word clearer? Staff Member: I’m on Medical Lines now. LRH Comm: How long have you been ill? Staff Member: Since the Ethics Officer was mean to me. LRH Comm: I’ll go see about your ethics folder ....

And there goes the old soccer game. NO TARGET DONE BECAUSE THE EXECUTIVE COULD NOT HANDLE Q AND A.

C/S Q AND A

Case Supervisors (blush for the thought) are often guilty of Q and A and infect their area with its bacteria.

Pc to Examiner: I have a cold. C/S: Run spot spots to cure his cold. Pc to Auditor: It’s really I’m PTS to my Aunt. C/S: Do PTS RD on Aunt. Pc to Examiner: It’s really my foot. C/S: Do touch assist on foot ....

What C/S ever got a pc’s program done that way?

Where you find undone programs in folders you find goofing Auditors and Q and A type Case Supervisors.

FUMIGATION

There are definite cures for this dreadful and disgraceful malady. It must be handled as it results in a breaking out of bogged cases and blows, high and low TAs and very red faces when the Paid Completions Stat is counted.

The Cure is pretty violent and very few have courage enough to go through with it as their confront at the beginning is too low, what with their no-interest items left in restim on their drug rundowns or no TRs to begin with or no Supervisor when they took the Course.

The direct result of all this is a symptom known as “patty-cake”. This is a child game of clapping hands and putting palms together and has meant since 1950 Dianetics NOT HANDLING CASES. The signs of patty-cake are a weak slouching posture, bags under the eyes, a bowed spine and hangdog pathetic eyes. The respiration is quick and panicky, the palms sweat and. one starts at pins dropping in the next room.

However for those sturdy souls who want to Clear a planet and who really want to handle things they can prop themselves up in bed and somehow get through this program:

1. 	This HCOB starrate.	_________

2. 	HCOB 24 May 62 “Q and A” starrate.	_________

3. 	HCOB 13 Dec 61 “Varying Sec Check Questions”.	_________

4. 	HCOB 22 Feb 62 “Withholds, Missed and Partial”.	_________

5. 	HCOB 29 Mar 63 “Summary of Security Checking”.	_________

6. 	HCOB 7 Apr 64 “All Levels—Q and A”.	_________

7. 	TRs the Hard Way.	_________

8. 	Upper Indoc a Rough Way.	_________

9. 	Handling the Auditor’s, C/S’s or Administrator’s Not Done	 
	or No Interest item Drug RD.	_________

10. 	35 hours Op Pro by Dup in Co-Audit receiving and giving.	_________

11. 	HCOB 29 July 63 “Saint Hill Special Briefing Course 
	Training Drills”, Section “Q and A Drill”.	_________

12. 	HCOB 20 Nov 73 Issue I Anti-Q and A Drill.

13. 	HCOB 20 Nov 73 Issue II “F/N What You Ask or Program”.	_________

14. 	A final end result demonstrated that the person CAN SEE 
	SITUATIONS AND HANDLE THEM.	_________

For, of course, the reason the person Qs and As is that he can’t confront or see the existing scene and so can’t handle it.

Q and A is the DISEASE OF DODGING LIFE.

When such a person tries to get a question or program done and the other person says or does something else, the Q and Aer goes into a sort of overwhelm or cave-in and just rides along at effect.

PEOPLE WHO GET THINGS DONE ARE AT CAUSE. When they are not, they Q and A.

Thus it IS a kind of illness. Chronic Overwhelm. It is NOT cured by drugs or electric shocks or brain operations.

It is cured by making oneself strong enough in confront and handle to live!

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

LRH:ntjh 
Copyright © 1973 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 DECEMBER 1973

Remimeo
All Auditors
All Levels
Flag Internes
LRH Comms
THE REASON FOR Q AND A

Q and A means “Question and Answer”.

When the term Q and A is used it means one did NOT get an answer to his question. It also means not getting compliance with an order but accepting something else.

Example: Auditor: Do birds fly? Pc: I don’t like birds. Auditor: What don’t you like about birds? FLUNK. It’s a Q and A. The right reply would be an answer to the question asked and the right action would be to get the original question answered. TR 4 (handling origins) can apply here. The moment TR 4 is violated (Ack and return the pc to original Question) and the original unanswered question is not again asked the Auditor just drifts along with the pc. Things get restimulated, nothing gets really handled or run.

In Administration the same thing can happen. The executive gives an order, the junior says or does something else, the executive does not simply TR 4 it and get the original order done, and the result is chaos.

Executive: Phone Mr. Schultz and tell him our printing order will be there this afternoon. Junior: I don’t know his number. Executive: Don’t you have a phone book? Junior: The phone company didn’t send one this year as our bill was overdue. Executive (the fool) goes to Accounts to see what about the phone bill. Mr. Schultz never gets his call. The printing order arrives but Mr. Schultz doesn’t know it ....

Example: Executive: Do target 21 now. Junior: I don’t have any issue files. Executive: What happened to them? Junior: Mimeo goofed. Executive: I’ll go see Mimeo ....

DISPERSAL

Q and A is simply Postulate Aberration.

Aberration is non-straight line by definition.

A sick thetan who is all caved in can’t direct a postulate at anything. When he tries, he lets it wobble around and go elsewhere.

The difference between a Degraded Being and an OT is simply that the DB can’t put out a postulate or intention in a direct line or way and make it hold good.

The insane are a great example of this. They are insane because they have evil intentions. But they can’t even make these stick. They may intend to burn down the house but they usually wind up watering the rug or do some other non sequitur thing. It’s not that they don’t mess things up. The whole point here is that they can’t even properly destroy what they intend to destroy. Even their evil intentions wobble, poor things.

But not all people who Q and A are insane.

When a person is running at effect he Qs and As.

He is confronted by life, he does not confront it.

He is usually a bit blind to things as his ability to look AT is turned back on him by his lack of beam power. Thus he gives the appearance of being unaware.

His emotional feeling is overwhelm.

His mental state is confusion.

He starts for B, winds up at—A.

Other not too well intentioned people can play tricks on a Qer and Aer. When they don’t want to answer or comply they artfully bring about a Q and A.

Example: Bosco does not want to staple the mimeo issue. He knows his senior Qs and As. So we get this. Senior: Staple that issue with the big stapler. Bosco: I hurt my thumb. Q and A Senior: Have you been to see the Medical Officer? Bosco: He wouldn’t look at it. Q and A Senior: I’ll go have a word with him. (Departs.) Bosco gets back to reading “Jesse James Rides Again” humming softly to himself. For HIS trouble is, he Qs and As with the Mest Universe!

BODY Q AND A

Some people Q and A with their bodies. The body is, after all, composed of Mest. It follows the laws of Mest.

One of these laws is Newton’s first law of motion: INERTIA. This is the tendency of a Mest object to remain motionless until acted upon by an exterior force. Or to continue in a line of motion until acted upon by an exterior force.

Well, the main force around that is continually acting on a human body is a thetan, the being himself.

The body will remain at rest (since it is a Mest Object) until acted upon by the thetan that is supposed to be running it.

If that being is an aberrated non-straight line being THE BODY REACTS ON HIM MORE THAN HE REACTS ON THE BODY. Thus he remains motionless or very slow. When the body is in unwanted motion, the being does not deter the motion as the body is acting upon him far more than he is reacting on the body.

As a result, one of the manifestations is Q and A. He wants to pick up a piece of paper. The body inertia has to be overcome to do so. So he does not reach for the paper, he just leaves the hand where it is. This would be no action at all. If he then weakly forces the motion, he finds himself picking up something else like a paper clip, decides he wants that anyway and settles for it. Now he has to invent why he has a paper clip in his hand. His original intention never gets executed.

Some people on medical lines are just there not because of actual illness but because they are just Qing and Aing with their body.

People also Q and A with themselves. They want to stop drinking and can’t. They want to stop or change something about themselves or their body and then disperse off onto something else.
Freud read all sorts of dire and awful things into simple Q and A. He invented intentions the person must have that made him “sublimate”. All Freud succeeded in doing was making the person introspective looking for wrong whys.

The right why was simple—the person could not go in a straight line to an objective and/or could not cease to do something he was compulsively doing.

The very word ABERRATION contains the idea of this—no straight line but a bent one.

THE CURE FOR THIS SORT OF THING (Q and A with a body) IS OBJECTIVE PROCESSES.

And a very willing and bright thetan CAN simply recognize it for what it is—not enough push!

And instead of going to the MO for a slight ache, he just pushes on through.

As the ache is a recoil of body Q and A in a lot of cases, the ache itself goes away as soon as one simply pushes through.

Painters and artists buy the idea they are benefited by aberration. “Be glad you are neurotic” was a trick being played by the late and unlamented psychiatrists on artists.

One paints because he can push into execution what he visualizes. The best painters were the least aberrated.

Greenwich Village or Left Bank artists, when they don’t paint, never suspect it’s because they just can’t overcome hand inertia to push a paint brush!

People live Q and A lives. They never become what they desire to be because they Q and A with life about it.

Schopenhauer, the German philosopher of doom, even had a dirty crack about being able to do things: “Stubbornness is the will taking the place of the intellect.” By this, one is “intellectual” if he Qs and As.

SUMMARY

People who can’t get things done are simply Qing and Aing with people and life.

People who CAN get things done just don’t Q and A.

All great truths are simple.

This is a major one.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

LRH:nt.jh 
Copyright © 1973 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 FEBRUARY 1966
(Amends HCO B of 12 November 1964)
Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil students	SCIENTOLOGY II

PC LEVEL O—IV

DEFINITION PROCESSES

The first thing to know about DEFINITION PROCESSES is that they are separate and distinct and stand by themselves as processes.

In The Book of Case Remedies we find on page 25 REMEDY A and REMEDY B.

These two remedies are A and B because they handle a primary source of worry to supervisors and auditors.

AUDITING STYLE

Each level has its own basic auditing style.

The Auditing Style of Level II is Guiding Style. The Secondary Style is GUIDING SECONDARY STYLE or Guiding S Style.

ASSISTS

An assist is different from auditing as such in that it lacks any model session. Assists are normally short periods of auditing but not always. I have seen a touch assist go on for months at the rate of 15 minutes a day, two or three days a week. And it may take hours to do a touch assist on an accident victim. What characterizes an assist is that it is done rapidly and informally and anywhere.

“Coffee Shop Auditing” isn’t really an assist as it is usually done over coffee too casually to be dignified by the name of auditing. The pc is never informed at all of the existence of a session.

The pc, in an assist, is however informed of the fact and the assist is begun by “This is the Assist” and ended by a “That’s it”, so an assist, like a session, has a beginning and an end.

The Auditor’s Code is observed in giving an Assist and the Auditing Comm Cycle is used.

As an Auditor one sets out in an Assist to accomplish a specific thing for the pc like relieve the snivels or make the ache in the leg better. So an Assist also has a very finite purpose.

SECONDARY STYLES

Every level has a different primary STYLE OF AUDITING. But sometimes in actual sessions or particularly in Assists this Style is altered slightly for special purposes. The Style altered for assists is called a SECONDARY STYLE. It doesn’t mean that the primary style of the level is merely loosely done. It means that it is done a precise but different way to accomplish assists. This variation is called the SECONDARY STYLE of that level.

REMEDIES

A Remedy is not necessarily an Assist and is often done in regular session. It is the Remedy itself which determines what auditing style is used to administer it. Some Remedies, as well as being used in regular sessions, can also be used as Assists.

In short, that a process exists as a Remedy has no bearing on whether it is used in an Assist or a Model Session.

GUIDING STYLE

The essence of Guiding Style is:

1. 	Locate what’s awry with the pc.

2. 	Run a Repetitive Process to handle what’s found in 1.

In essence—steer the pc into disclosing something that needs auditing and then audit it.

GUIDING SECONDARY STYLE

Guiding Secondary Style differs from proper Guiding Style and is done by:

1. 	Steering-the pc toward revealing something or something revealed;

2. 	Handling it with Itsa.

Guiding Secondary Style differs from Guiding Style only in that Guiding Secondary Style handles the matter by Steer + Itsa. Guiding Style Proper handles the matter with Steer + Repetitive Process.

DEFINITIONS PROCESSING

Definitions Processes, when used as Remedies, are normally processed by Guiding Secondary Style.

Both Remedies of The Book of Case Remedies A and B are Guiding Secondary Style in their normal application.

One would expect them to be used by a Class II Auditor.

One would expect the Assist to last 10 or 15 minutes, perhaps more, but less than a regular session would take.

One would expect that any case in a PE class, any student that was getting nowhere, would be handled by the Instructor with Guiding Secondary Style using Remedies A and B as precision processes.

REMEDY A PATTER

One would not expect the person or student in trouble to be turned over to another student for handling. It’s too fast, sharp and easy to handle that trouble oneself if one is Class II or above and far more certain. You can do it while you’d be finding another student to do the auditing. It would be uneconomical in terms of time not to just do it right then—no meter—leaning up against a desk.

The auditor’s patter would be something like what follows. The pc’s responses and Itsa are omitted in this example.

“I am going to give you a short assist.” “All right, what word haven’t you understood in Scientology?” “Okay, it’s pre-clear. Explain what it means.” “Okay, I see you are having trouble, so what does pre mean?” “Fine. Now what does clear mean?” “Good. I’m glad you realize you had it mixed up with patient and see that they’re different.” “Thank you. That’s it.”

In between the above total of auditing patter, the student may have hemmed and hawed and argued and cognited. But one just steered the pc straight along the subject selected and got it audited and cleaned up. If the student gave a glib text book definition after challenging the word preclear, we wouldn’t buy it, but would give the student a piece of paper or a rubber band and say “Demonstrate that.” And then carry on as it developed.

And that would be Remedy A.

You see it is precision auditing and is a process and does have an Auditing Style. And it works like a dream.

You see this is Steer + Itsa as to its style. And that it addressed the immediate subject.

What makes A Remedy A is not that it handles Scientology definitions, but that it handles the immediate subject under discussion or study.

REMEDY B

What makes Remedy B Remedy B is that it seeks out and handles a former subject, conceived to be similar to the immediate subject, in order to clear up misunderstandings in the immediate subject or condition.

Remedy B, run on some person or student, would simply be a bit more complex than Remedy A as it looks into the past.

A person has a continuous confusion with policy or auditors, etc. So one runs B like this (the following is auditor patter only):

“I’m going to give you an Assist. Okay?” “All right. What subject were you mixed up with before Scientology?” “I’m sure there is one.” “Okay. Spiritualism. Fine. What word in Spiritualism didn’t you understand?” “You can think of it.” “Good. Ectoplasm. Fine. What was the definition of that?” “All right, there’s a dictionary over there, look it up.” “I’m sorry it doesn’t give the spiritualist definition. But you say it says Ecto means outside. What’s plasm?” “Well, look it up.” “All right. I see, Ecto means outside and plasm means mould or covering.” (Note: You don’t always break up words into parts for definition in A & B Remedies.) “Yes, I’ve got that. Now what do you think spiritualists meant by it?” “All right, I’m glad you realize that sheets over people make ghosts ghosts.” “Fine, glad you recalled being scared as a child.” “All right, what did the spiritualist mean then?” “Okay. Glad you see thetans don’t need to be cased in goo.” “All right. Fine. Good. You had Ectoplasm mixed up with engrams and you now realize thetans don’t have to have a bank and can be naked. Fine. That’s it.” (Note: You don’t always repeat after him what the pc said, but sometimes it helps.)

Student departs still cogniting. Enters Scientology now having left Spiritualism on the back track. Doesn’t keep on trying to make every HCO Bulletin studied solve “Ectoplasm”, the buried misunderstood word that kept him stuck in Spiritualism.
DEFINITIONS PURPOSE

The purpose of definitions processing is fast clearing of “held down fives” (jammed thinking because of a misunderstood or misapplied datums) preventing someone getting on with auditing or Scientology.

Remedies A and B are not always used as Assists. They are also used in regular sessions. But when so used they are always used with Guiding Secondary Style—Steer + Itsa.

As a comment, people who seek to liken Scientology to something, “Oh, like Christian Science,” are stuck in Christian Science. Don’t say, “Oh no! It isn’t like Christian Science!” Just nod and mark them for a fast assist or a session the moment the chance offers if they seem very disinterested or aloof when asked to a PE Course.

There’s weapons in that arsenal, auditor. Use them.

As Remedies A and B stand as the first and second given in The Book of Case Remedies, so before a large number of potential Scientologists stands the confusion of definitions.

We have made Scientology definitions easy for them by compiling a dictionary, using words new to people only when useful.

But those that don’t come along at all, are so wound up in some past subject they can’t hear or think when that earlier subject is restimulated. And that earlier subject is held down only by some word or phrase they didn’t grasp.

Some poor pawn howling for the blood of Scientologists isn’t mad at Scientology at all. But at some earlier practice he got stuck in with mis-definition of its terms.

You see, we inherit some of the effects of the whole dullness of Man when we seek to open the prison door and say, “Look. Sunshine in the fields. Walk out.” Some, who need Remedy B say: “Oh no! The last time somebody scratched the wall that way I got stupider.” Why say, “Hey. I’m not scratching the wall. I’m opening the gate”? Why bother. He can’t hear you. But he can hear Remedy B as an assist. That’s the channel to his comprehension.

UNDERSTANDING

When a person can’t understand something and yet goes on facing up to it, he gets into a “problems situation” with it. There it is over there, yet he can’t make it out.

Infrequently (fortunately for us) the being halts time right there. Anything he conceives to be similar presented to his view is the puzzle itself (A=A=A). And he goes stupid. This happens rarely in the life of one being, but it happens to many people.

Thus there aren’t many such messes in one person in one lifetime that have to be cleaned up. But there are a few in many people.

The cycle of Mis-definition is:

1. 	didn’t grasp a word, then
2. 	didn’t understand a principle or theory, then
3. 	became different from it, commits and committed overts against it, then
4. 	restrained himself or was restrained from committing those overts, then
5. 	being on a withhold (inflow) pulled in a motivator.

Not every word somebody didn’t grasp was followed by a principle or theory. An overt was not committed every time this happened. Not every overt committed was restrained. So no motivator was pulled in.

But when it did happen, it raised havoc with the mentality of the being when trying to think about what seem to be similar subjects.

You see, you are looking at the basic incident + its locks as in a chain of incidents. The charge that is apparently on the lock in present time is actually only in the basic incident. The locks borrow the charge of the basic incident and are not themselves causing anything. So you have a basic misunderstood word which then charges up the whole subject as a lock; then a subject charging up similar subjects as locks.

Every nattery or non-progressing student or pc is hung up in the above 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 cycle. And every such student or pc has a misdefined word at the bottom of that pile. If the condition is new and temporary it’s a Scientology word that’s awry. If natter, no progress, etc, is continuous and doesn’t cease when all is explained in Scientology or when attempts to straighten up Scientology words fail, then it’s an earlier subject at fault. Hence, Remedies A and B. Hence Guiding Secondary Style. Hence, the fact that Definitions Processes are processes. And VITAL processes they are if one wants a smooth organization, a smooth PE, a smooth record of wins on all pcs. And if one wants to bring people into Scientology who seem to want to stay out.

Of course these Remedies A and B are early-on processes, to be audited by a Class II or above on a Level 0 or I pc or student. However, some in Scientology, as of this date, are studying slowly or progressing poorly because A and B haven’t been applied.

One expects that very soon, now that auditors have this data, there will be nobody at upper levels with his definitions dangling.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :jw.ml.rd 
Copyright ©1966 
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 2l/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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 FEBRUARY 1974 
Remimeo

C/S Series 91

MUTUAL OUT RUDS

It has been known for many many years that the phenomenon of “Mutual Out Ruds” existed.

This means TWO OR MORE PEOPLE WHO MUTUALLY HAVE RUDS OUT ON THE WIDER GROUP OR OTHER DYNAMICS AND DO NOT GET THEM IN.

Example: A husband-wife co-audit team never run O/Ws on the rest of the family because both of them have similar overts and so consider it usual.

Example: Prisoners engaged in co-auditing (as in Narconon) may have similar overts, withholds, ARC Brks and/or problems with the rest of society and so do not think of handling them as out-ruds.

Example: Two top class auditors co-auditing, have similar overts on the junior auditors and the org and so never think to get them in.

THIS CAN STALL CASES!

A C/S has to take this factor into account wherever he has a possibility of its occurring.

In one instance mutual out ruds went so far as four auditors, co-auditing, agreeing never to put their overts down on W/Ses “so they would not lose reputation”. Needless to say all four eventually blew.

If the C/S had done a routine check for mutual out ruds, this whole scene would have been prevented and four beings would not have ruined each other.

IN ANY SITUATION WHERE A SMALL PORTION OF A LARGER GROUP IS ENGAGED IN CO-AUDIT THE C/S MUST CHECK ROUTINELY FOR MUTUAL OUT RUDS.

This could even apply to an org or vessel which was separate from the rest of society around it: its members could develop mutual out ruds from the rest of society and cases could fail on this point.

Be alert to MUTUAL OUT RUD SITUATIONS AND HANDLE BY GETTING THEM IN ON THE REST OF THE SURROUNDING PEOPLE OR SOCIETY.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

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

SEC CHECKING - TYPES OF WITHHOLDS

A lecture given on the
5 October 1961

Okay. This is the 5th of October, 1961, Special Briefing Course, Saint Hill. And I’m going to talk to you today about Security Checking. And boy, do you need a talk about Security Checking. Because what you don’t know about Security Checking would fill volumes.

Now, of course, I am a very bad authority on Security Checking from a subjective point of view, because you realize that if anybody went into my crimes it would just be too grim! No auditor would be able to stand up to that. We realize that you see? These crimes are so innumerable because they cover such a long period of time. That’s the main thing.

So I'm not talking to you from the viewpoint of sinlessness. And you must get your point of view oriented there. If I were talking to you from the point of view of total sinlessness . . . This is an optimum state which, religiously, people get into. They somehow or another lay the right pennies on the right altar and at that moment they become totally sinless. Then they can condemn everyone. And this gives them the right to condemn everyone, you see? And they can’t approach this subject objectively. Unlike various people of the past who have said “Repent ye. Repent ye. Ye Kingdom of Heaven is at ye hand,” something of that sort, people who do have sins, you see, find it much easier to talk about the subject. They have some reality on the subject. And let me assure you that from my point of view, if I had it all to do all over again, I would probably do the same things.

So I don’t want to give you the false impression that I give you any lecture on the subject of Security Checking from the basis that my security, unlike yours, has been pure for two hundred trillion years. That would make a very great unreality. No, amongst us boys, us girls, what we have all been up to only could not bear the light of day because we think it couldn’t bear the light of day.

Now, it’s funny that every group that has sought to enforce sinlessness on one and all, with the stake vast punishment, condemnation, assignment to hell—that is the primary mechanism: they give you a ticket straight to hell.

Doesn’t work sometimes, by the way. There was a rash of murders—I've told you this story before, I'm sure but there was a rash of murders up in the Eskimo tribes. And the Royal Northwest Mounted Police went up there to get their man, and they found out that there had been a missionary in the area. And the missionary had told all the Eskimos what was right and what was wrong and had convinced them, of course, that if they murdered anyone, they would go straight to hell and burn forever. And the idea of being warm enough for any length of time . . .
 So, you see, lecturing from the high platform of sinlessness, you very often run into the creation of more sin than you get rid of. And what’s interesting is that any group which wishes to blow itself to flinders simply has to engage upon an activity of making everybody guilty of their sins. It’ll hang together for a little while, and everybody will be miserable while it does, but it’ll eventually blow up.

Why? Because it now gives people a complete map on how to accumulate withholds. The group mores defines what is a withhold. It says you must not be guilty of such sins and such sins and such sins, and therefore and thereby blows itself to pieces, of course, because it says everybody that has committed these sins should withhold them, even though they are saying at the same time “You must confess them.” But they make confession, you see, rather rigorous.

Now, we have to understand this at the outset of Security Checking. Thou, the auditor, are not sinless. That’s what we have to understand about it. And thou art not an enforcer of a public mores while thou art being an auditor. Thou art simply a Security Checker, period. You got it? You’re not the avenging angels of the Mormon church or something like this, see, while you’re security checking. You’re simply a person who is skilled in certain technology to attain a better frame of mind and actually a much greater honesty and decency on the part of somebody else.

You have the weapon in your hands with which to attain a greater decency, a greater state of health, a greater efficiency, a greater ability, higher ability for ARC. You’ve got the weapon in your hands with which to do this. There is the E-Meter and there is the Security Check, and there is you and your technology. So you are going to be able to accomplish what groups have been trying to accomplish for a long time. You are going to be able to make an honest man or an honest woman. You have the weapon with which to do this. That’s very important for you to realize, because all of these other mechanisms—such as “make the person guilty,” “show the person the right way,” you see, “and the error of his ways,” and frowning upon him and punishing him in some fashion or other because he’s just gotten off a withhold —are mechanisms of older groups by which they sought to enforce their mores. Because they had no way to make honest people that was positive and lasting, then they used these very poor mechanisms of “make them good and guilty,” “punish them ‘ “show them what will happen to them if they do that again.” -All of these other things are added in. But what are those?

- Those are the security mechanisms of yesteryear. Those are yesterday’s tools. So you don’t combine Scientology with other therapies. And that is all that you would be doing if you were trying to make somebody guilty and so forth, and doing something else with a Security Check rather than just getting off withholds.

So let us get down to a simplicity. You, the auditor, may have successfully waded through innumerable Sec Checks and be in good shape, and so forth. That doesn’t necessarily mean that “thou hast been without sin all the days of thy life.”  That hasn’t anything to do with it, you see? It simply means that technically you’ve gotten up on the step. You were lucky. You came two hundred trillion years along the track with red hands and black heads, and finally got out anyhow.

Well, that’s beside the point. This point is important because if you, the auditor, are still worried about your own withholds, or if you are trying to put up the presence of being—because you are a Scientologist and an auditor and maybe a Release or something like that—if you’re trying to put up the attitude, you see, that you yourself are sinless, then you will sometimes Q-and-A and avoid the other fellow’s withholds.
 In other words, you let the public sell you the idea that because you are 8 Scientologist, you should never have any sins. You get the idea? What have they done, in essence? They have managed to bottle you up just like putting a cork in a bottle. Now you don’t ever dare get off any withholds, you think, maybe, you see?

You can get into all kinds of odd cull-de-sacs, because we are still crossed up with the older therapy of condemnation and punishment. And that was unworkable. Let me point out that there are several people in prisons in the world. There are lots of people still doing penance in religious groups in the world. And if we add this up and recognize it clearly, we won’t put ourselves in the same category. The old processes haven’t worked. & don’t let them work on you in reverse.

Don’t ever get into a state where, because you are in a district or an area where you are holding the fort and keeping the torches burning, you never dare get off any withholds. You’ve permitted yourself to be sent on the road to hell. Do you see that? And your Security Checking would deteriorate. Inevitably your Security Checking would deteriorate. You would be afraid to ask people questions. You would start tacit consent. You’d start mutual avoidance of certain subjects. You get what I’m talking about, don’t you?

The most serious barrier that an auditor has to overcome in Security Checking is not necessarily his own case, but a courage to ask the questions. You know, that’s kind of a raw, mean, brassy sort of a thing to do.

You sit down: Here’s this nice young girl. Everybody knows she’s a virgin —everybody knows this. And you’re in very good ARC with her, and everything is going to go along One. And then you say to her, crassly and meanly, “Have you ever committed any carnal sins of any character or another? Have you ever been to bed in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong man?” And put it mildly, this is a startling question. But since I’ve started Security Checking, I haven’t found any virgins.

Well now, it requires a certain amount of brass, it requires a certain amount of nerve, to sit there and ask all these fantastic questions, you know? “Have you ever: rob, murder, burn, slain, gutted, lied?” You see? And yet it sounds like you must be sitting there running off a catalog of the penal codes of French Guyana or something, you know? And here you go! Well, that’s rough enough. If all of your withholds are off, that’s rough enough. You sit down— perfectly inoffensive person—and you all of a sudden start asking him this sort of thing, you know?

Well, if you’ve got a whole bunch of withholds that you yourself are very afraid somebody is going to get nest to, you will back straight off of the whole subject of Security Checking. And that is the only thing I see in the future of Scientology that could happen: is all auditors become “without sin”—they have never had any sin—and because they are Releases or Scientologists or something, you see, then they never dare get off their withholds because the students in the Academy might hear about it and all sorts of catastrophic actions might occur, and their reputation is utterly smashed and ruined, you see? So therefore, the best thing to do, you know, is just kind of avoid the whole subject. And that’s what they’ll finish up doing, too—avoiding the whole subject.

They won’t have that additional élan necessary to ask this poor little innocent girl “Have you ever raped your baby brother?” you see? You know, it’s just something that they would not bring themselves to be able to do, providing they themselves were actually withholding withholds. Do you see the point I’m trying to make with you here?

So you could get a broad and general disintegration if you permitted the public at large to insist that because a person was a skilled Scientologist and in
 good case shape, he had never done anything wrong. You see how that could be added up on you?

Now, you’ll find some instructor in an Academy here and there, and he’s thinking to himself, “Uuughh, if the students ever heard about this . . .” And you think—somebody in the HGC, and he’s saying, “Well, I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. Last year . . . Here here’s this whole subject of Security Checking coming up again, and if they found out last year that after I audited that girl, why, that happened . . .” And he sits there and he starts sweating over this thing: “What would the D of P think? What would other auditors think? What would the organization think?” So on. And the nest thing you know, he’s sitting in session and the question comes up. He has too make the decision whether to security check this person or go on running the level. Oh, he will go on running the level every time. He’ll avoid Security Checking.

That person who is avoiding Security Checking in his own life will avoid Security Checking of other people. And you can just mark it down that if you find somebody who is ducking Security Checks in all direction, you have somebody who will not Security Check.

You would be amazed how your Security Checking improves to the degree that you yourself have gotten through the Security Checks. It is absolutely fabulous. You can almost tell whether an auditor has withholds to the degree of skill that he security checks. And the worse his Security Checking is, the more certain you become that he has withholds. That’s an interesting coordination, isn’t it? And yet it’s a visible one.

So that going up the line and on the long haul in Scientology, you actually could get to a- point where the public insists that those people who are carrying along . .; Because Scientology is getting more and more important, more and more- important,. you could actually get people running an operation on you: They just start running this old therapy, you see? Because you’re the leading auditor in an area, or something of the sort, you therefore must never have done anything in your whole life. Doesn’t follow. But what it operates as is an ought-to-be. And you could surrender to this ought-to-be and therefore never permit yourself to be security checked because somebody might talk.

Do you realize that that action alone would slow down the whole forward impulse of Scientology by putting in lousy case shape every important auditor and person in Scientology? It could be done. And that is the Achilles’ heel of Scientology. That is it. That we become so important that we must therefore— it follows in some peculiar way—be without sin, without mishap, without ever taking our finger off our number in life, and without ever forgiving it if somebody has. If we ever got into that state, we’d be finished. We’d be finished.

But we don’t have to get into that state because we’ve got the tools which keeps a group together without the whip. See, the whip has become a useless and antiquated object. Like the electric-shock machine, it can be dedicated to the museums of tomorrow. Someday we’re going to take one of these prisons here and set it up with dummies just as a showpiece of what man used to do. That’s the only use you’ll have for it.

You know, I think I ought to at this moment probably make you all members of a very secret society. Speaking of withholds, there is a very secret society. It doesn’t do much withholding, but it is very secret, mostly because nobody recognizes it as an actual society. They all think it’s a joke, see?

The society is the SPG. And the SPG. And I’m now going to make you all members of the SPG. It’s the Society for the Prevention of Government. An interesting society. All you have to do to be a member of it is say you are. You know, I don’t think a single revolutionary charge of any kind whatsoever could be filed against a member of this organization, because everybody prevents
 government to some degree, you see? It’d just be to what degree are we preventing government? The only thing governments get upset about is the overthrow of government by force, which means, of course, the setting up of another government on top of an existing government. And we aren’t interested in doing that. We’re just interested in preventing government.

But anyway, the mechanisms by which man has been governed had in it the idea that man was evil and therefore had to be held in line by evil practices. And if man was evil, then he had to be held in line with evil. And they never noticed that the evil in the world stemmed totally from holding man in line. That was the fascinating part of it.

You have to have been a member of a police force to recognize that the police create crime. They do it quite unintentionally, but they do create crime. They get a game caller cops and robbers going. And this game— every criminal busily plays this game. If there wasn’t that much to it, why, there they’d be.

Well, for instance, there’s some young fellow was walking down the street one day, and be suddenly read his name in the newspapers and reported to the police. And for the next six or eight days he was sitting under the hot lights, and they were questioning him and throwing him into cells and being mean to him and so forth. Actually, he hadn’t done a thing. He hadn’t even been there. He hadn’t even been present. And they turned him loose after a while. He’s very relieved to have been turned loose.

What do you think his ideas are going to be on the subject of police now?

Now, we start building it up from there. A society without ARC is a society which inevitably will have crime. Man is good, but he is only good to the degree that he’s in ARC with existence. And when you throw him out of ARC with sections of society or whole governments at one fell swoop, he gives the appearance of being very bad. Actually, all he’s trying to do is survive and protect himself and keep the thing from going all to hell. He has his own peculiar notions about how he does this, and the primary mechanism he uses is withhold. That’s how he thinks he can hold everything together—by withholding everything. The primary mechanism.

So the police are dedicated to making everybody withhold, till the mores of the criminal mainly consists of “You must not talk to the police.” Well, that’s quite interesting. “You mustn’t talk to the forces of law and order.”- Ah, well, that’s interesting. Well, that necessarily forces somebody further out of communication with law and order.

And if you think criminals are without government, you’re mistaken. They have their own government. And a very wild, gruesome government it is, too.

But the society is forced apart to the degree that people are made guilty.

Now, why does a man wind up as a murderer? Well, he has long since resigned from the human race. Long since. If you want to prevent a murder, you don’t hang murderers. You make it unnecessary to resign from the human race. That’s easy.

I’ll give you a murder where the law was definitely at fault. Washington, D.C., a taxicab driver—if I remember the story right—had a wife and this wife kept going off with another man. And he had a hard time of it because he tried to take the matter to court, he tried to get a divorce, he tried to quiet it down, he tried to hold the home together—he took every measure he could possibly take, but of course there was no law that would back him up. You see, he didn’t have any “evidence,” and he didn’t have vast slims of money, you see, to buy detectives to accumulate this and that, you know? And there was nobody he could go to. And he got more and more and more seething about this, because he was basically out of communication, and he finally killed both of them.
 But what was interesting to me about this particular case is that for two years this fellow had had some sort of a grievance, and there was no agency in society to remedy any part of that grievance. There was nothing he could do about it. So he finally did the last desperate jump.

Now, of course, he himself had various withholds, but were these withholds actual or unintentional? And now we get to a very interesting subject: the unintentional withhold.

This is where you get your new ARC break process, by the way, in the rudiments—is the unintentional withhold. So it’s quite important, this unintentional withhold. I mentioned to you yesterday that a person very often finds himself in a position and then considers he’s guilty because he’s in that position. He finds himself outside the group, so therefore he feels he must have done something to be expelled from the group, which is quite remarkable.

Well, this unintentional withhold is the same thing. The person is not able to tell anybody. Now, it might be that there is nobody there to tell it to. He’s not able to tell anybody. It’s not that he wouldn’t tell anybody if he could, but he can’t tell anybody because there isn’t anybody to tell it to or nobody will listen. And you’ll find these all over insane asylums. You’ll find people sitting around with unintentional withholds because nobody will listen to them.

They say, “Well, these bugs, they just keep crawling all over me,” and the psychiatrist and everybody says, “Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. We know, we know, we know. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes “ And the person just knows he isn’t reaching anybody, and he just gets more and more fined and obsessed with his idea of these bugs crawling over him, because it’s an unintentional withhold. He doesn’t intend to withhold it, but he finds himself in the position of doing so because nobody will listen. - 

So you must take into account this as a factor. It is a very important Actor or r wouldn’t have put it in your rudiments processes. “What weren’t you able to tell an auditor?” Well, that makes a withhold. Well, you weren’t unwilling to tell the auditor you see? You were trying desperately to tell the auditor, but the auditor never listened.

And when you run this ARC break process, you are really knocking out unintentional withholds. And the results that you get from that particular ARC break process are quite similar to the results of a Security Check. But in this we’re addressing some other subject. The Security Check is addressed to the more or less intentional withhold. But that ARC break process is addressed to an unintentional withhold. It is a withhold.

Now, there’s many a criminal has walked in and said, “I've just murdered my wife,” and the desk sergeant has swatted a couple of more flies and paid no attention to him. And he’s walked outside, and he’s gone up to the cop on the beat and he said, “I just murdered my wife,” and so forth. And nobody paid any attention to him and nobody ever found the wife. And he was perfectly willing to take the penalties of society, but nobody believed him. And you get the most peculiar kind of withhold there is. You mustn’t overlook this as a withhold in Security Checking. The unintentional withhold.

So that is, you might say, about the lowest rung of withholds. It’s unintentional, he- didn’t mean to withhold it, but nobody will listen.

All right Now we get the intentional withhold, which is a withhold because he would be punished if he admitted it And we get a different type of withhold, although it has the same mechanism and produces the same actions.

And then there is another withhold: He must withhold it because it will damage his beingness—in other words, his reputation. Those are reputational withholds. He’s got an idea of what people think his beingness should be, and he’s upholding his beingness by not admitting to certain withholds because other people might get another notion of him than the notion which he is trying
 to broadcast. So therefore he mustn’t have reputational rumors and gossips and things of this character. So therefore and thereby it’s a reputational withhold. He hasn’t really done anything. Well, actually, his family came from the lower marshlands of the Thames or something, down in the mud flats of Southampton or something. you know? And he just—well, he just wouldn’t rather this be known, you know? His family, by advertisement, always came from Upper Berkshire. It’s quite interesting.

Nova, familial connections aren’t the least of it, you see? People are always trying to represent themselves as a little bit better. Well, that’s fine. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it results in a bunch of reputational withholds.

Now, between the last two categories there’s a borderline category of things which, if they were out, people would think much less of him—you know, that kind of thing. He really wouldn’t be punished, he isn’t worried about it on account of beingness; he’s just thinking, well, people wouldn’t talk to him or something like that if they knew this sort of thing.

Well, if you’ll notice, all these things add up to cut communication. And a group is based basically on communication. So a group falls apart to the degree that there is no communication, and these are the three broad categories: the unintentional withhold, the withhold for fear of punishment, and the withhold in its various grades that protect beingness. And these three things, of course, are all shattering to groups. They knock a group apart in a hurry, but in fact, up to a certain point, appear to cohese a group.

I don’t know if you’ve ever been on Fifth Avenue or upper Fifth Avenue or in Hollywood or something like that and listened to what went on in lieu of reputation. It runs on something on the order of fifteen or twenty lies a minute when they’re talking, you see? It’s almost impossible to keep up with. And there’s the most fantastic unreality about those particular groups. They are very unreal. And you get near those people, you see, and around in those groups, and you think, “Ooooooooo, I don’t know,” you know? It’s... You don’t quite know what’s going on. You’re just not quite sure what is wrong there. But there just is something wrong. Well, what is wrong is that it’s a group with totally cut communication lines.

Well, how can you have a group with totally cut communication lines? Well, I guess they’re the only people who will listen to each other’s lies, so they stay together. Something on this order.

Now, a Security Check, or any method by which you are overcoming withholds, is dedicated to the restoration of communication. And it happens that if communication is totally restored, you see—if man knew what he was doing when he made people withhold slightly—with communications totally restored in any past group of which the fellow is no longer part, he will no longer be hung up in that group. See, if you just restore his communication— it’s just the ability to communicate; that’s all you’re restoring—why, you’ll get this phenomenon of him no longer being parked on the track with that group. And that’s the only thing you’re basically doing. And those things, which exist in present time of course, prevent him from becoming a part of any group to which he is attached and so give him a basic isolation.

And, of course, the basic group with which you are working is not necessarily the group called Scientologists—which in itself is a powerful enough group and it has enough group to it, by far. But the group in which you are doing the withhold is a group called a session: auditor and PC. You see, now, that is a group.

And when the individual is too individuated and when he develops an unintentional withhold in that group, or the auditor conducts himself in such a way as to bring about punishment because of a withhold or a crime, or the auditor demands specious reactions from the PC, the auditor has shot the group. It is a group. It’s a group of two. Auditing is a third-dynamic activity— even though sometimes it deteriorates into a second. And now and then deteriorates into a first. You burn your finger, and there’s nobody around and you stand there and run it out.

Now, there, all three of these things must be pretty well patched up before you get a good group called a session. You’ve got to have the unintentional withholds off, that’s for sure.

Do you know, the only thing that can deteriorate a profile, in twenty-five hours, is ARC breaks? Now, if you’re interpreting profiles—you find a profile and here it is, there it is, and the profile has dropped. Now, it is true that profiles move and they are pictures of valences, and they do come on at the bottom and go to the top—all of that is also true. But the particularity we’re speaking of now is, where the person didn’t do well and dropped, you can assume the PC was being operated with an ARC break.

Now, the basis of an ARC break is being made to have an unintentional withhold from that immediate group. And that, actually, apparently, from the immediate empirical results which one observes, is more serious than an actual withhold, intentional An unintentional withhold in an auditing session reflects more seriously on the auditing group and on the results of processing than an intentional withhold. This is very interesting.

And now we move into another category. rd hardly dignify the person with the title of auditor who pulled this one, but we have an enforced withhold on the basis of improved state. And you’ll find this happens every once in a while. Some person who is pretending to audit gets no results whatsoever, and then he shakes his finger in the PC’s face and seeks to convince the PC that the PC has been much bettered by it all and is now Clear or something And the PC thinks he had better not say anything to the contrary of this, and you’ve got that third grade of withhold. You’ve got something there which is protecting beingness.

You see, he’s now got a withhold. His withhold is he really didn’t get any improvement, and yet the auditor has forced him to admit that he got improvement. But actually what he’s withholding is the fact that he didn’t get any improvement, and if he said he didn’t get any improvement, this would hurt his new status

Well, you just finish auditing the fellow, and you take him out in front of the PE and you say, “He’s Clear.” So now the fellow doesn’t dare break down and say he’s abetted as hell, and so you get one of these reputational withholds.

So all three kinds of withholds can occur in an auditing session. The unintentional, the intentional and the reputational. These three things can all occur as a result of an auditing session.

You very, very seldom find the third one occurring, because very few auditors are that bad. But you sometimes find a PC who is trying to propitiate, and who is trying to tell the auditor that he feels much better now—while his head is falling off—because he doesn’t want to make the auditor feel bad. You know the mechanism. So, they don’t want to make the auditor feel bad so they say they feel better, and they don’t. Well, now they’re sort of protecting their beingness in some fashion or other by a projection. They’re protecting the auditor’s beingness by not feeling any worse.

You’ll find all of these mechanisms can be present in an auditing session

So where you get the idea of Security Checking—and very odd, we very often develop a word in one field, you see, in one field of endeavor; and then we, because we have an agreement on that word, we develop a special term which is thereafter more or less meaningless to one and all. But we all know what a Security Check is. A Security Check is something you do in processing to make the PC better.

Well now, how did that happen? Well, basically a Security Check was developed in order to weed out personnel and keep randomity from occurring in Central Organizations. And then Area Secretaries and Association Secretaries began to find that this made people much better. And the Area Secretary would be busy spending morning, noon and night and all the weekend trying to catch up with his Security Checking, because sometimes they took, for one Security Check, twenty hours—that we’d get down to the reductio ad absurdum that Smokey told me about the other day: somebody actually turned in a whole bunch of overts, on a written questionnaire, against the Area Secretary in order to get another Security Check.

So 1 would say that at that point the idea of creating security with a Security Check was a—not a very useful nor workable activity. And yet we have this word. And I’ve two or three times halfheartedly started to change it over to the idea of “processing check,” and started to call it a processing check, and so forth. But it still remains a Security Check.

Now we do have a Security Check, which is Form 7. There is an actual Security Check now in existence. So what do we call this Security Check? And l find myself, in writing a bulletin, getting into the interesting state of—I write: “Now, you should security check all . . .” “The Area Sec should security check. . .” And then, well, how do I say this? So, the best way to say it is underscore secants So you have a Security Check and you have a Security Check. So anyway, we’ll let it ride, let it ride. Won’t pull anything down if it stays that way.

So here we have—here we have this thing called B Security Check. Well, basically, it’s trying to establish a group which ~ engage in assistance. And no assistance can occur if there is no group there on the auditor to PC. So you have right in your rudiments there a method of getting around this. And you are asking the PC for all of his unintentional withholds when you say, His there something that you haven’t been able to tell an auditor?” And you are really running a Security Check right at that point.

Now, of course the basic reply to it is “What didn’t an auditor do?” which would be the games-condition response that occurred at that moment. So these two questions go together rather powerfully. One of them is asking for an unintentional withhold, and the other is asking for an auditor in a games condition. And they go bing, bing, bing, bing. And I think you’ll find that since I dreamed up these new rudiments and tested them out, that you’re doing much better.

I’ll make a remark in passing about those new rudiments. There is an assessment that has to be done for the present time problem. l never bothered to remark on it. I thought you’d latch that as you went by.

It says, “What is unknown about that...” (or some such wording) “ . . . problem with (blank)?” Now, you can’t run a condition as the blank.

The PC says, “Oh well, I'm terribly worried. I'm terribly worried about the airiness of everything.”

Well now, the auditor then can’t put the thing together as What is unknown about that problem with the airiness of everything?” You’ll find this is non-functional.

What you’ve got to do is do a little assessment and get him to state the problem more exactly. And you do the assessment on the meter. And you try to find the terminal that is airy or the terminal that is everything. And you shake that down and you do 8 little bit of a terminal assessment, and he suddenly comes up and he says, Well, the airiness of the room ‘ or something of that sort, or “The airiness of any car. It hasn’t any hood anymore.”
 And you would run it—if you had to, by that time . . . You see, you only run those things which you can’t get rid of with two-way comm or assessment. You realize that, don’t you—that running is the way you take care of the things that didn’t blow. So you always be prepared to have an ARC break, a present time problem or anything else blow before you had to run it. You just start doing an assessment on one of these undifferentiated problems, and you’ll find it doesn’t react anymore.

You repeat the question, “Well, do you have a present time problem now?” you see? You had some enormous surges on the meter and so forth. And you say, “Well, do you have a present time problem now?” before you settle down to run the thing and you can’t even get a quiver on it, see? You’ve blown it by assessment.

All right. Now, the PC who has a present time problem that the auditor will not take up is being given a withhold. So there is another source of withholds that cross at the present time problem level. But at the same time, the PC will very often try to withhold present time problems because he’s afraid the auditor will take them up and waste session time. Because auditing is very valuable. All PCs consider auditing time very, very, very, very, very, very valuable. There just isn’t enough auditing. That’s it.

And this gets so catastrophic that a PC will force auditing where it shouldn’t occur in some direction: He wants the auditing that is necessary to resolve his case, not the auditing which is just fooling around with those fool rudiments, you see, and will actually sometimes attempt to withhold a present time problem for fear that the auditor will take it up.

All right. Now, the action of running a Security Check is a relatively simple action It requires a high degree of familiarity with the meter so that you aren’t fumbling with the meter It requires a very definite, positive knowledge of the E-Meter. It requires, in addition to that, a knowledge of whether or not the needle is reacting on the question or on the parts of the question. You have to know how to compartment a question. You have to know how to make the E-Meter tell the truth. And that is sort of high-school E-Metering.

People who didn’t know much about E-Meters . . . I think there was somebody in—I think it was almost into Canada (someplace in the United States; they were just about as close to not being in the United States as they could be), got the idea that everybody had been PDHed throughout the United States by everybody else. And this became ridiculous in the extreme. And they were going all over telling everybody how everybody was PDHing everybody, and they were just having a marvelous time. And they were getting out magazines about the subject, and so on.

And the most awful quiet ensued. There was a quiet where you could have heard an engram drop, you know? Because after I explained compartmentation in an article in Ability magazine, you know, we’ve never heard another word. It is the most profound silence. It is a sort of a negative silence. It has texture.

Well, that’s because of this. That whole nonsense took place because somebody couldn’t really handle an E-Meter, they didn’t know how to compartment questions. So if you ask anybody if he had ever been the victim of pain-drug-hypnosis, well, of course you were going to get a fall, a fall, a fall and a fall, because you get falls on just the word victim you get falls on just the word pain, you get falls on just the word drug, and you will occasionally get falls on just the word hypnosis. And if a person has withholds on somebody else, you will get a fall on that other person’s name if you got withholds and overts on some particular line. So there’s a source of five falls in one question..

“Have you ever been a victim of pain-drug-hypnosis from President Eisenhower?” Five falls. You see, it’s falling on the words of the question. It
 isn’t falling on the question. And the way you do that is you take the question apart. You knock out—just say the word, “Victim,” and you get a fall. You say, “What was that?”

“Well, victim. Well, what not?”

“Well,” you say, “what about victim?”

“Well, I always hate to be a victim.;’

“Well, what the heck? Have you ever made any victims? Have you ever accused anybody of being a victim?”

“Oh, yes, my wife. She’s being a victim all the time, all the time, all the time. Always a victim. Yes, yes, yes, yes, always a victim. And she says so, what’s more.”

“Oh, is that so? Victim.” No reaction. Ah, we got that word cooled. “All right. Pain.” Clang! goes the needle, you see? You say, “Well, what about pain?”

“Oh, I’ve always been afraid of pain.”

“Well, what about the word pain?”

“Well, oh, the word pain. Oh-ho. Oh, you mean the word pain.”

“Yeah. Well, what about the word pain?” No reaction. Okay. Drug. Have you ever taken drugs? You ever give anybody drugs? Are you afraid of drugs? Anything wrong with drugs? Have you ever given anybody any drugs illegally?” Clang! “When did that happen?”

“Oh, well. My mother was very sick and I forged a prescription.”

“Oh, is that so? Oh, how interesting. All right. Now, when was that?”

“Oh, such and such a time.”

“All right. Thank you very much. Drug.” No reaction. See?

“President Eisenhower.” Clang, clang, clang, clang, clang. What about President Eisenhower?”

“Oh, nothing. I was part of a ban-the-bomb march, and we said we’d dance on his grave. Yeah. That’s what that was. Yeah.”

“Is that all there is to that?”

“Well, yes. I've been violently opposed to that particular activity. Oh, yeah.”

“All right. How often have you done that?”

“Oh, lots of times. Lots of times.”

“All right. How about President Eisenhower? Okay.” No fall.

“Now, have you ever been the victim of pain-drug-hypnosis from President Eisenhower?” Now, if the person has, you will now get a fall on the question. And if you want to be absolutely sure, go back all through all the words again and compartment them.

Now, there is more to it than this on compartmentation. I noticed the other day one of the boys didn’t have it quite straight. And that is, you compartment the phrases in addition to the words. You take the words and get the charge off them. And then you take the phrases and read the phrases out and see if each phrase is clean. And then when you read the whole question, let me assure you that if there is a fall, it is true. There is no withhold or charge on it unless it is true. And there won’t be a single needle quiver. And that is the proper way of compartmenting a Security Check question. And you’ll find you very often have to compartment them quite painfully. Otherwise you’ll make some fantastic error.

Now, the first and foremost method of preventing yourself from making an error is to forget all about two needle phenomena. One of the needle phenomena you should forget about is the latent read. Just ignore all latent reads. Have nothing to do with a latent read. If the read occurred more than half a second after you finished the question read, ignore it. Just ignore it. Just drop it. Because it’ll be on somebody else or is on another Security Check question. It isn’t on the same question or it didn’t happen to them.
 Now, that’s how come you sometimes wind up getting off other people’s withholds. Other people’s withholds will give you a latent read. So you are buying latent reads. You ask somebody, “Well, did you ever drown a cat?”

“Well, my aunt Mamie drowned a cat once.”

This would be the response. Now, that would be a latent read. You would get that as a latent read. And every time you pick up a latent read on a Security Check question, you can expect that you haven’t got a withhold, you’ve got a red herring. And you can go chasing all over the bank looking for this red herring. And you waste more time on latent reads than any other single action in auditing.

That read—if the person has a withhold on it, let me assure you the question does not wear out. If the person is still holding on to a withhold on that question, and it’s not on one of the words of the question, it’s not on one of the phrases of the question—nothing of that sort—but is on the question, the more you ask it and the more he withholds, the more instant the read. It gets so that he just realizes you’re going to ask the question again, you get the read. There isn’t a tenth of a second lag.

You read the question—pang! It’s acting. You read the question—bang! It’s acting. Read the question—bang! It’s acting. You see, the reactive mind is an instantaneous mind. All time is now. And if it’s a really reactive mind, of course, the closer it is to reactivity, the more rapid and instant the read will be. And it’s as simple as that. It is very simple. And if it is not reactive, the read will be latent. It will wait before it falls. It’ll wait for half a second. It’ll wait for a second. >

And an auditor who sits there and asks the question “Have you ever drowned a cat?” watching the E-Meter, and then gets a reaction, and then says “What was that?.” is going to find Aunt Mamie drowning a cat. And it was something the PC didn’t do, and it was something the PC never has withheld. You can just count on that.

One of the tricks of reading—one of the bad tricks of reading—on latent reads, is to look at the meter, then look at the question, then read the question, then look at the PC, then look at the meter. You’ll catch more latent reads that way, and boy, will you miss more instant reads. You will just miss them left and right. Why? Because your eye isn’t on the E-Meter at the moment you ended the question. And your eye must be on the meter needle the instant that you end that question. Otherwise, you’re going to miss the twitch. So what you do is, the sequence is always: question, look at the meter and speak the question, and then look at the PC. Paper, meter, PC.

Paper: you see that the question is about rape. You don’t care whether the question is exact or not. That is to say, Have you ever raped anybody?”—you can ask that in a thousand different ways. “Have you ever contemplated rape?” “Have you ever had ideas of rape?” “Have you ever remembered anything odd about rape as something odd to you like this?” And you’re going to get down to some kind of a withhold if there is one. So you look at the question, and then you look at the meter and you say the question, and then you can look at the PC all you care to. And you won’t get into this nonsense about latent reads.

The way I see auditors doing this is they look at the paper and they read the question, and then they look over at the E-Meter and then they wait, and they wait, and they wait, and they wait, and they wait, and they wait, and they wait.

And the question is, what the hell are they waiting for? Because it would have occurred in a tenth of a second. If you’re going to follow it through, it would have occurred in a tenth of a second. And that’s the way you security check. Man, you can really tear down the line if you do that. Yeah. You can
 really rip up a Security Check—whammity, whammity, whammity, wham. PC doesn’t even have to speak. You look at the paper: “Have you ever raped anybody?” ‘Nothing. That’s all.

Now, if you want to go at this a little more academically, you never look at the meter at all until the PC says no. The Security Check can be totally without the meter right up to the point where-he says no, at which time you repeat the question looking at the meter. And that makes for very good sessioning. When you find you’re doing this easily, oh man, it just goes on and on and on.

Why are you looking at the meter if you’re not trying to catch him out? See? You’re trying to find out if something is reactive. That’s why you’re looking at the meter. Well, if the guy is going to tell you his withholds, why are you looking at the meter? That’s what it amounts to.

You say, “Well, have you ever robbed a bank?”

And the PC says, “Well, if you put it that way, yes. I uh . . .uugh, yes, I robbed a bank,” and so forth.

And you say, “When was that?” and so on, so on, 80 on, so on, so on. You can go a little further. “Who you been withholding it from?” 

“Oh, I've been withholding it from everybody ‘ and so forth. “My fellow bank robbers. I didn’t want them to know that . n SO forth, and then, et cetera, yap-yap, and so on. They got it all—they get it squared around. Good.

You say, “All right. Now, have you ever robbed any other banks?”

- “‘Uh . . .yes, I did,” and so forth. “And that was pretty bad,” and uh .-. . and so forth, and et cetera. ~ - 

; And you say, Okay. Well, have you ever robbed a ban’s?”

PC says, “Aside from those, no.”

You say, “Good. Have you ever robbed a bank? Yes, what’s that? What’s that nest one?”

“Oh, well, that’s just that little old bank down in Joliet. That’d hardly count.” Got the idea?

Then you finally ask him again, “All right. Have you ever robbed any other banks?”

“cost.”

You look back at the meter, you say, “Well, have you ever robbed any other banks?” Meter’s quiet. Go on to the nest question.

You never look at the meter until he says no. You’ll find out that really holds them in session, man. That’s very good sessioning when you can do it this way.

Now, the only bug that occurs when you do this is that you’re repeating the question and apparently calling him a liar slightly. But you’ll find out this isn’t very damaging. He’s already told you no, and so you confirm it.

Now, leaving a question hot is another very damaging action on an E-Meter. That’s a very damaging thing to a session. Oh, that is something you mustn’t do—leave a question with reaction on it. Don’t ever go to the nest question as long as a question is reacting. And don’t ever go on to the next question unless you’re absolutely sure that the question you are on has no further instant actions in it. Remember, we care nothing about the latent action.

If there’s no instant action left in a question, you can go on. And if there is, don’t you dare! Because if anything is calculated to throw a PC out of session from there on out, man, let me tell you, it is leaving a question hot.

You know, there’s been considerable randomity occurred because of this occasionally. HGC PC, and end of session comes along and. . . One girl ran all over town telling everybody bow Scientologists were all frauds and they were bums, and bow they were all trying to rape her and shoot her and so
 forth. And she actually blew the HGC, and wrote letters to everybody that night before they could finally get bold of her. And finally they trailed her down. And they heard the rumors going around, and they wondered what all this was about, so they traced them back down and they found this one girl. And they got her down, and the question was something like “Have you ever committed adultery?” And boy, it was just falling off the pin. It wasn’t an instant read. It was just—it was blowing up before the auditor could open his mouth, you know? Bang! Bang! And they got these fantastic withholds off of her, and that was it.

“Oh,” she said, “I guess I committed an awful series of overts,” and she hurriedly did a volte-vis and tried to straighten up everything she’d been doing.

But look at that. Isn’t that interesting? It just—one question, and I think it was an end-of-intensive question. And the auditor just foolishly said, “Well, it’s the end of the intensive, and that’s it.” Never flattened the question. I haven’t got that particular particularity, but I do know that the rest of it did happen. They had about ten people running all around trying to round up what all this was about. It was just an unflat Security Check question. And you just mustn’t leave questions unflat. Sure, take them up in the next session— you’ve got to sometimes, because one question can go five hours—has done so.

The fellow is the father of eight children. And you ask him the question “Have you ever spanked a child?” And he already feels awfully guilty about this, and he’s left his family, and this is a great point of disturbance with him, and the punishment of children is a very hot subject and so forth. And, man, you can just go on and on and on and on with this particular subject

He’s just getting off withholds and getting off withholds and getting off withholds. No one cares how long it takes to clear a question as long as the auditor is working on the clearance of a question, not getting off somebody else’s withholds through the PC, not trying to find out what the PC thought or heard or did about somebody else. We’re interested in the PC’s withholds. And as long as the auditor is getting actual withholds off the PC on instant reads, continue with the question.

The only way you can waste auditing time on the thing is to just wait there for the latent read and then take that latent read. Read occurs two and a half, three seconds after you’ve read the question. You read the question . . . fall. You say, “What was that?” You knucklehead!

You’re immediately going to get something like this: “Well, r just thought it was getting awfully late.” That’s true. That’s what it fell on. Didn’t have anything to do with the question. Or, “Oh well, yes. That made me think of a book I read once that I wasn’t supposed to read.”

Look, this is a question about stealing, see? “Have you ever stolen anything?” See? Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait—clang. “Well, what was that?” you say on the latent read.

“Oh, well, that was a book, I guess. I—I was thinking about this book.”

“What about this book?”

“Well, I read this book. Uh . . . well, it would . . . it talked about stealing.”

“Uh . . . well, what about that?”

Well, look, knucklehead, nothing about that, you see? I mean, there just isn’t anything. It doesn’t have anything to do with-it except the PC’s mind was out of gear for the moment. It’s like finding the gear wheels disengaged, you see? And you sit there and wait, and eventually the PC is going to think about something, isn’t he? And if you wait long enough, you’ll always get a reaction, even if it’s just on the ARC break of “Why are you so damn

 quiet?” - - 
 It’s factual, and it follows through. Serious withholds or withholds that should be gotten off the case, or that have anything to do with a case, and all the things that the person himself have done, are as a result of an instant read. And you must follow through on that particular basis.

All right. The next thing that you should pay attention to, besides clearing every question as it goes on down the line—the next thing you should pay attention to is selecting the type of Security Check. This is very important.

There is no sense in security checking somebody on something he has nothing to do with. That is rather frightful. Let’s say that we have a special Security Check on the subject of boilermakers, see? So we get this girl who is a milliner. And we run a Security Check on boilermakers on this milliner. And we say, “Well, she’s got clean hands because she didn’t have a single fall.” Well, that’s for sure.

Similarly, it is equally an error to take a generalized Security Check when you know very well your PC has a particularized professional or action area. If this PC is living by some particular framework of mores... Well, let’s say you’re security checking a person who professionally, this life, right now, is a bank teller. Well, all right. That might go along all right and so forth. But you just never seem to get around to writing up some additional questions to give him as a Security Check. And, of course, you’ll miss it every time. You just give him the generalized form of the check, and it only hits banks on about three questions.

Nov. you yourself have to be able to project your imagination and initiative with regard to that situation. You’d say, “What would be the withholds of a bank teller? What would they be?”

And, of course, it turns up at once what they would be. We’re liable to find something like this: he has to stand in back of this cage all the time and he hates people. And the word of the bank is that you must be pleasant to all the customers as you take in the money. And you must stand there with a smile on your face, you see, and take in the money and pay out the money. You just can’t figure out what’s wrong with this guy’s job, see? He’s unhappy and he isn’t doing well and nothing is going on and so we give him a general Security Check and it goes on and on, but it never takes into account what the man does in life. You get the idea? That is a boob. That is—comes under the classification of a boob.

We do put one together around what we think a bank teller might possibly have as withholds, and we find all sorts of very interesting things. He has held a deposit for twenty minutes so one of his customers, you see, wouldn’t be overdrawn. Interesting thing. Nothing very much, but it was something to him, because, man, are you supposed to have those deposits right into the drawer, and they’re supposed to pass down the endless belt and go into the machines and so forth, and so on.

And he actually has, on his own initiative, which is just—that’s pretty adventurous—has actually put his fist into the machinery of the bank, and he has held it for twenty minutes. And that is a withhold to him.

And then you find maybe he’s standing there with all kinds every time a customer comes up he has a game that he plays on—something on the order of an unkind thought. And he just has nothing but long streams of unkind thoughts. Every time somebody comes up—bzzzzzzz, got this long thing.

And you ask him the right question—you say, bank teller. Well, all right, bank teller—he must have customers. And you say, “Well, have you ever had an unkind thought about a bank customer?” And you’re liable to run into an avalanche.

And it’d just sit on that case till the end of time unless you yourself security checked against the reality of the PC. That you must always do.
 Whatever else you do with Security Checks, also security check against the reality of the PC. And that takes into account the moral codes by which he lives.

Now, you security check a Catholic sometime, or you security check a Baptist, and you’d have two different Security Checks. They’d be different. You security check an Afrikaner and security check a Zulu. You’re going to have two different Security Checks, man. And they’re almost vis-a-vis different Security Checks. Almost everything one thinks is right, the other thinks is wrong.

Who’s to say who’s right or who’s wrong? That hasn’t anything to do with it, which is why I gave you a little bit about the moral note at the beginning of it. The rights and wrongnesses of things are what groups have determined on in order to perpetuate survival. And that’s the rightnesses and wrongnesses of things. It’s what is survival to the group, not whether you are enforcing the mores of a group because you are so sinless. So you have to actually be able to security check both sides of the fence.

Now, security checking a cop would be quite different than security checking a criminal, of course. Security checking a soldier would be quite different than security checking a chambermaid. It would be different.

So if you omit specialized Security Checking and putting together a list of questions that concern the activities of the person—if you omit this entirely— you’ve boobed.

Another thing that you do, that you mustn’t do, is read a Security Check as a repetitive question. “Have you ever raped anybody? Good. Have you ever raped anybody? Go Have you ever raped anybody? Good Have you ever raped anybody? Goods Have you ever raped anybody? Good. Have you ever raped anybody? Good. Ever raped . . .?” Who are you auditing?

Your job is not to run a repetitive question at all, but to get off withholds. The auditing consists of getting off withholds.

Well, how do you get off withholds on the subject of rape? Well, some fellow says, “Well now, I just don’t want to answer any questions about that at all. No, I just don’t think you’d better be asking me any question. Let’s go on to the next one. We’ll still be friends. But we’d better go on to the next question.”

Well, how are you going to get around that? You can still ask the question “What have you got against rape?”

“Oh,” he’ll say, “well, it isn’t what I have against rape, it’s what other people have against rape.”

“Well, who has things against rape?”

“Well! My mother and my father and the public and the preacher and the parson and—and the state,” and so forth.

“Well, when did all these come down on you on the subject of rape?”

“Well, that was when I got in the newspapers on the subject.”

“Oh, when was that?”

That is what is known by pulling a withhold from the back door.

Now, the nest thing you must remember is that a withhold is generally a withhold of an overt act against the mores of the group. Now, actually, the enforcement of the mores of the group to make other people withhold is the overt act of withholds. You get the idea? You’re enforcing the mores of the group against another person to make them withhold. It’s the overt act of making people withhold, see? So you err whenever you don’t ask the make-guilty question.

You can take every Security Check you’ve got and simply add an additional question below each level on “Well, have you ever made anybody guilty of rape?”

You get this girl. She keeps telling you, “I have been aped. It isn’t that I
 am withholding raping somebody; I have been raped.” And the question is still hot.

And you say, “How in the name of common sense am I ever going to clear this question? How am l going to clear this question? How could I possibly clear the question? Because she just says—and of course she’s an offended member—no, she hasn’t raped anybody. She’s been raped.” Well, if you Q-and-A and just go off and say, “Well, we’re not security checking now. She has a bad engram, and vie might as well run this engram and find out all about all of this rape, and when she was raped and so forth,” are you still security checking or are you doing something else? You’re doing something else. You are auditing processes, you are running engrams, but you’re doing something else. You’re not security checking.

So you don’t stop security checking and start doing something else. You go on security checking. In other words, get off the withholds. But, of course, the overt act of a withhold is making somebody else withhold. And, of course, the moment you ask the question “Well, whom have you made guilty of rape?”

“Oh, well,” you get a nice big meter reaction, and “Him, of course, and him and him, and them and them and them, and them and them and them, and them and them,” and so forth.

“Well, have you made anybody else guilty of rape?”

“Yes. Well, them and them and them.”

“All right. Anybody else you made guilty of rape?”

“Uh . . . well, no.”

“Anybody else you made guilty of rape? What was that?”

“Well, it’s just—I’m just restimulated by the whole thing.”

“Well, have you—have you ever raped anybody?”

“Yes.”

In other words, the make-guilties all lay on top of an actual fact; She been raped all right, but Shakespeare’s statement “Methinks the lady protest too much” can be Hobson-Jobsoned over: “Methinks the PC protest too much.” And whenever the PC “protest too much,” you are looking at the boiling broth. And you might as well pick the pot up and look under it, because you’re going to find fire.

“You shouldn’t be asking me that question. It is insulting.” Oh, man. Why don’t they run up a signal halyard and By fifteen flags from it, you know; get blinking lights going in your face? Because that is the one question that is hot.

And of course a person who has fantastic motivators which just keep rocking and rocking and rocking... The person says “Well, I haven’t ever raped anybody; I have been raped. And that is why it is falling.”

No, remember your original question was “Have you ever raped anybody?” and you got an instant read. And the facts of the case are that the PC has, but the PC has tried to make other people guilty to such an extent that this lies on the top of it as the overt from the withhold motivator. You see? So there’s what you got.

So you ask the made-guilty questions any way you want to phrase it. ‘“Have you ever protested against . . . ?” “Have you ever accused . . . ?” Do you see? This type of questioning for each subject matter of a Security Check will be found to be very, very beneficial in freeing up a whole security question. Because, of course, it is making other people withhold, and when you get the overt off, then the PC gives up his withhold. It’s not actually, you see, an additional question. It is another way of asking the same question.

And then you come back and you always leave a Security Check question that has fell [fallen]—you always leave it with the same wording that you ask it in the first place that produced the fall. Never miss that. And that is usually, for your ease, the way it is written on the paper.
 You’ve been asking all sorts of things about rape. You said, “Well, have you ever made anybody guilty of rape? Have you ever . . . rape?” and so forth and 90 on. And “All right. Have you ever bad unkind thoughts about rapists? What have you done? Have you ever wished you were raped?” It doesn’t matter, whatever you were asking, you see? What produced the reaction—the reason you’re asking these questions—is “Have you ever been raped?” And the question you’re trying to clear is the one that produced the reaction. So you always repeat that question in the same wording to see if there’s any additional reaction before you leave it. And then you’re sure that that question is clean. No matter how many other variations you ask—and you should ask variations in order to get the thing cleaned up—you go back to the same question again before you leave it.

In other words, always go out by the same door you entered. Don’t go ducking out the side door. You’ve cleared up “Have they ever made anybody guilty of rape?” see? So you say, “Well, that’s it. We’ll go on to the next question.”

Oh, you missed, and you will leave a question hot if you do that.

All right. I’ve tried to cover here some of the elements of Security Checking. You can tailor up Security Checks any way you want to. You can always add to a Security Check. You can always add to a Security Check. You may never subtract from one. The reason why we lay that injunction down is that somebody who has a withhold on a subject who runs into it on a list will then not be tempted to avoid it.

And you would be fascinated at some of the Security Check questions being made up by people who have buttons on the subject. You never quite read as much of an avoidance as you get when you do that. You take somebody who’s sitting down here in Dartmoor Scrubs and have him write a Security Check up on the subject of criminals, and you get a three-question check

But you ask him to write—he has never been a soldier, and you ask him to write a Security Check question on the subject of soldiers, and he writes you eighteen pages. It’s quite interesting.

But people subtract from Security Checks where they have withholds. So you lay down this injunction; you say, “Always give the standard Security Check; add anything to it you please. Write up any special check you care to, as long as you give a standard check too.”

And then that keeps anybody from ever indulging in tacit consent and avoiding Question because “We know, of course, that this person has never stolen anything from the organization. Of course we know that, so we just won’t ask that question.” And sometimes a person does this in all innocence. It just seems to him like the question would not produce any particular result. That’s all there is to it. And then somebody asks him the question and it goes hotter than a pistol.

And he says, “But I never have! I just never have.” And you go tracing it down, and he has. He actually doesn’t remember having done so. But the meter knows.

And the one final injunction on this is please believe the instant read of the meter. A person who is telling you a lie, a person who has a withhold, gets an instant read on the question. And if they’re getting a read, a needle reaction, there is a withhold. And never buy anything else.

I have seen a slug of hours of duration with the needle continuing to react and the PC saying no and almost in tears over it, because the PC cannot remember, the PC cannot differentiate it, the PC cannot tell what that withhold is. It just doesn’t seem to elude anybody. And for the auditor to leave it is a serious error, because at the end of those hours, so help me Pete, it was found, and it dad clear.
 Now, I’ve had people with some pretty nasty withholds, on the meter. And I’ve never failed to have the meter react when the question was charged, 80 long as it was against the moral code of the person I was checking. That was the important point. And it’s quite interesting to watch it. It will not wear out. The question will not wear it out. That is what is fascinating. You can ask it, and ask it, and ask it, and ask it, and ask it, and ask it, and ask it—and it won’t wear out. It’ll just produce, if anything, a little faster reaction. Until the withhold is given up, the action occurs.

So don’t ever think your meter is busted. Make sure that your meter isn’t, before you start the session. That’s the time to make sure the meter is all right, not in the middle of the session, thinking, “Well, it’s just reacting. This rock slam must be because some dust has gotten into it.” No, the rock slam is coming from a withhold if you’re on a Security Check. Okay?

Audience: Right.

All right. Well, I hope this clarifies a few points for you OD the subject of Security Checking, because you’re going to find this is a very, very important subject. It’s going to be with us for a very, very long time. It’s one of the basic skills of the auditor and is the first thing that an auditor should know how to do very, very well. He should know how to security check well. Because you can do anything under the sun, moon and stars with a Security Check. You can do anything with it. And the better you are at handling the basics and fundamentals of Security Checks, then the better you will be at making them work.

Thank you.

WHAT IS A WITHHOLD

A lecture given on
20 February 1962

All right. This is Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. What’s the date?

Audience: 20th.

Thankyou. What’s the month?

Audience: February. - Oh, thank you. What’s the year?

 Audience: A.D. 12.  

A.D. 12. All right. All right. We will let you away with that. Thank you very much.

Okay. Now, I’m going to talk to you about withholds. And this is all about withholds, so a rather—relatively brief lecture. I have now found the common denominator of withholds. You didn’t get an opportunity to see it in today’s demonstration, but that doesn’t make any difference to that.

What is a withhold? A withhold is something that a person believes that if it is revealed, it will endanger their self-preservation. In other words, a withhold is something that endangers the self-preservation of the PC. And that is a very important definition. It’s taken me a very long time to get that definition. It gives us a new line for 3D Criss Cross, although this is not about 3D Criss Cross.

And it, worked back and forth, is an absolute killer, because this is the reason whole track is occluded. This is where your whole-track memory went. And this is the button on which it is sitting.

So this is a very important discovery. Therefore, we would consider that that person who had very little whole-track recall would consider themselves in a very dangerous position.

In other words, you’ve got a gradient here. The less whole-track recall, the more the person considers they are in danger, and the less likely you are to get a withhold off of them. The more fantastic the whole-track recall, the same thing. We are dodging here, somehow or another, with that.

Now, that’s quite important to you, because it gives you and gives me ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha—the exact reason . . .

This is why you get off such as I am now going to say, and call them withholds. These are actual student withholds.

“I went outside and looked at the sky and felt strange.” And an auditor bought it as a withhold and worked it over.

“I had a picture of my mother’s bedroom, and I don’t know why.” That is a withhold.

“I spoke crossly to an instructor.” “George and Bill told me that they had heard that Agnes . . .” And that is a withhold. Why is that a withhold?

All right. Let’s start with the first one first. Of course it’s safest to get off other people’s withholds. These are all safe withholds. They are so safe. And that is all students tend to get off on each other, is safe withholds. I’m sorry to send that arrow so deeply. They get off safe withholds. If they reveal these things, it’d be perfectly all right to reveal them, because it’s perfectly safe to reveal.

Now, why do we get into a tacit consent of this particular kind? Very interesting why we do: overts on other people’s withholds. We take somebody’s withhold and we yap-yap at them, and we trip them up with it, and we make them guilty with it and we sort of punish them a little bit for having gotten off a withhold—we yip-yap on the subject. And after that, we are a little bit afraid to get off a withhold of ourself, because we have an overt against the other person’s withhold, so therefore, we don’t consider it safe to get off a withhold. Do you see what the rationale of the overt is? We have an overt on other people getting off withholds, so we don’t get off withholds, you see? Because it isn’t safe to get off a withhold.

Now, of course, the more unsafe you make it to get off a withhold, the battier it all becomes, until you get a civilization like this one.

Now, the one thing by which the communist profits in Australia and Suid-Afrika are the laws against perversion. The state, of all means, is regulating how you are going to perform the sexual act. I think that’s very interesting. I've seldom seen any police officers in my bedroom. And I’m afraid if I did they’d have short shrift. 

Of course, I have had the people the police officers are supposed to restrain trying to crawl into my bedroom windows, and a few things like that, you know, but that, of course, they wouldn’t be interested in.

Now, what are they doing? They’re just trying to invent some new withholds, aren’t they? I think that’s fascinating, because the communist uses blackmail of this particular kind as a means of controlling heads of state.

In other words, if the state itself lends its weight to punishment of withholds, see, it has just laid itself out to be crazy. Because now, anybody in the state can be blackmailed so as to overthrow the state, because the state will punish the overthrow or the withhold. Do you understand this? Or any part of this?

Audience: Yeah.

All right. Now, there it is on the third dynamic. The state makes it unsafe for anybody to confess to anything. So everybody is withholding from the state. What happens if you withhold from the state, or the state misses withholds on you? Of course, you begin to hate the state, and that is the downfall of nationalism.

Of course, this may be very fortunate. But nevertheless, they have sown the seeds of their own destruction by the number of great laws which arise on how a person shouldn’t get off withholds.

Let’s apply that to an auditing session. The auditor upsets the PC or tries to make the PC guilty every time the PC gets off a withhold. Therefore, the auditor is making it unsafe for the PC to get off a withhold. All right. Or the auditor trains the PC not to get off unsafe withholds. The auditor then trains the PC to get off only safe withholds. And we read on an auditor’s report, “I went out at night and looked at the sky and felt strange.” And that is a withhold. Great day in the morning. That’s a safe withhold, isn’t it?

Well, of course, the funny part of it is, there it is. It’s not a withhold. It’s not a withhold at all.
 So you can actually get into a games condition with your PC by punishing the PC for his withholds. You can actually get into a games condition where the PC will only try to get off safe withholds. And there you go.

Now, if a PC isn’t giving me withholds, I’m afraid that I would become persuasive. A withhold is something that, if revealed, would be prejudicial to his survival.

Now, naturally, his individuation comes from his withholds. This hyper individuation of the PC, this only-oneness, this withdrawal into only self—all of that—and withdrawal out of groups, and withdrawal here and there and so forth, all of these things stem exclusively, and only and entirely from, of course, withholds which, if gotten off, the person believes would injure their survival.

Now, the funny part of it is, is this is not true. The person gets an aberrated idea of what would injure his survival if be got it off, don’t you see? And it’s this aberrated idea of what they dare get off that brings about the condition of aberration. I think that possibly you’ve got one, two, or three apiece—some kind of an average like that—that if you revealed it h the wrong quarter, it’s factual that somebody would be likely to take action. See, if the state of New South Guinea, or something of this sort, found out about this, well—huh!—might be a poor show.

You’ve all got some that were factual. There are some factual ones, see? Some real ones. You get those real buried, and they get very encysted. And the other aberrated idea builds up on those. And we get a build-up of that.

Now, the punishment of our parents, of course, we feel offhand that—this comes from past life; 3D Criss Cross gets these areas cleaned up—but when we started this life, we already-had the idea that if we disclosed certain things to our parents, or we did certain things, or we didn’t withhold mean words and so forth from our fathers or something like that, we’d find ourselves suddenly without food, clothing and shelter. In other words, we get this exaggerated idea. well, it’s built on our past-life structure. But that’s a bad enough basis.

Now, we take off from there, and we move into areas and then do commit something which, if revealed, would be very upsetting, or would have been very upsetting. And then other little things start piling up on the top of that, and so on. And we get up to a point where we become quite aberrated, quite individuated, and we get so we can’t even communicate with parts of our body.

The result of all this, naturally, is a feeling of high antisocialness.

Somebody comes close to these withholds, and we believe implicitly, you see, that if we got off this withhold, naturally we could just see the police running in. My God, the sirens are going in all directions, you see, and police by the squad coming bursting in the front door, probably with battering rams, you know? And they got handcuffs, and they’re all ready to put them on you, you know, and drag you off. And naturally the cell they’re going to drag you to is not any of the modern jails, you know, which just dramatize withholds; it’s probably one of the old-time dungeons, you know, where they bury you up to the neck in water and leave you there for forty years or something like this, you see? You get an aberrated idea of the punishment in a jail, and this all of a sudden rekindles, you know? The auditor gets close to one of these things, and this idea, ooooooh! you know. Oooo-oooooo-ooooo-ooo, you know? At any minute this horrible series of circumstances are going to occur, and naturally we consider the auditor dangerous.

No, listen, the auditor is only dangerous if he doesn’t pull the withhold. And that is a recurring phrase that is starting to happen here in the school. There are certain auditors that we designate as dangerous auditors.

Why are they dangerous? Because they will only tick and not pull a withhold. And we call those people dangerous auditors. Why? Their PC’s are going to be mad at them, they are themselves going to goof up and get lots of loses one way or the other, and they’re going to always be involved in ARC breaks of some kind or another, they’re going to have people going around gossiping about how bad Central Organizations are, and how bad they are, and how bad everything else is and so forth. And they are dangerous.

But from the PC’s viewpoint, the-person becomes dangerous the moment they might find out whatever this thing is, you see? The auditor appears for a moment dangerous. The auditor might find out. And the PC gets ARC breaky, however, only when the auditor fails to find out. The auditor has to go the whole way. And an auditor who won’t go the whole way, an auditor who will only get off safe withholds off of a PC is dangerous. And that is today’s adjudication on whether a person can audit or not: Are they a safe auditor or a dangerous auditor?

Oddly enough, it’s a complete reversal. The auditor who gets off safe withholds is dangerous. And the auditor who will get off unsafe withholds is safe. You understand that?

Now, you’ve got to bust through any feeling you have on this and look at this square in the teeth and follow it through, because actually, all of your activities as an auditor are totally, 100 percent, based on this one little fact. It all cones down to this: An auditor who will not pull dangerous withholds Tom a PC is a dangerous auditor.

You’re going to have an ARC-breaky PC, your PC is going to be upset with you. There are only two or three ways you could possibly mess it up, but how could you fail to do this?  

One, you could fail to use an E-Meter. You could fail to make an E-Meter play any tune that was-ever written by Bach, Beethoven and Brahms, you see? You could just fail to make an E-Meter talk. In other words, you look at the thing and the needle falls off the pin, and so forth, and there it is, and the parts are all collapsing and so forth, and we say, “Well, that needle, that’s null. Ha-ha. That’s a null needle. Ha-ha.”

Hm. God, man. Well, you don’t have to clean it up in one session, but you have to make sure that you’ve got another session.

All right. But you go a whole intensive, and you never pull any of these things, and you never ask for missed withholds, and you never try to inquire any deeper into any of these things, and that PC blows up in your face.

Every ARC break you ever got off of a PC was due to missed withholds. Although missed withholds is brand-new as a principle, it’s been functioning this whole time. And every time you fail to get off a withhold—you missed a withhold on the PC, you ticked it—you had an ARC break. That accounts for every ARC break you have ever had with a PC, that accounts for every PC who never wanted to be audited again by you, that accounts for all of your own difficulties with PC’s, right there in one fell swoop.

Now, you could accomplish it by not operating with an E-Meter. You could accomplish it by a very unreal or nasty auditing approach. Every time the PC said something, you say, “Nyaaaaa.” You know, something like this. You could accomplish it by just having your technology all backwards and shuffled into another deck. You could accomplish it by just poor auditing. But in the final analysis, poor auditing only exists if a person is determined that they’re never going to help a PC by getting off any nasty withholds. They’re going to be nice to PC’s and they’re only going to get off safe withholds.

You almost have to use sjamboks and clubs on some auditors. I’m not kidding you. My method on the thing is just to stampede the auditor on the subject; there’s more than one here who’s already been stampeded by me straight at the subject. You know?

The only thing you should really worry about is when I give up on you. I’ve done that, too; just quit, you know? And then you get very nice auditor reports. You get an initial or something like that. I just won’t do anything more about it. Why? I know you won’t. But that doesn’t include very many, and the other one is you start missing withholds . . .

PC goals and gains: “Well, l didn’t make any goals and I didn’t make any gains” and so forth. Well, it might as well have been printed in letters of fire’ “Auditor has missed withholds on this PC. Auditor did not clean up things on this PC. Auditor read the E-Meter upside down.” Something wild went on here. That’s all. I mean, because frankly I have to tell you this. But I’ve got you in a box right now with Prepchecking. You’re taped and targeted.

The auditor who cannot get a result with Prepchecking will not audit. Uuuhhrrr! It’s been weaving closer and closer to this point, see? We’ve been converging on this point. Technology has been getting better and better and better and better, and here we sit looking at Prepchecking. Well, Prepchecking gets a little better. There was a little change the other day in 3D Criss Cross.

As soon as I found out that this applied to 3D Criss Cross, I realized that you can’t let a PC cross out anything on a list. That’s you, not me—because the PC says, “That’s pretty dangerous. Let’s see, that’s pretty dangerous. Let’s see, that’s pretty dangerous. And I think this . . . this item, I think that’s awfully dangerous. I think we ought to have that off the list, and that off the list, and that off the list,” and we just cross the whole list off. It’s all too dangerous. And then you have missed an item, which actually amounts to a missed withhold, and so the person gets upset with 3D Criss Cross.

So we can’t allow the PC, once he has- put it on the list, after we’ve blackjacked him, tricked and hoodwinked him into getting it on to the list, we can’t let the PC take it off, even though that makes more work on differentiation’s. I found this is the case I find PC’s will take live items off the list if you don’t watch them. So, there it is. 

So some of your lists are disappearing into smoke, and some of your items are being crossed oft because your PC has misgivings upon the safety with which they can be revealed, since all of these items went out of sight, to some degree or another, because it was very unsafe at sometime or another to reveal them.

I’m looking at somebody right now that was going around with a very, very hot terminal tucked under her arm in a family who believed implicitly that the exact reverse of this terminal was a way of life and how to be closer to God.

And this PC just had to withhold this one like mad. And of course the whole—more the PC withheld it and so forth, why, the hotter it got. This would have been heresy. It’s like the son of a priest, you know; he wouldn’t believe in God. (Nobody gets that joke. Boy, you’re slow today. You’re very slow today. Wake up.) The son of a priest, and he has a terminal called “atheist.” See? That would be very upsetting, very upsetting. He’d have withholds. So would the priest.

But anyway . . . Well, let’s take an example. Well, let’s just call it out of thin air “embezzler,” or something like that, you see? And this fellow was born in a banking family where integrity is all, you see? And he hears from his father, and he hears from his mother, and he hears from his brothers and sisters in the business and so forth, and he’s got a hot terminal. He’s been one of the best embezzlers that the country has ever had, don’t you see? Something like that.

And here he has to live in this atmosphere with this terminal. Hot, you know! So all the time he’s pulling this terminal back. (I’m not saying that’s the terminal but . . .) You get the idea? That’s a withhold! Man, would it be unsafe to be that embezzler. Right? And he might dramatize it at any moment. And so he fights it and he fights it and he fights it, and then one night he goes into the bank vault and he cleans out the whole thing and goes over the hill. See, the wrong time, wrong place, wrong terminal, see, for his environment.

And when these things get badly restimulated and so forth, why, they’ve had it.

All right. Now some auditor is auditing him, see, and we get down to this terminal. And, “Who or what would enforce an outflow from others?” see?

And he puts down “An embezzler.”

And he goes down the line, and the auditor goes down, and he had a little ARC break with the auditor, something of this sort. The auditor looked at him crosswise, or didn’t acknowledge him just right—and it’s not really an ARC break; it was just that. And he clicks on that other one, you see? “You know this . . . I don’t . . .”—auditor has already missed a withhold on him, and so forth—and he says, “I . . . I don’t know.” He . . .

We’re differentiating the list, and we get down to “embezzler,” and we . . . He thinks we better cross that off, so he says, “Well, it . . . it really wouldn’t enforce an outflow. Cross . . . cross that off the list.”

Gives him a second thought, and we mustn’t let the PC have that second thought. So there’s that little change in 3D Criss Cross. You see why it is?

All right. Now let’s take up Prepchecking. These two things, you see, suddenly go hand in glove. In other words, we have one straight line. We have Prepchecking as a basic for this lifetime that keeps the PC in session, and then we have its extension, 3D Criss Cross, and both of them are devoted to the same thing of letting the guy stand in the sun. They’re both devoted to the same thing, you see? Getting him over all of his oddball notions about how dangerous it would be to reveal the fact that he had a crooked left ear. Nothing to it. I mean, he looks at this after a while and laughs. But he isn’t laughing at the time you start auditing him.

You say, “All right, now. Okay. Now, what about that activity there that was going on in Tacoma?”

“(sigh) Now, let’s see. If I think of something else, or if I can get the auditor thinking or talking about something else. . .” You know, this is all reactive, you know? So let’s move it all over onto some other perimeter. Then he says, Well, it has to do actually with uh . . . Mexico City.” In other words, he’s trying to throw red herrings. He can get into a point of reactively regretting having mentioned it. And you’ll see him pass through that little band of regretting he brought it up in the first place.

Now, if the auditing is bad, he does this often. If the auditing is good, he only does it once in a while. It is always present, no matter how good the auditing is.

“I’m kind of sorry I brought this up. Now what is going to happen to me?” Of course, all the time he’s being sorry he brought it up, you’re just crossing into the actual zone and area. You actually have tremendous unknowns left on the whole subject. And the PC does not know much, and a great deal, about this. That’s what the difficulty is. In other words, he still has tremendous unknowns.

Now, in Prepchecking, also, there’s been a little discovery here about when the PC equivocates, you know you’re looking at the package. When he starts to explain. Watch when the PC starts to explain. At that moment add a What, One sub-three, or whatever it’s coming up this time. And let’s find out what this little hot subject is he’s going over right this minute. He’s explaining.

Now, there’s a rule. There’s a rule about this, about asking What questions. And this isn’t really about What questions, but I’ll just show you what this is.

The first rule is: When the PC gives you a motivator, you know you’re on hot ground; and so you always ask a What question that’s rather overt.

Says, “Well, my mother beat me every day.”

My What question, I’m afraid, at the moment is “What have you done to your mother?” l would not even monkey with this motivator, see? I wouldn’t fool with it at all.

Now, the next gradient up, that would be the most certain ground to mine. Motivator, motivator, motivator—man, that just takes the What question and practically writes it in legible script in front of your face, you see?

Your next one up the line from that is the person is critical. The person is being critical of somebody. Well, the criticalness—you can go on and pull criticism forever without getting anyplace. You want to know what he did, did, did, did, did, done, done, done, done, action, action, action. There must be action back of that criticism. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have it, see? So, criticism is a sure indicator of an overt.

Now let’s take the milder form of it, which is explaining why it happened. The PC starts explaining, I don’t let the PC explain very long without giving him a new One sub-something-or-other on the What question. I give him a new What question to clean up.

PC starts explaining and says, “Well, actually, the truth of the matter was that I was on the ferryboat. I hadn’t uh . . . uh . . . I hadn’t actually uh . . . meant to be on the ferryboat, you understand, but I was coming down from the taxi rank, and I just saw the ferryboat there . . .”

I’m liable to cut him off at that moment, on whatever we were tallying about, and ask a little more pinched-in-close What “What were you doing?” you know? Something like this - 

And he says, “Well, oh-oh. Oh, that!” And it alerts him.

So you have these various indicators. They make a gradient. PC gives you a motivator; oh well, that’s an absolute certain indicator, and you must pull the overt straight-away, just convert the thing into an overt without any slightest . . .

Person says, “Well, my . . . just my mother beat me every day, just on and on and on. And beat me every day and so forth.”

It’s just a lead-pipe cinch. “What have you done to your mother?” I mean, it might as well appear—be printed—on the auditor form, you know? I mean, it’d be that inevitable.

Your nest one is criticism, criticism, criticism. Well, there’s a real overt back of this, and so forth.

Now, we’re not going to dignify getting off other people’s withholds by even classifying it. An auditor who would do that, oh, man. That’s very safe, but it’s so safe that they’re not withholds. They’re not his withholds. What are you doing monkeying with somebody else’s withholds? They’re not this PC’s actions. Perfectly safe to reveal other people’s withholds, isn’t it? Or it might be, unless they find out about it.

Then your area of explanation. And then there is the actual withhold. Now, of course, the actual withhold: the person says, “Well, I . . . I used to stand down OD the Battery and . . . uh bung paving stones through the windshields of cars ‘ see? And you’ve got your tailor-made What question standing right in front of your face, because it’s not “What about bunking paving stones through windshields of cars on the Battery on July first, nineteen hundred and sixty-two?” or something like this, you see? That’s not the question. The question is, “What about damaging cars?” or something. But there’s your What question. It’s tailor-made because it’s the withhold.

Now let’s drop downstairs a little bit, and we find the PC is explaining something. So we get the What question out of the bulk of his explanation.

He’s saying, “Well, I actually . . . I actually would never . . . never really liked . . . liked uh . . . liked my wife, and I really never liked her, and uh . . . so forth. And this was easy to understand. I of course was . . . came home late and all that sort of thing, but she never kept herself up, and she never really did anything for me around the house. And she never really paid much atten . . .”

Actually, he hasn’t given a motivator, you know, he hasn’t given an overt. It’s just an explanation of how it was all messy. And you could just cut him short on his explanation, get your new What.

All right. So next indicator is the PC is being very critical about something or other. He’s being very critical of you, the auditor. That’s a very special case. If he’s being critical of you, the auditor, you have missed a withhold, and you better find out what it is. What should you have found out about? “When did you think I was a fool?” Anything that you could possibly mention that would throw a missed withhold into view—that would be the stage at which you pulled this particular one. But it’s the criticism. You want to find out what has been done.

The missed withhold underlies all of these things, by the way. But you can find an actual doingness at the point of criticism. He’s saying, “Well, natter, natter, natter, and actually I always thought . . . always thought that he wore the wrong color ties. And uh . . . that was why I didn’t like him,” or something of the sort, and so on. Well, he’s done something to that person or done something to a person like that. So your What question is tailor-made out of that. 

And then there is: your fundamental fundamental is motivator. Man, red Rag! Let’s just find out what he’s done to the source of that motivator or the type of beingness of that motivator. Just overtly find out what he’s done. In other words, you’re getting off overts and so on.

Now, if you look at this as a scale, you will find out that the withhold is measured by the degree of danger—the only reason I’m giving you this scale; I’m not talking about how you ask What questions—the degree of danger the PC conceives to be present on the subject of getting off the withhold.

All right. If the PC doesn’t think it’s very dangerous, they give it to you directly and straight. If the PC thinks it’s a little bit dangerous, they explain around the fringes of where it might lie. If the PC thinks it’s rather confoundedly dangerous—it’s getting just a little bit grim, maybe on the jail borderline on that chain—the PC will criticize. See, criticism enters.

And if it is so dangerous that the PC believes—you understand I’m saying PC “believes”; I’m not saying it’s factual—the PC is right up to the point where, with a jingle jangle the patrol wagon arrives, the officers pick up the battering ram, they knock down the front door, they come crashing in with the handcuffs and leg irons, you see, and drag him screaming off, towed back of the Black Maria, you see? Something like this. And they can see this is going to happen if that withhold is missing; they give you the motivator. They always give you a motivator. Flat, flat, total motivator—a hundred percent.

Now, how do you use this? Well, it gives you the gradient scale and indexes of all cases. A case is not as bad off as he is crazy. A case is not as bad off as he is aberrated. A case is not as bad off as anything, except how dangerous he considers it would be if he revealed himself.

And so you have from the top to the bottom, all cases on that gradient, just like you have the What questions and the degree of the withhold and the safety on that gradient, so you have all cases on that gradient. And the person who will die before he will reveal himself is also on that scale.

So you have them, from the case that you could audit to Clear in twenty-five hours. See, bang! You sneeze, the person is Clear. Well, this person has not had any great idea that it’d be dangerous to tell people things. That’s the index of that case.
 
All right. Now, the person who went 150 hours to a Routine-3 kind of Clear, well, that person doesn’t have very much he considers is—be all right. Pretty easy.

Now we have the case that we went two hundred hours on only finding a goal and terminal. Well, ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha, that case has got quite a little hatfull. There is a nice little hatfull of stuff that if the individual revealed any part of that, he thinks, he believes, that hmmm it would be . . . well, it’d be rough. It would be pretty rough. He’d probably lose his family, and he’d lose this and that, you see?

And now you take the person who went five hundred hours with no goal and no terminal and no gain, and that sort of thing. Now, we know darn well this person has [is] moving up into the perimeter of the police breaking in the front door, if it were learned about this person, see?

And now we take the case that actually goes to the spinbin rather than reveal things. Well, man, that’s in extremis. Because insanity is the last protest against punishment. See, “I cannot feel your punishment. I do not even know about it. I’m not even a rational being. You’ve driven me out of my mind.” You see, that’s a total motivator on the subject of punishment.

So, where we go. Then you’ve got your whole thing. It’s just length of time in auditing. Your length of time in auditing is indexed by the danger the individual believes would be present if he revealed certain things. And danger to reveal is the direct index of length of time in auditing. There it is. Want to know how long it takes to clear somebody? Well, how dangerous does this person consider it would be to reveal certain things.

Now, how could you cut down this length of time in auditing? Well, I’ve given you the answer. Don’t pull safe withholds. Just move in and pull actual withholds. Don’t fool around with it. And use Prepchecking. And you’ve got that, all right. Now, that gets this lifetime’s danger out of the way.

And I’ve even given you a new type of line and a slight change in 3D Criss Cross that does not permit the person to escape once you’ve got the item on the list. And the type of line is—the line for 3D Criss Cross, of course is “What identity would it be unsafe for you to reveal?” or some such wording. See? And they will blow into view. And “What identity would it be safe for you to reveal?” of course, could be a relief line, which would just be nonsense. But it would sort of balance the thing off and throw the other one into view; in other words, just be a trick line.

In other words, you could drag these things out, and you know now what the PC is doing, so it becomes relatively simple. That is what the PC is doing. While he is there sitting in front of you, he would like to reveal himself. He would like to reveal this, and he would like to get out of it, but he does not know how to get out of it. And the person is always hoping that somebody will come along and give him a shot in the gluteus maximus with some magic fluid by which he will not have to reveal a thing and become totally Clear.

And any time anybody has ever proposed that to me, why, I've had an instinct on the subject. Now I know why! I should go back through the files and find out who’s proposed it, because we would have an index of some of our roughest cases. It’d be the person who wants to be cleared without revealing anything.

Now, the people who get spinny in processing, you must be falling right over something.

Well now, Prepchecking will get it for you. There is no contest about it. This is a very easy, easy activity, because a person moves right up into it. But the basic Prepcheck question that would get them all would of course be one of these “unsafe to reveal” questions.

Your Zero: “Have you ever done anything that might have been unsafe to mention?” See, that would be your Zero. “Is there anything you’ve ever done that would be unsafe to you if you told about it?” ”If you reveal certain things about yourself, would it be unsafe to you?” Some such Zero, don’t you see? Doesn’t matter how it expresses to the PC. Then you get your What off of what the PC said. Then you’d mine that down, you’d strip the whole bank. Interesting.

“Safe to reveal.” This is the index on it.

Now, you must figure it’s awful safe to show up with a MEST body, a meat body, you see; and then you get the idea that it’s unsafe, so you begin to take it down. That must be what old age is. That must be the only thing old age is. So take heart, girls.

Now, you just look at this, as the idea of apparency, appearances, disappearances, being there, not being there, well, it all passes over into the field of fact. Offering the fact is dangerous. Withholding the fact is apparently not dangerous. All it does is pull the person to pieces. That’s the trick of the Body Builder. That is the basic trick of this universe. And the basic trick of this universe is, if you withhold it, it won’t hurt you any. And of course, that is a stinking lie.

So they get everybody to withhold things. They invent codes of law and that sort of thing, and these things are all supposed to get everybody to withhold a thing, and then the thetan gets to packing up mass and occupying less space. And he occupies less space and less space, and he can permeate less and less things, and here he goes. He’s got it made. Yeah. But who’s got it made?

Of course, that is a game nobody wins. Scientology is the only game where everybody wins.  

Now, there is your index of withholds. There is your. . . what they’re about. That is why your PC won’t talk to you. That is why your PC reveals what he reveals. That’s why you sometimes look very silly writing down, “Well, the PC has a withhold that the PC has a bent toe,” and why, after you’ve prepchecked a bent toe for five or six sessions, there has been no gain on the part of the PC.

You see? You see how this might work? Does this straighten out anything for you?

Audience: Hm-mm.

Now, you could use this principle, but if I give it to you, you’ll work it to death, instead of using it as a Zero, you can flip over, and you mustn’t work this to death.

“Who would it have been dangerous to have revealed that to?” could be a version of the Who question. But you get on some hot line, and the person is talking about having robbed every restaurant in the entirety of New York—and he’s robbed every restaurant in New York practically, and so forth, and he just keeps going on and on and you don’t seem to clean this up—the W-ho that will clean it up is “Who wouldn’t it have been safe to have told about that,” and “Who didn’t find out about it?”

And of course, he’d say, “Well, the restaurateurs”—and he’s been saying “the restaurateurs” all this time and all of a sudden he looks at you, and he says, “Well, all right. The police.”

“All right. When did they fail to find out about it?” And we get the rest of the chain, and it blows. Do you see that?

Now, there is your gradient of the value of the withhold to the PC. And I call very strictly to your attention that I have said the PC “believes” it would be unsafe. And that is what is most interesting: “believes” it would be unsafe.

And of course, these things . . . I think the crime you committed—I think they probably run out of witnesses. I don’t think the government would spend a cent trying to dig up enough witnesses, or even find the records, in order to prosecute you and so forth, particularly if it was a real crime. The government is much more interested in minor crimes than real crimes.

The essence of the situation, however, is one little thing like that gets stacked up on other little things, and something else gets stacked up on that, and the next thing you know a person believes it’s very dangerous to put his nose out-of-doors. Can’t! Can’t go outside. And there’s your “can’t go outside” thing. God-awful things are liable to happen to this person if they go outside; liable to be recognized as the person who committed the murder, only they kind of vaguely think maybe they have committed a murder, which is quite interesting .

You have very few backtrack things on this that are hot, but every case must have a few on it. You suddenly say, “Oh man, I bet they’re still waiting for me. I bet they’re still looking for me someplace or another,” and the PC is liable to have his hair almost stand on end for a moment when he hits one of these things. And then he suddenly “Well, that’s nonsense. Been a long time ago. Long, long time—I wonder if they are.”

But this equally applies to 3D Criss Cross and to Prepchecking, but is most salient in your use of Prepchecking. And there is where you should use it. And I won’t get nasty or mean with you, or anything. I will just forbid anybody to get off your withholds if I hear any more session being spent on “I went out in the evening and looked at the sky and felt strange.” I wouldn’t even try to make anything out of it, except that some PC had a hot area someplace and had just thrown me a great big floppy, squishy red herring. And I don’t like red herring, so I would let that one drop.

There are certain withholds you let go by. You just let them go by. You don’t do a thing with them. And there are certain withholds that you hang to till grim death until they are all revealed, and you’ll just have to learn which ones. And the index of it is, what is it the PC consider it safe to reveal? What does the PC consider it unsafe to reveal? And that unravels the whole problem for you.

Thank you.

MISSED WITHHOLDS

A lecture given on
22 May 1962

Thank you.

Lecture two. Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.

May the—what did you say it was? Twenty . . . ?

Audience: 22nd.

22nd. I get so mixed up on this planet’s time. I don’t know this planet’s time at all. AD. 12. English weather.

This is a lecture on the subject of missed withholds.

Now, there’s a long and involved bulletin on the subject which I haven’t got in my hand, but some of you may have.

And this has to do with several bulletins, amongst them HCO Bulletin of May the 24th, also HCO Bulletin of May the 21st, and HCO Bulletin of May the 22nd. Last two are relatively unimportant.

Now, you’re going round and round about this proposition of TRs and how you ask for this and that, and exactly how you do this. And this bulletin of May the 24th teaks about Q and A. And there has been a great deal of misunderstanding about Q and A, because there wasn’t a real hot communication on what Q and A was. See, there’s been a lot of talk about Q and A, but a real hot thing . . .

Now it sounds like, when you read this bulletin, that I knew what Q and A was all the time, you see? And I’m talking to you—it doesn’t sound this way, but you could take it that I was talking to you as “You dullard, why didn’t you know this?”

Well, the truth of the matter is, there is at least a third of this data— probably the most important third—was unknown. And I just recently discovered this thing. And the term Q and A fits in gorgeously if you interpret it as questioning the PC’s answer. So it really ought to be Q an A—no ‘d’ on the ‘and’. Question an answer.

Well, if you apply that principle, question an answer, throughout here, you get all three types. You get double questioning. Well, that’s the PC says something and—he gives you a reply to your question—and then you question his answer. . See? Well, of course, that’s no acknowledgment and that’s just a setup for an ARC break.

And Q and A also would be changing because the PC changes. In other words, you run a process on the PC and then the PC answers up this process, nicely and neatly, by changing, you see? And right in the middle of the change, because he’s changed, you change. In other words, you give the PC what he’s giving you, you see? But you again are questioning the fact that he’s changing. His response to the process is being questioned.

And then the nest thing is, following the PC’s instructions comes under this. Now you’ve got a total reversal of the whole thing, and because the PC obviously knows far more about his case than we do, or something of the sort, don’t you see, why, therefore it’s always best, you see, to do what he says. In other words, that Q and A hardly is the questioning of the PC. That is a Q and A of me, see? That’s questioning my answers to his case. That’s kind of stringing a longbow, but an amusing way to put it.

We got the answers. If you know them and you can apply them, why, you’ll get there. And if you keep finding holes in the line, why, we’ll find some more that we didn’t even know existed. But basically, an auditor must stay in control of the auditing session. There is no doubt about this.

Well, the way an auditor stays in control of the auditing session is to stay at cause over the session and put the PC at cause over his case. And if we don’t stay at cause over the session, the PC cannot stay at cause over his case. He goes to effect. Because, you see, we’re raising the PC’s causativeness by making the PC confront. And if we don’t make the PC confront, the PC will just obey his bank. And his bank says “Don’t confront.”

Now, a full cycle of action must exist with an auditing command—a full cycle of action. And you can’t have a muddy cycle of action.

Well, this puts a tremendous responsibility on the auditor to ask the right auditing question. You say, “What should I be running on you today?” You have asked a wrong question.  

You can ask wrong auditing questions. You can say, “Have you had a motivator lately?” And that is a wrong auditing question.

So there are two conditions which can exist here: is a wrong auditing question and a failure to let a cycle complete itself. You can do these two things, both of them quite deadly.

Wrong auditing question: “Have I missed a withhold on you?” Now, we didn’t know this was wrong a short time ago, but it is quite wrong because the PC can answer it with a motivator response. You’ve managed to dig that up for me. PC’s were never ambitious enough to do that for me. They just took the easy route and did what I want, but it was they found by experience it was easier to do that.

But answering with a motivator has happened in many cases. So you mustn’t ask a middle-rudiments or a rudiment-type question which permits the PC to give a motivator response, because the PC is then throwing the end rudiments out.

Now, you mustn’t throw your end rudiments out. This is the wrong auditing question. This is also part of the wrong auditing question. You mustn’t permit the PC to throw his end rudiments out. You’ve got to keep his end rudiments in. And if you look over the end rudiments, you will see there are several that can go out. And if any of those end rudiments go out, the PC will go out of session. So if you ask an auditing question which permits the PC to let his end rudiments go out, you cut your throat.

Now, let’s get the middle rudiments in by throwing the end rudiments out, and then we’ve got a nice dog’s breakfast.

Let’s say, “In this session have I missed a withhold on you?”

“Yes. My PC—Eve been sitting here thinking how mean my PC has been to me in the last few sessions.”

Oh, man, you’ve had it. You’re in for a Q and A. Now, if you keep the end rudiment from going out—this is the problem you’ve posed yourself—to keep the end rudiment from going out you’ve got to Q and A. You can’t permit the cycle to be finished. He just got through damaging his own PC!
 
Now, these two things have to be held in balance, don’t you see? This is a real crazy one. Bar asking a wrong auditing question you will inevitably throw yourself into a Q and A, because you’ve got to question the PC’s answer.

You say, “Has anybody been mean to you lately?”

And the PC says, “Oh, yes! yes! yes! Herbie’s been mean to me and Reg has been mean to me. All say my fellow students have been mean to me.”

(I’m not talking about any particular student.)

All right. You’ve just thrown the end rudiments wildly out.

Now, suppose you correct this: Supposing you ask some equivocal thing like “Have I missed a withhold on you?”

“Yes. I was sitting here realizing that Mike has a deep sadistic tendency.”

Well, you’ve had it here. Now what have you done? You see? You ask a question which was equivocal. The PC gives you an answer which throws the end rudiments out. Now, the only way you can correct this is with a Q and A. You can’t buy this answer.

This is the auditor’s dilemma that I am giving you here. You can’t buy this answer because you’ve thrown the end rudiment out. You would question the answer in any event, even if you said promptly, “In this session have you damaged anyone?” The PC would still realize that his answer had been questioned. See, the auditor’s dilemma. You ask a wrong question, you will Q-and-A every time.

So you’ve got to ask a type of question—well, I’m not giving you, now, words; I’ll give you the principle back of such wording. You must ask a type of question which makes a Q and A very unlikely. I will not use the word impossible.

Now, you can judge whether or not the wording of a middle rudiment or a Prepcheck question, or anything else you could judge whether or not a question you’re asking the PC is right just on that formula alone. Is it one which will lead to a possibility of having to question the PC’s answer? And if it is, then it is to greater or lesser degree a wrong question, because he’s going to give you a response which you then must question.

You’re going to have to question his answer. And then he’s going to feel like he’s not acknowledged. And then he’s going to feel like he can’t talk to you. And then he’s going to go out of session. And there goes all of your beginning ruds and all the end ruds.

Now, that’s where you should direct your consideration of what you are doing with the PC. You must not Q-and-A. To prevent Q and A, you must ask the right auditing question. What is a right auditing question? One that will produce an answer you do not have to challenge. That is the perfect auditing question: a question that will produce an Answer from the PC that does not have to be challenged or qualified in any way by the auditor, as you mustn’t question an answer.

Now, here’s a perfect Q and A, in case somebody came in late and doesn’t have a copy of the bulletin. Here’s a perfect Q and A:

We run into Joe. We say to Joe, “How are you, Joe?”

And Joe says, “Awful.”

And we say, “What’s wrong?”

Well, that’s very socially acceptable. You’ll hear it up and down the highroads and byways in every language including the Chinese and Scandinavian. Everybody does it. It’s social machinery. It would be unsympathetic of us not to do it.

We ask a question: We say, “Well, have you had a good day, Bill?” We meet Bill, you know?

And Bill says, “No”
 
Inevitably, we have to amplify the thing, see? So we say, “Well, what happened?”

That’s a Q and A. That questions the PC’s answer.

Correct. This is correct:

“How are you?”

“Awful.”

“Good.” (When you get an answer like that, it is much more polite to say “Thank you.”)

Do you know, the funny part of it is, even in social concourse the fellow will feel better if you handled it that way. He told you how he felt, so give him the cheery ack, man—the cheery ack.

All right. Now let’s take the auditing question. Now, here’s where auditors tie themselves not just into knots, but double carrick bends, bowlines on a bight and other unlikely cask hitches, and so forth.

We’re doing rudiments. We say, “Do you have a present time problem?”

“Yes.”

“Well, what is it?”

Flunk, flunk, flunk, flunk! He answered our question. So therefore there is something a little bit phony with the question. See, that question is not the perfect auditing question. See, because it isn’t perfect it leads us into a Q and A.

Now, the best question, of course, would [be] one which would require him to tell us. So you would have to add to it “and if so, tell me what it is.”

You don’t always run into this problem, but the proper non-Q-and-A response is “Do you have a present time problem?”

PC says, “Yes.”

You say, “Thank you. I will check it on the meter.”

So therefore, the slightly offbeat question leads us into an inevitability of a Q and A because we would be prompted to say, “Do you have a present time problem?”

“Yes.”

And the auditor would be prompted to say, “Yeah, well, what is it?”

Hey, wait a minute! The guy did answer your auditing question. Your auditing question is “Do you have a present time problem?”

You cut his comm. It’ll throw him out of session. You’ve thrown the remaining rudiments out, don’t you see?

The trick of keeping rudiments in is not throwing the others out while you’re getting one in. And in view of the fact that there are more you are not working than the one you are working, the probability of your doing this is great if you don’t know this rule about the perfect auditing question and what a Q and A is. You can throw these things out wildly if you don’t.

And auditing is, of course, what you get away with and you don’t run into this in extremis. Most times it goes off just fine.

You say, “Do you have a present time problem?”

And the fellow says, “Yes. I had a fight last night with my auditor.”

Your proper response to that is “Good” or “Thank you.”

The Q-and-A response would be “What about?” And that just throws the comm straight out the window, you see, because it’s an incomplete cycle, you have not bought the PC’s communication, the PC will go out of session and rudiments start shedding out of the session like a white dog when you’re wearing a blue suit. There you are. You’ve had it, don’t you see?

Now, auditors do these others, such as changing because the PC changes. An auditor who does this constantly after it’s been called to his attention just should be shot. I mean, there’s no other-cure for it. I see them keep it up, you know? Actually, it tokens tremendous impatience. That is all.
 
This auditor is so anxious to do something for this PC that he’s got to do it all in the next ten seconds. And therefore, he won’t even run the full bracket. See, he’ll do something like this (actually, he’s trying to help the PC like mad, usually): “Think of a problem you could confront. Think of a problem you could confront. Think . . . How are you getting along on that process? Think of a problem you could confront. Think of a pro—How—how are you getting along? Do you have problems now? You Clear yet? Oh well, we’ll have to do something else. Let’s see. Invent a problem. Invent a problem. That’s best. How are you doing? You Clear yet? Well, maybe we shouldn’t be running problems at all. Let’s—let’s get down to something more fundamental. You used to talk about your mother an awful lot. Let’s see. Now, what has your mother done to you? Thank you. What has your mother done to you? Thank you. What has your mother done to you? Thank you. What has your mother done to you? Thank you. We don’t seem to be getting anyplace here. What has your mother done to you? Uh . . . well, let’s skip that.”

Do you know auditors actually have done this? I’m not just joking something that has never existed. You see it less commonly that way. More commonly, they will change from session to session. They won’t Batten what they did in the last session because it’s much better, what they thought of today, you see?

So that type of thing, the auditor just simply needs training, but basically needs some confidence. This auditor will also go off into extraordinary solutions very easily because he doesn’t have any confidence in the ordinary doing anything, because he’s never done it.

And as far as following the PC’s instructions, again, you get a PC who is blasty, who is upset, who is misemotional and so forth, and a lot of auditors just back out of it. And then they’ll do what the PC wants them to do. And it just about kills the PC. That’s the usual source of that.

We’re not worrying about that right now, however. We’re worrying about this most basic and fundamental Q and A for which we do have an immediate and direct cure.

The first cure is always ask the right auditing question. The right auditing question is one which prohibits a Q and A.

There is no perfect right auditing question. You actually can get along with relatively sloppy ones like “Do you have a present time problem?” Nobody has ever run into this so seriously on present time problems—Yes,” the PC says.

But it’s a bad auditing question because it can be replied to so that you have to say, “Well, what is it?” Ha-ha. Of course, that’s a Q and A. The PC answered it, and now you pretend that the PC hasn’t answered it. But the PC did answer it. Well, the PC gets the idea that he hasn’t answered it, so there, if he hasn’t answered it—you don’t think he’s answered it—then he knows what position he’s in. He knows he’s not in session because the auditor didn’t hear him. So therefore he must be withholding, so therefore he must be a missed withhold. And if he’s a missed withhold, then the thing for him to be is mad at the auditor. Very logical. But you’ll find out that that is 100 percent just like that! The exact mental response of 100 percent of your PC’s, no matter whether they look nice about it or look happy about it or anything else that is the response of every PC who sits in front of you.

If you want to drive . . . take the mildest, best, goodest, most educated PC you ever had anything to do with—PC never really been in session, just sort of socially answers responses, you see, and tries to be nice about the whole thing, and you never really get a bite on his case and he’s always sitting there and very quiet, charming, nice, never makes any changes. You ever see this PC? PC exists.

Take this perfect PC who never has any changes and just start this racket on this PC: “Do you have a present time problem? Have you ever had a present time problem in your whole life? Yes, I know, but uh . . . yes.” You say, “Yes, I know. But have you ever had a problem in your whole life?”

The PC answers something. You say, “Well, but . . . no, look, look. Look, listen now. In your whole life have you ever had a problem?” see?

And the PC says, “Well, yes, I—I had appendicitis and—and so—so forth.”

And you say, “Uh . . . now, look, I’m talking to you. Do—have you, see? Ha-have you, you—right there, you know?—have you ever had a problem in your whole life? I—I want . . . uh I want you to tell me now.”

And the PC says, “Well, I did have . . . my back’s out and it gave me . . .”

“When are you going to tell me? Now, just own up to it—a problem.”

And listen, you keep up some kind of a racket like that—you could make it more flagrant than that—and do you know . . .

You think a PC is peculiar who screams. You think this is a certain type of PC. Well, I assure you that that is not a type of PC, that’s a type of auditor. Because you can drive that good PC—that perfectly educated PC—you can drive them absolutely into a screaming funk that you have just never heard the like of. You would just never dream that a human being could be that upset. And you can do it to every PC you audit.

And when this is done too much to a PC, when it’s done at the wrong moments, when processes are also changed on the PC too often, and when the PC is also giving auditing directions which have been accepted (and let’s composite the whole thing, you see) we get somebody—all you have to do is look like you haven’t received the question, and thereafter the guy will start screaming. Just look like you haven’t heard him. You know? Be looking at the window when he speaks. You were going to come in right afterwards and say, “Yeah. All right. Thank you.” You were going to do that, but you just paused for just a split second, and he saw that you were looking at the window; he’ll start screaming.

“Goddamn you! You ought to go back to the Academy. Jesus Christ, whoever the hell told you you were an auditor? For Christ’s sake!” That’s it.

In other words, you, the auditor, can create that state of mind You can create that situation much more easily than baking a birthday cake.

Now, I’m not talking now—because I myself a few times have been driven into “Christ almighty!” you know? I think poor Philip, one day—I only did once. He missed fifteen or twenty. And the nest thing you know, helloing like this because I had said a couple of very mean things, which of course I didn’t mean. But the guy had just—I’m not always a good PC or a bad PC, but just all of a sudden the no acknowledgment, the no acknowledgment, the no acceptance of the answer, something like that, and you sit there in amazement.

You sit back here. I got a good reality on it. And you sad “What the hell!” you know? You’re saying, “For Christ’s sakes, why don’t you get your mind on it!” you know? You sit back and look at yourself—”Did I say that? Huh? Was that me? Who was that? Did I hear some noise in here?” Because you’re in the irresponsibility, of course, of being a PC, and you just react.

I did it to a PC, almost with malice, one time, but actually not on purpose. And that was when I learned exactly what the mechanism of it was. I had to look at exactly what had been going on. And I analyzed it and then I turned around and I did it again and brought the same response, of course.

Now, I’ve taken other PC’s, and I can start up the same response. Then I analyze any situation where that is occurring and I find the same response. That is it, man. Of course, the PC will go into apathy, go into a complete funk.

Now, there is an extreme action of questioning the PC’s answer. That is the extreme response on the part of the PC to not receiving the PC’s answer, because of course the PC thinks he’s withholding.

And that’s the whole mechanism—his replies have been missed. So therefore he is a missed withhold. And he gets upset! Just as you will find missed withholds works on everybody, so this mechanism will upset any PC.

But now, look. Look. Now, listen to me very carefully. Do we have to produce the extreme state of screaming, of apathy, of making the PC ill, to have it in effect? I mean, is there anything short of the extreme state? Oh, yes. Yes. There is a twilight zone of in session and out of session caused by the almost not-responded-to answer, the occasionally not-acknowledged reply by the PC; this sort of thing causes a borderline of not being out of session totally and not being in session, but just being in a condition where all the rest of the rudiments keep going out all the time. Everything is sort of flying out, and you’re sort of keeping the PC in session, you know, just—ha, just by gripping the table edge with your fingernails, you know? It’s just barely keeping the PC in session

What’s the answer to it? Is don’t Q-and-A. The PC says something, acknowledge it. Well, how can you keep from Q-and-Aing? Always ask the right auditing question. Of course, that’s impossible to bat one thousand on the right auditing question—so therefore, make up your mind whether you’re occasionally going to accept some nonsense from the PC or drive the PC into an ARC break. And actually if you ask the wrong auditing question, you are honor bound to buy the nonsense. But what if the nonsense throws out the end rudiments? Then you’ve worsened the case. Then you have to get the end rudiments in. Now, we’ve got some kind of a chain reaction going.

You ask the wrong auditing question you cannot directly acknowledge the question because it isn’t the kind of answer that you want, or is a damaging answer to the PC, so this throws out the end rudiments. Therefore, you have to get the end rudiments in, in order to get this other rudiment in, and so forth. And then you ask this same question again, but of course the PC gives you the wrong response which throws it . . . Look at the chain reaction here. And that PC will not be in session.

That’s the only thing you can say about that—PC won’t be in session. PC will be half, three-quarters, out of session, all the time, all the time, all the time. Tone arm action is out and so forth. And then you have to become an absolute expert at putting middle rudiments in. Oh, you even develop systems sometimes to keep your middle rudiments in and you get very arduous. And it all stems back So the wrong auditing question in the first place, which forces you into a Q and A.

You say, “Do you have a present time problem?”

He says, “Yes.”

You say, “Well, what about?”

What’s this, you know? So you’ve already driven it a little bit up the wall, see?

The exact right response is “Do you have a present time problem?”

“Yes.”

“Thank you. I will check it on the meter.”

Now, for Christ’s sakes, if you will pardon my French, don’t ask him this again. See, if this is where we are going to get with this particular question, we had better ask a question which is far more intelligent, because there is an old, old datum that comes forward from 1950. And that is, you can ask an auditing question once or twice without restimulating the PC. You can always ask any process once or twice, even three times. But when you get up to three times, you’re on the border of . . . Now you’re got to flatten it, from there on, see? Do you see what I mean?
 So you can always ask a question, take the answer—it laid an egg. Well, let’s sort out what would be the proper question here, now, and ask the question, get the answer to that and acknowledge it. It will do the PC far less damage if we do it that way. Far, far less damage if we do it that way than if we shift in mid-flight and Q-and-A.

“Do you have a present time problem?”

“Yes.”

“Well,, what is it about?” Oh, God. We’ve had it now. We’ve done a Q and A. PC will go just that far out of session. Inevitably, although he looks still looks the same (you don’t see it, it doesn’t get written on his forehead in letters of fire), he has still done it. An invariable rule, because it busts up the comm formula and does a lot of other things.

All right. So how do we approach this problem? We ask a question. If it obviously is the wrong question to ask and doesn’t produce the answer, we back out of the same door we went in, gracefully, by completing the cycle of action always. You’re always safer to complete the cycle of action.

Now, there are several other things you could do. You can do an interim “I’m not asking you questions. I am trying to find out what the responses are on this meter,” like you have to do in Prepchecking. You say, “All right, now. You don’t have to answer any of these, but I’m going to ask you several little What questions about this thing and see what the best reaction we get now. What about stealing vehicles? What about killing girlfriends? What about whatever it is. Yeah, well, what about stealing vehicles? Thank you. I got the What question now. All right. Now, let’s go back to this incident which you just had there. Good.”

And we just prepcheck it. You see, there’s a fumble period. I suppose you couldn’t dignify it any more than call it a fumble period.

You ask a middle rudiment. Here’s an example:

“In this session have I missed a withhold on you?” Cheerily, cheerily, cheerily. See, very happy. Perfectly legitimate. You get away with it 89 percent of the time. Oh, more than that—you probably get away with it 95% percent of the time, you see? It’s those other few percent there. And you run into that one head-on, see?

“Yes. I’ve been sitting here thinking what a rotten auditor you are. And how mean all the instructors are to me.”

And now, of course, you say, “Thank you. I will check that on the meter. In this session have I missed a withhold on you?” Clank! Whew!

You see, right there you’ve had it, see? You know you’re walking through the valley of death. You’re walking down the street at sunset let me put it that way—with Black Bart in town. This is a deadly activity in which you are involved.

So you say, “All right. Thank you very much. Now, have I missed a withhold on you in this session?”

“Yes. I think you’re giving me a bunch of no-auditing. You know, I’ve had twenty auditors since I’ve been here, and you’re the rottenest of the lot.”

Damage, half-truth, untruth. See, we’re just compounding this felony, see, madly. So you say, “Good. Thank you. Have I missed a withhold—in this session have r missed a withhold on you?” How far can it go?

Well, you can not only take in all the end rudiments, you can also take in all the beginning rudiments. You can get them all out. See, that’s the auditor’s dilemma. Well, you’re asking the wrong auditing question. So it is much safer to do it this way.

Oh, yeah, inevitably you will use something like “In this session have I missed a withhold on you” for the excellent reason it lets him tell you the thinks and the other things. And you don’t want to prepcheck this guy and go back and find all the things he has done to you because he hasn’t done anything, really, in the session. He did something this morning that you missed in the beginning rudiments, and so forth, and et cetera, ad nauseam. Yeah, all those things are true.

But you’ll ask something like this, you see? And most of the time you get away with it. So you say, “In this session have I missed a withhold on you?”

“No.” Clank!

“Thank you. I will check that on the meter. In this session have I missed a withhold on you?” Clank! And what are we going to do? Well, you just enter a fishing or fumble period. That’s what you do.

I’ve been trying to work out this data to a something or other, and I have a package question which serves as a middle-rudiments. “in this session . . .” I won’t give you this package question. Don’t start visiting it down. But it’d be something like this: “In this session have you withheld, invalidated or suppressed any datum about listing, or anything about listing?” You understand?

I’m tallying about just giving an example of a package question. And you can name each one of these things as you go by, and you’ll get the fall, see? And you watch for the one that falls. That’s very smooth. Otherwise, you’re left in a fish-and-fumble period.

But I don’t care how perfect you make auditing, you’ll still have fish-and-fumble periods. You say, “Well, just a minute. Let me check this over on the meter. Withhold, invalidation, suppression, untruth, half-truth, impression, impress, damage, command, and wrong command, haven’t answered a command, meter. Meter. In this session have I failed to find out something you were doing about a meter?” Clang!

And he says, “Well, yes. That was excellent. Yeah. I’m sitting here fiddling the cans so that you—so you’d get the goal ‘to have more women’ because I always get such a bang out of running that kind of a stuff, you know?”

And you say, “Well, thank you. Thank you very much. I’ll check that on the meter. Good. In this session have you tried to influence the meter?” whatever it is. “That’s clean.”

In other words, there’s the fish-and-fumble period. You actually sort of run a little assessment. So you could have a package question in the middle rudiments which would run a nice assessment for you. But if it were too long, you’d get lost.

Now, if you’re going to have such a package question, remember you’re going to have to repeat it. So it had better be fairly standardized.

I’m telling you in this lecture how you figure these things out, rather than giving you a bunch of pat data, you understand?

Now, there will always be a fish-and-fumble period in Prepchecking as far as I can figure it out. Otherwise, for the sake of smoothness and gallantry, you’re throwing away efficiency. You’re just discarding the possibility of getting the right What question.

You sit there and look at Mr. Meter and you say, “Oh, let me test out a few questions here now. What about throwing baseball bats at cops? What about throwing things at cops? What about doing things to cops? That’s it, that’s it. What about doing things to cops? Now, you were just telling me about throwing a baseball bat at a cop. All right. When was that?” See, that’s a fish-and-fumble period.

Well, frankly, doing a list and nulling it is a fish-and-fumble period, isn’t it? Well, there’s always these areas in auditing when you’re trying to find something out. And the mark of a good auditor is that he goes ahead and finds these things out without throwing the rudiments wildly out.

See, now you could p at this in such a way as to throw them wildly out. I’ll give you an idea: “Well, this listing isn’t going very well here, uh . . . because I don’t think you’ve given me very many right items for this particular list. They don’t seem to really be the kind of item that I would expect on this list. So, this is sort of uh . . . of . . . uh . . . crude here, and uh . . . although we’ve listed twelve hundred and eighty-five items on this particular list and we only have two items on these other three lists, uh . . . I—I think . . . I think what rd better do is uh . . . figure out some better wording for the goal we found, and uh . . . see whether or not we can’t get this thing more adequately worded, because this thing doesn’t show a sign of blowing. And we have twelve hundred and fifty items, you see, all on this one list, you see, and uh . . . shows no signs of anything happening.

“So I think we ought to go about it that way. And uh . . . if that’s all right with you, why, we’ll go back to the Goals Assessment.

“Now, uh . . . what have I done to you in this session that you are upset about? Good. Good. Uh . . . what was that? Yeah. Oh, I didn’t do that, you know, at the beginning of the session.”

Well, I think by the time you had done all that, you would have the PC ready for his—be measured for his straitjacket. Particularly as that type of auditing would have gradually led up with 825 withholds to the cubic withhold.

That’d be very corny, wouldn’t it? But the funny part of it is, you can do some mighty wild, offbeat things in an auditing session if you do them very smoothly—particularly if they are in the guise of letting you find out where you’re going—without giving the PC a bunch of missed withholds or making the PC withhold madly. - ~

And the only thing you’ve got to avoid is committing yourself to a cycle of action you can’t complete. And if you commit yourself to a cycle of action you can’t complete, of course, you’ve had it. I’ll give you the crudest, oldest example. “What has your boss done to you? Thank you. What has your boss done to you? Thank you. What has your boss done to you? Thank you. What has your boss done to you? Thank you. What has your boss done to you? Thank you. What has your boss done to you? What’s the matter with you?”

See, that has committed you to a cycle you dare not complete.

I’ll give you another old-time process: “Mock up some unconsciousness. Thank you. Mock up some unconsciousness. Thank you. (We’ll get you over being unconscious all the time.) Mock up some unconsciousness. Thank you. Mock up some unconsciousness. Thank you. Mock up some unconsciousness. Thank you. What’s the matter with you?”

In other words, that’s committing yourself to a line of action you can’t complete. Well, recognize that a question which lets the PC answer as a motivator in the middle rudiment is something you actually can’t satisfactorily complete. It’s all going to be astray. Something like this: You’re going to say, “In this session have I missed a withhold on you?”

“Yes.”

See, you sit there like an idiot, man.

Now, the wrong way to weight the thing is to throw it over on to a Q and A. That is always wrong. No matter what you do, it is always wrong. Let that be your guiding principle.

So you say, “Good. Thank you. I will check this on the meter. In this session have 1 missed a withhold on you? That’s dirty as a dishrag. Thank you very much.

“Now, in this session have you been up to something I didn’t latch on to?”

He says, “Yes.”

“All right. Good. Thank you. I will check the meter on that. In this session have you been up to something- I didn’t latch on to? That’s dirty. Thank you. “Let’s see, now. All right. What have you been up to that 1 didn’t find out about? Ohhh! All right. Good. I will check that on the meter. What have you been up to that I didn’t find out about? Thank you. That’s clean.”

See, the mistake you make is always beginning a cycle which you feel would be very unsatisfactory to complete. But the big mistake—the big mistake—would be failing to complete a cycle you started.

Don’t kid yourself. You’re going to find yourself in an old bunch of western tales by old Charlie Russell, the western painter. He had an old plainsman named Bab, and Bab was talking about the time he was being chased by the Sioux Indians and he got into a canyon. And there was ten thousand Sioux came boiling in through the front of the canyon, you know, filling it up from wall to wall. He kept backing up further and further into the canyon. He finally looks around over his shoulder and it’s a box canyon—it’s totally cleaned off. Old Bab sits back and relaxes and doesn’t go on with the story until somebody prompts him and says, “Well, Bab, what the hell happened?”

“Oh,” he said, “they killed me.”

That’s where you’re going to find yourself someday—back up that box canyon. There’s no way out of it.

Well, let me tell you. The way you never get out of it is with a Q and A. You just never get out of it with a Q and A. Ask the right auditing question, is the way to prevent Q and A.

And it’s all right for you to sit there and tell me, “All right, Ron, go on, invent the exact, perfect wording that always keeps us from never getting into a Q-and-A situation.” I don’t know. I don’t speak Chinese. I couldn’t invent it in Chinese, so why do you demand I invent it in English?

Now, the joke of the thing is that I can give you a good approximation; I can give you a good code situation. I can give you something that’s probably completely embracive about the thing. 

Well, let me tell you. Someday or another, you’re going to run into somebody who is doing something weird, because PC’s can invent them faster than you can cure them up, man. And you had better know the principles back of the auditing command—the “perfect auditing command”—as well as the command itself. Because you’ll find yourself in a situation where the perfect auditing command doesn’t pull the withhold!

You say, where am I at? Well, you’re at a position where you have to develop an auditing command which does get the PC to give you whatever the PC is doing, and which gives you at once the only real mistake that you can make, which is to fail to complete the cycle of action and to do a Q and A. If you Q-and-A at that point, why, you’ve lost that much of the PC in the session.

Now, you don’t always notice that a PC has gone out of session, because they sometimes drift out of session little by little, tiny by tiny by tiny. And the total aggregate of it is, is the guy is miles out of session, but he’s gone on such a gradient scale, hardly anybody noticed.

It’s like the prisoner that escaped from the jail. Just every day they were supposed to be sitting on their bunks at the last inspection. And every night when the guard came by (this was an actual escape, by the way, from Alcatraz, of all places), the prisoner was an inch closer to the door. And he gradually built it up so that the guard got so used to that, that he had a prisoner actually standing at the door at the time when the last inspection was made, you see?

And finally the prisoner was able to stand at the door and keep the automatic lock from going shut, opened the door and walked out and swam to San Francisco. (I think they elected him mayor!) Anyway . . .

A PC can drift out of session; you should know what he’s drifting on. He’s drifting on his feeling he cannot communicate to the auditor. That’s what he’s drifting out of session on. And a way to throw somebody wildly and almost permanently out of session is just lower the bars on him to prove to him conclusively and forever and aye, from there on out, that he will never be able to communicate to the auditor or he will never be able to tell any of his withholds.

You start punishing somebody for getting off their withholds and you produce this immediate and direct result. The fellow feels, then, he can never be audited. Why? That is—you see, you’re dealing with the actual machinery of a mind. You’re dealing with the actual responses of the mind. We’re not playing with kid stuff here, you see? We’re not playing with psychology or psychiatry or other dirty words, you see? We’re actually functioning right straight on the middle buttons of the mind. And that is communication, withholds, missing withholds, that sort of thing. And the person will stay in there and pitch and do almost anything under the sun, moon and stars for an auditor that he can communicate to. He’ll almost take anything off of an auditor he can communicate to.

You see me run a session someday that looks awful rough to you and you wonder “How in the name of God is that PC still in session?” If you thought emotion, misemotion, argument, things of this character—if you thought these threw people out of session—and if you thought that being kind and sweet and good as an auditor keeps somebody in session, you should watch a good, knockdown-drag-out session by somebody who knows better than to miss a withhold. And that is a pretty fantastic session.

I’ve done this, you see? I’ve asked an auditing question. The PC doesn’t speak Chinese, the PC speaks English. I’ve asked an auditing question and I demand that that auditing question be answered, and go on and on, demanding it be answered see, the PC is trying to answer some other question—and just never permit the cycle to shift in any other direction than to a perfect completion of the answer of that auditing question.

Cheer the PC up. Say, “Yes, yes, you can talk to me about any of those things. That’s fine. I’m glad to hear about that. Fine,” and so forth. “But I asked you if you’d ever seen a rat. And you keep talking to me about hats!”

The PC will even come upscale on something like that. They say, “What the hell do you know, this guy listens to me. You know, he listens. That’s true. I did talk to him about hats. He asked me have I ever seen a rat, and I said—I said ‘Girls in their teens wear thick hats.’ I did. I said that. And he heard it. But I heard him, and therefore I ought to tell him whether or not I have seen a rat. And I can tell him that, because he’ll listen. Proves it, because he knows that I didn’t answer the question.

“Yeah, I’ve seen a rat!”

There, that PC would be in session and come out the other end smiling. My God, you would have thought for half an hour there was nothing but a confounded dogfight going on in the room. That was because the perfect communication cycle was always insisted upon—that the answer to the auditing question was given. But you have to be very, very smart and hear your own questions because the PC very often answers your auditing question. And when you don’t hear that exact answer and don’t realize it’s an exact answer and you refute it, well, you’ve had it.

But by permitting him to answer something else besides the question asked, you also throw the rudiments out. And that’s not a Q and A. “I’ll repeat the auditing question. What have you done, done, done-done? Not what have you thought about doing. t asked you something you’ve done.”

“Oh, oh, oh, oh, yeah. You did, didn’t you? (Guy listens. Good auditor.)”

Funny part of it is that the cycle, the completed cycle of action, must take place. The cycle of communication must occur. It must go all the way through, but only on the subject which the auditor has introduced. Otherwise
 it’s a complete miscontrol and it isn’t a response to what was asked.

So if you think you can sit there and be kind, and you say, “Hell, have you ever seen any rats?”

And the PC says, “Yes, I’ve s a lot of girls wear thick hats.”

And you say, “Well, good,” because Ron always said that you mustn’t Q-and-A and you have to accept the PC’s response.

Don’t be surprised if at the end of a half an hour of doing this kind of thing your PC is not in session, because the withhold in this case you have created, and the withhold is the right answer to your auditing question. Yes, this thing falls on both sides of the fence. So therefore there is a thing called control, there is a thing called the right answer, and so forth.

So you must ask a question—this is the rest of it; you have asked a question that can be answered—and then complete that cycle of action of getting that question that you asked answered. And don’t buy any other answers.

If you do that smoothly, man, PC’s will past do almost anything for you, including go Clear. But you see where the tightrope walk is—is how do you keep the PC in session while not permitting the PC to give you the wrong answer to the auditing question. Well, you have to be smart enough to know when he has given you the right answer, and when be has given you the right answer, that you buy it and you don’t challenge him.

And I’ll say this at least once: you’re going to find yourself sitting there gaping. The PC is absolutely right. He has answered the auditing question. And you have developed the whole thing into a dogfight.

You said, “Do you have a present time problem?”

And the PC said, Yes.”

You know, that kind of a situation. But it’ll be in some other guise. You’ll be prepchecking somebody and you’ll say, “Well, did you ever really know your mother?” Why you asked that, God knows, you see?

And the PC says, “Well, I . . . uh . . . actually, actually, I don’t know.”

Well, the question is, did the PC answer the cycle? Is it part of the cycle? Is that a right answer? And you go up in smoke. And then you finally look back at your question, and you realize that he’s given you the only possible answer he could give you under the circumstances. And that is the answer to the auditing question, and you’re the one who has thrown him out of session.

But there’s two ways, now, he can go out of session: (1) is you “complete the cycle of action”—or the cycle of communication—on a wrong answer; of course, the right answer is now a missed withhold. Or you fail to complete the cycle of action on a right answer and, of course, now the right answer is a missed withhold. Now, that is the tightrope walk which you walk, and you should know exactly what you’re doing with an auditing question.

Now, when you see a session running off the rails, when you see a session doing peculiar and odd and strange things and the PC doesn’t look right with your auditing, don’t look at the PC as a peculiar ape. Don’t develop that. And neither develop a good communistic self-criticism. Don’t develop that either. Just look at the questions which you’re asking in a session and ask it to yourself if they are answerable by this PC and if you are accepting the right answers that the PC gives you here. Just look at the whole thing on a cycle of action on a communication line. See, a cycle of communication. Is it complete? Have you asked a question? Has the PC answered the question? Have you then responded in such a way as the PC knew you the] answered the question? And have you straightened out what you were trying to straighten out?

Well, if you’ve done all those things, and so forth, right, and the PC is getting worse, then I’ll let you in on something—something very, very tremendous: It must be his environment that is caving him in.
 
Now, the way it goes—what you’ve got to reconcile yourself to—is your PC drifts out of session, something is going wrong. You’re doing something that is failing to complete that communication cycle. Doing something that appears to a Q and A. You’re doing something like this.

Could be in your earlier sessions that you’ve inherited a PC, of course, that has been mucked up with this kind of thing and you have to straighten out the PC’s communication cycle and that sort of thing. But if you have to go on straightening out a PC’s communication cycle, if you have to go on patching the PC up, if you have to go on crowding him in session, session after session, if you have to go on sweating blood over this PC, look at your own wording and your auditing and this lecture and you will have the answer. You’ll be able to analyze it.

It’s a very ordinary thing to analyze. I mean it’s a very easy thing to analyze. Funny part of it is, it’ll be as crazy when you finally see what you are doing as this business of “Since the last time I audited you, have I missed a withhold on you?” And, well, it isn’t quite a question, don’t you see?

So that has been followed by this, that and the other thing and drifted out. And then one day, all of a sudden, you get the right question. And the right question is “Since the last time I audited you, have you done anything that you are withholding?”

And the PC says, “Bzrmrmrmz-zz-zz-zz-zz-zz,” and so on and so on.

And you say, “My God, my God, my God!”

Well, remember something, there’s- every period between session has been missed. You’ve walked into a lousy-auditing situation then, you see? There you’ve got a ghastly thing staring you in the face. It’s always going to be coming back up and should be prepchecked. So you have to prepcheck some rudiments. You see that?

Mark my words, it’ll be something like that. It’ll be something the auditor is doing that the PC cannot respond on and the auditor isn’t finishing the cycle with or can’t finish the cycle with.

If you get that down pat, you’ll be able to analyze your own auditing, you’ll be able to analyze auditing in general, you’ll be able to tell why PC’s are improving or not improving.

Only thing TRs do is get you to improve your skill in handling these things so you’re not taken by sudden surprise and so forth, so that these responses are very usual and natural. But I always think it’s best to know the principles underlying these natural responses, and there are some very solid ones.

Okay?

Thank you. Thank you for staying over.

THE MISSED MISSED WITHHOLD

A lecture given on
1 November 1962

Thank you. When you were building this country, why didn’t you fix up the weather? You know, really, I have my opinion of planet builders that go around designing weather like this, and that sort of thing. There’s a great deal to be said for rain, but it quickly becomes hyperbolical.

Well now, tonight, I’ve made notes for lectures, so I probably won’t talk about that. And this is the 1st of November, isn’t it? What year is it?

Audience: A.D. 12.

AD. 12. All right. Lecture number one.

This is a brand-new subject to you. It’s an entirely new subject to you. You have never heard of this subject before. In fact, you have never run it or handled it or had it done. I want to recommend, then, this lecture to you very, very seriously. There have been several bulletins out on it, but you apparently haven’t read those.

Now, therefore, this is new material here. And I want you to take to heart what I tell you in this lecture.

And the subject of the lecture is missed withholds.

Now, it may surprise you that the first bulletin out on this particular subject of missed withholds is February the 8th, HCOB February 8, 1962, and it’s marked, as a bulletin, “Urgent.” And it says, “The one item Scientologists everywhere must get an even greater reality on is missed withholds and the upsets they cause.” That’s the first paragraph of this. It says, “Every upset with Central Orgs, field auditors, PC’s, the lot, is traceable to one or more missed withholds.” That’s what it says.

Well anyhow, on February the 12th, because nobody got it then, I issued another one, rote formulas for missed withholds, and so forth. That’s HCOB February 12th. It’s “How to Clear Withholds and Missed Withholds.”

Well, they didn’t get it then, so we issued another one on February 22nd. And on February 22nd, 1962, we had “Withholds, Missed and Partial ‘ see? And it has a lot to say on that particular subject. And it says, “I don’t know exactly how to get this across to you except to ask you to be brave, squint up your eyes and plunge. I don’t appeal to reason, only to faith at the moment. When you have a reality on this, nothing will shake it and you’ll no longer fail cases or fail in life. But at the moment, it may not seem reasonable, so just try it and do it well, and day will dawn at last.”

Well, day didn’t dawn. Well . . .

So, on May the 3rd, 1962, you have the HCOB “ARC Breaks and Missed Withholds” and it says, “How to use this bulletin. When an auditor or student has trouble with an ‘ARC-breaky PC’ or no gain, or when an auditor is found to be using freak control methods or processes to ‘keep a PC in session,’ the HCO Sec. D of T or D of P. should just hand a copy of this bulletin to the auditor and make him or her study it and take an HCO Exam on it.

“After some months of careful observation and tests, I can state conclusively that: All ARC breaks stem from missed withholds”.

“This is vital technology,” and so forth.

It says also, “There are no ARC breaks when missed withholds have been cleared up.” And it goes on, technically.

Well, on May the 21st, we have one: “Missed Withholds, Asking About,” and so forth, but that’s just a little more data.

And on June the 28th, 1962, we have “Dirty Needles, How to Smooth Out Needles.” There it is, and it talks all about missed withholds and so forth. It’s not obviously and directly on the point, but it does mention withholds, missed withholds, overts and secrets and so forth.

And on July the 4th we have “Bulletin Changes” which include missed withholds, and then on July the 12th, 1962, we have “Motivatorish Cases” and so forth, and that goes on talking about how to get missed withholds out of people.

And then on August the 13th, we talk about “Rock Slams and Dirty Needles.” And there’s some more about missed withholds then.

And then on August the 30th, while I was stateside, why, Mary Sue got desperate and issued some bulletins. And of course the first subject that she picked up was missed-withhold handling. Well now, that is a lot of bulletins. Let me call to your attention, there’s weight here, man. It has weight. There’s been a lot said on this subject, see?

And it’s just about the most important subject in an auditing session and keeping the show on the road. Short of actually clearing and helping people, you see, it’s just about the most important subject there is. And there isn’t one here got it. None of you. You haven’t got it. So I'm going to give you a lecture on it.

And I might as well start this lecture with “the one item Scientologists everywhere must get an even greater reality on is missed withholds and the upsets they cause.” Do you see? That’s out of the February 8th bulletin. And “I don’t know exactly how to get this across to you, except to ask you to be brave, squint up your eyes and plunge,” on February the 22nd.

Listen: All you’re doing, and all you go on doing, and all you keep on doing, and all you do, endlessly, every time you’re told to pick up a missed withhold, all you do is pick up a withhold. Honest. You’re picking up withholds. I don’t think you have ever picked up a missed withhold off of a PC in any session you’ve ever run. You’ve only picked up withholds.

You ask the auditor to pick up the missed withholds and the auditor promptly picks up all the withholds. You got the idea? Everybody says this, and I guess it’s because of the semantics of the word missed. It says they’re missed withholds, and by God, they are! Everybody misses them! See?

You see, it is so pat and is so plain to the naked eye that this is what happens: PC has a withhold and you haven’t picked it up—so therefore it’s a missed withhold. Ditto! That is wrong.

So when I tell you to pick up the missed withholds, all you’re doing is picking up withholds. You say, “Well, he wants us to pick up the missed withholds, so therefore I better pick up the withholds I've missed. So therefore, ‘Do you have a withhold?’” And sometimes you even say, “Have I ever missed a withhold on you?” “Has anybody missed a withhold on you?” and the PC gratuitously gives you withholds. Gives you more withholds and more withholds and more withholds.

No PC has ever given you a missed withhold. I’ll bet you you’ve never picked one up. Now, I may be very harsh on this line, but let’s get down to tacks here, man—brass, iron and otherwise!

A missed withhold is a withhold that people nearly found out about, but didn’t. And you’re only looking for the nearly-found-outs. You don’t give a damn what the guy did. You don’t care what the person did. You only want to know what people almost found out!

Honest! I’ve been talking since February, you know? I’m getting hoarse.

You see, a withhold is something the PC did. That is something the PC did—do you understand?—that he isn’t talking about. See? He did it and he isn’t talking about it. Now, that is a withhold, and that is all a withhold is. And please don’t keep saving also it is a missed withhold just because you didn’t get it in a session.

You see, it’s all very neat. You got it all figured out that if you didn’t get the withhold in a session, why, therefore, it’s a missed withhold. And that’s not what a missed withhold is’ A missed withhold has nothing to do with what the PC said. Nothing! Not—not anything to do with what the PC did and then withheld. It actually hasn’t a damn thing to do with what the PC is withholding.

The missed withhold is something people nearly found out. It’s an other person action! Look: It’s not the PC’s action! It’s nothing the PC did or is doing! You keep trying to pick up missed withholds by asking the PC what he’s withholding, you never get anything but withholds, and then you miss some more of these and you’ve got a PC even further upset.

Look, here are absolute pearls on a silver platter. They’re actually beyond price. And I’ve never got it across to you. A missed withhold has nothing to do with the PC—but clothing! It is an other-person action and the PC’s wonder about it.

I just know right now I'm not making any sense to you even this minute. I’ll betcha I’m not making any sense to you.

It hasn’t a thing to do with what the PC is withholding. Let’s just sever the end off of the “missed.” Let’s forget that it is even a withhold.

You’re looking for exact moments in the lifetime or lifetimes of this PC when somebody almost found out, and he’s never been sure since whether they did or they didn’t. And we don’t care what they almost found out! We only care that they almost found out something!

And that is the address to a missed withhold. It’s an other-person-than the-PC’s action. It’s an other-person’s action.

I really didn’t realize that I hadn’t gotten it across to you in bulk and in gross form till not too long ago in a catch-as-catch-can session I said to a PC . . . This PC was going natter, natter, natter, natter, natter, yak, yak, yak, yak, yak, natter, natter, natter, natter, natter, natter, natter, natter, natter, yap, yap, yap. So I just routinely was running a little bit of—I said, “Well, what have you done?” “What have you withheld?” “What have you done?” “What have you withheld?” “What have you done?” “What have you withheld?” “What have you done?” “What have you withheld?” you know, that sort of thing. And got stuck in this area of the track and started saying natter, natter, natter, and natter, natter, natter, and natter, natter, natter, and started giving me withholds and withholds and withholds and withholds out of that area of the track, and withholds and overts and withholds out of that area of the track, and they would have been going yet if I hadn’t . . .

That’s one of the dangerous things, is instructors are actually going to stop you sometimes practically right here. Because once you shove this down the PC’s throat, it looks just like a Q and A. It’s almost in the teeth of the laws about Q and A. You understand?

But the PC isn’t clearing this. You’ve got this thing called a recurring withhold. You understand? You run into these things all the time. You were auditing a PC, so they’re going to run some withholds, and they run the time that they locked their husband out. And you say, “Ha, ha. Thank you very much.”

And you note down this fact, and a few sessions later, they tell you they locked their husband out, see, and they didn’t tell him that they were the person that had locked him out, you know? Never confessed to it since, and he got pneumonia, and it was all pretty rough.

And so, a few sessions after this, you know, why, you’re running down the track, and they tell you they locked their husband out. 

A little while later some other auditor is auditing this same PC, and they tell him they locked their husband out.

Look: Sometime or another, won’t you get tired of hearing the same withhold? Isn’t it boring? It’s like watching a C movie that wasn’t very good in the first place for the tenth time. That is a missed withhold.

Look: it has a very special anatomy. It isn’t the moment they locked the husband out; it isn’t when they withheld it from the husband; it isn’t when they withheld it from you. These things have nothing to do with the reason this is charged up! That it is an overt, that it is a withhold—ahhh, yes. But there’s this special thing called a missed withhold, and it hasn’t got anything to do with either one of them. It merely uses them for fodder to feed on. And the overt and the withhold won’t blow if a missed withhold occurs.

Now, what is the missed withhold? The only thing you have to ask this recurring-withhold PC is “When did your husband nearly find out about it?” Not “When did he find out?” see, that would have blown—but “When did your husband nearly find out about it?”

Now, here’s the actual mechanics of it. A few days later while he was lying there suffering with a fever of 118, why, his eyes opened slittedly and suspiciously and looked at her and glanced toward the lock on the door. Now, that was has action, not hers, see? That was has action. And ever afterwards she hasn’t known whether he knew or didn’t know ever afterward! She doesn’t know! And that’s why the recurring withhold hangs up.

I lowered the boom on this PC, and I said, “All right. Fine. Thank you. Thank you. Good. Now, tell me the exact moment you suspected somebody knew what you are telling me.”

“Ohhhh.” And that was dead easy. It was right there. The whole package blew, and that was that.

Somebody had made a comment which might or might not have been interpreted as the fact that they knew about it. And the PC goes off in this fantastic confusion. Now, how can it be a confusion? Well, it’s a confusion because there is an overt and there is a withhold. And these are the primary mechanisms which sit back of all this. But they actually aren’t very serious until they get a mystery on top of them.

Now, you take an overt, a withhold, plus a mystery, and you’ve got a missed withhold. It’s a mystery! Now, did her husband know about it or didn’t he? “Did—did—did he find out? Did he know—and is he withholding? And uh—uh—is he—did he as he was sitting there in a fever and so forth, did he really mean that look toward her and toward the lock of the door as an accusation for having accidentally locked him out in the snowstorm? Or—or did he—did he ever know, or—or—or wasn’t that? Or did it or didn’t it? Did he fi—no, he couldn’t have known about it. No, he he did.... No. No. He couldn’t have. He—he did, but still he looked straight at the lock of the door and he looked at me. He must . . . I—I—I don’t know.”

Do you understand this? Now, that is a missed withhold, see? Had nothing whatsoever to do . . . You can say, “Now, what have you done?” And she says, “I locked my husband out in the snow and he got sick with pneumonia, and he was sick for seventeen months and eighteen days. Lost his pension.”

Few sessions later, you say, “All right, rata-ta-tatta-ta-tatta. What have you done?”

“Well. I locked me husband out in the snow and—and he got . . . he got sick. and—and he was sick for eighteen months and eighteen days and he lost his pension.”

You say “Good. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good.” (Maybe if I acknowledge it this time, maybe the PC will find out that I heard it, see?) “Good. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good. Good. Good. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I’ve I got that. I heard exactly what you said there. I heard exactly what you said. Thank you.”

Next morning in session, you’re running some General O/W, see? “I locked my husband out in . . .”

Now, of course, that isn’t as comprehensible as some offbeat—because this society is a bit offbeat on the subject of the second dynamic, you get some juicy second-dynamic withhold of some kind or another. Get this girl, and she’s making love to a dog, you know? You get this, you know? And then you, the auditor, get pulled right in on this. You say, “Well, of course this is heavily charged! Of course the PC is having trouble getting this off. Of course, of course, of course!”

Don’t be so damn reasonable. There isn’t any reason why the magnitude of the overt has anything to do with the readiness of its blowing. The magnitude of the overt has nothing to do with the speed of its evaporation. I don’t care if you’ve blown up a husband or a planet. It’s an overt, and it—one doesn’t blow any harder than another.

Well, therefore, we have to ask this question: “How come this doesn’t blow?” Don’t sit there and say, “Well, because the society is rigged the way it is and because . . . so forth, and it’s on her terminal chain, and it probably is something that rock slams. It’s on the oppterm side. Dogs are oppterms, and uh—and so forth, and I’ll fix that. Actually she is stuck on the se . . . And that’s why that overt won’t blow, see?” Figure, figure, figure, figure, figure, figure, figure, see? That’s why you get this second-dynamic overt ten minutes deep in every session, or every third session. Or every Prepcheck, it comes up.

Wouldn’t you be a little bit curious why this thing keeps recurring? Well, don’t be so reasonable. It is not recurring because it is badder than other overts, see? It’s not recurring because it weighs heavily on the PC’s conscience.

I don’t know where people keep their consciences—lunch boxes or something like that. Obviously, it’s very dangerous to squash a conscience because things shouldn’t be kept on the conscience, and so forth. It’s all a very interesting mechanical problem to me, this whole problem of consciousness. Because you see, everything that is on a conscience is unconscious. It’s all confusing. And you can just figure yourself into a grave with this, if you don’t know this mechanism.

One day they had this elderly man, and he came to the house for dinner And he had a rather false smile He had false teeth, see? And he had—and he had a false smile, and he looked straight at this girl, and he says, You like dogs, don’t you?” And that’s the missed withhold, see? The PC that you’re auditing didn’t do it. And ever since then: “Did he know? Did he really know? No, he couldn’t have known. Yes, he . . .”

Now, you getting hold of the corner of this thing’s tail, huh?

All right. Maybe I haven’t been as articulate as I could be.

Actually, I figured and I figured and I figured and I thought and I looked at it and so forth. And on this demonstration the other night, I actually couldn’t believe it when the PC said, “I never thought you had to remember a specific moment in time to get off a withhold.” Even the PC had missed it, but the thing had evaporated. There was no more natter in that area.

There were a whole bunch of overts and a whole bunch of withholds. But this was just pursuant with natter, until the exact moment when somebody was standing there see, this is the moment we had to find—and I said, “All right. Let’s look for it. This is the exact moment I want, see?” PC is just going off answering questions, answering questions, getting no place, see? I say, “This is the exact moment I want. Who almost found out you were doing that?”

“Oh, well.”

And we picked up this exact split instant in time, and it was just somebody making a casual remark that it indicated that they might know about these overts. You get the idea?—they might know. But they didn’t. But did they? See, there’s the mystery sandwich.

If you want to see what is sticking a PC to something, always look for the mystery sandwich. Mystery is the glue which sticks thetans to things. Mystery is the glue. Even overts wind up in mystery. You shoot somebody: Now you don’t know whether you shot him or you didn’t shoot him, or if it was a lucky shot, or you should have shot him, or if he was a bad man, or if, if, if, if, if, if, if, or if you should have done it. So it’s the if-you-should-have-done-it which causes you to pull back the withhold and sort of withhold a further action like that.

All things boil down to right conduct.

Here is the crux of this situation. If you go on asking the PC, who doesn’t understand what you’re asking for, “Have I missed a withhold on you?” or “Have we missed a withhold on you?” and the PC is glibly giving you withholds, you ain’t gettin’ no place. You is on the Arkansas Special with its wheels locked, its brakes on and the rails torn up. You’re not going down any track anyplace.

Now, you can take the edge off of a case. I salute the fantastic workability of General O/W, you see? See, it is—it’s the woof and warp of the GPM itself. And it’s right on down the line. That’s why it’s totally unlimited in the amount of run it can have. But I don’t think you’d like to run out a GPM with General O/W. You’re perfectly welcome to try if you’ve got a few centuries.

Numerically, to count up the number of withholds that the person has, pursuant to the number of overts which they have committed, gives us some figure that if we were to write it up on the wall behind me in very tiny figures, starting at that corner and then just keep on writing across the whole top of the wall with groups of three zeros, you see, and then without ending the number, come just down below it and start right straight across the wall again, and then come down another quarter of an inch and start writing zeros there, you’d get some kind of an idea what this guy has done and withheld.

Well, that many answers is not necessary to clear somebody. So although the overt is very powerful in its ability to aberrate the individual—the withhold which follows it is locked up by the overt itself, of course and although this mechanism is the mechanism underlying the gathering-up of energies which results in solid-mass terminals and gives you the game in the first place (see, the whole anatomy of a game is O/W), in spite of all that, why, you don’t have time and the PC doesn’t have enough body years to run out all those overts, even if you could keep him in session that long, even if he could spot them all that long. And you don’t even have time to run them out for one lifetime. How do you lice that? And you haven’t got time to sit around watching a PC’s dirty needle go bZz, bZz, bZz, bZz, bZz, bzz, bzz, and try to settle it with General O/W. Recurring withholds will result.
 
General O/W, of course, is enough to straighten out the thing, and get the session running, and all that sort of thing—a very valuable process; don’t think I’m running it down. I’m just going to say it’s too lengthy for that sort of thing.

And when I tell you to pick up somebody’s missed withholds, I want you to pick up another person’s action and not the PC’s action. And it’s best characterized as “nearly found out.” Don’t ask the PC for a missed withhold, because he obviously, I have learned lately, he doesn’t know any more of what I’ve been talking about than you have. See, you’d have to explain the whole anatomy to him. So there’s got to be a better thing, see?

“What did we almost find out about you?” It’s got to be that “almost.” It’s got to be “might have.” It’s got to be some conditional word. And then you will see a case suddenly go sproing! on you, and pick up the funniest series of disrelated incidents that case had never looked at before, never had anything to do with it before. You’ll see the tone arm do peculiar things, and the needle do peculiar things that you’ve never seen it do on O/W, because you’re running a different track. You’re running the “almost discovered” track.

Now let me give you an example: Once upon a time I was up in the wilderness and wilds of Montana, and for some reason or other, a wolf, gray timber wolf, showed up and I shot a bullet over his head. I don’t know just exactly why I shot at him because I never have any trouble with animals. I was very young at the time. And he heard this bullet go by over his head, and be reached up and he snapped at the place where the bullet had been. And he decided to come my way. It upset him to be missed.

Honest, you never quite see anybody quite so upset as somebody who has been just barely- missed. Look at a pedestrian who was not hit. The examinations flunks which you’re most upset about were those which you passed all except for the last half of the last question. See? That’s the nearness of the miss. In other words, missing things upsets things. It’s a misestimation of effort or thought or something of the sort.

Now, a thetan’s main attention is on estimation of effort, estimation of thought, estimation of look. He wants to know how much look is a look and so forth, and his certainties are all based on proper estimation of how much look is a look and all that sort of thing. See, just look at your Know to Mystery Scale, you see? How much knowledge is knowingness, see? That’s an estimation. University is very simple. University hands you an old school tie, and you now know that you have the knowledge necessary, see? You can wave a pennant with your right hand so many motions to the left under the sisboom-bah, and you’re all set in life. That’s how much knowledge, you see, is necessary to be knowledge. So that’s an estimation of knowledge.

Now, you can go right on down the scale and how much emotion does it take to be emotional? How much emotion is emotional? Well, you get lots of answers to that: enough to create an effect on somebody. If you’re a TV actress, it’s very simple: enough to please the sponsor.

You can go on down and take another one at random. What is a proper symbol? How proper is a symbol when it is a symbol, see?

Well, you can estimate everything, except Show much mystery is a mystery?” And of course that’s a mystery. You’re into the no-estimation-of-effort band. No estimation of the think, no estimation of anything; it’s all mysterious. You don’t know. The not-knowingness of it all is what is upsetting.

But now you take a not-knowingness which is probably known, and play it both ways. Now, they knew, but they didn’t or couldn’t have known, and you knew that they knew, but you know they didn’t know.

Now, let’s just get the four-way flows on a not-know, and you’ve got a missed withhold. And it’s very painful to a thetan. So I really don’t blame you for avoiding it like a plague.

See, the fellow walks up to the girl and he smiles and he looks at her in a sort of a false smile, and he says, “Well, little girl, I understand you like dogs.”

Well, right away, her concept of him is “Did he know? Didn’t he know? He couldn’t have known ‘ she thinks to herself. “He must know.” But then complicated into this is the fact that he looks like he knows, but he hasn’t said enough to indicate that he did know, so he doesn’t know. It’s strictly ding-dingding, here comes the wagon, you know? Strictly. This is the stuff out of which insanity gets made, see?

It’s a can’t-reach, not-reach, must-reach situation, and so forth, in the effort band. When you get insanity in the mystery band, it’s a did-know-but-didn’t-know-but-mustn’t-know, you see? But he must know, but he mustn’t know, you see, and it’s the sort of reach and withdraw, only it’s not a mechanical thing. And there it is and it’s just pure mystery mucilage. And a thetan will stick right to it, man.

Now, in trying to pull off the overt and the withhold in the presence of something that has a missed withhold on it does not accomplish an as-isness of the section of track in which the PC is stuck. Because the PC is not stuck with the overt and is not stuck with the withhold; the PC is stuck with the “almost found out.” So, of course, nothing anises and you get a recurring withhold, see, became he isn’t looking at that section of track where he did it or where he’s withholding it. He’s only looking at that section of track where it was almost found out.

And you ask him for what he did and what he withheld, you don’t as-is the section of track he’s stuck in. So therefore, it just perpetuates itself and goes on forever.

And if you want to see something very remarkable in a PC, just very remarkable in a PC, just sit down in apropos of nothing, after you’ve got the PC in session and so forth, just start running, in any command sequence, Well, just get the idea of nearly being found out.” See, it has to be nearly being found out, see? “Get the idea of somebody nearly finding out about you.” “Get the idea of you nearly finding out about another”—that’s an unnecessary leg to the thing, but you could make it up—and the nest thing, more track would be going by that this person had never heard of before. Didn’t matter what else you’d run. That’s got a brand-new track area. They’ve never seen this track before, and it’s been with them all the time. It’s what’s stuck out in front of their noses. Directly in front of their noses.

I could ask you at this exact instant to “recall a time you were nearly found out.” Now go ahead, think of a time you were nearly found out.

Having any trouble finding this time you were nearly found out?

Well, I shouldn’t think so, because that’s the bulk of the stuff in front of your schnozzola. Most people can’t even find an engram, merely because there are so many missed withholds in front of their Aces. They can’t get any clear view of anything, because they got missed withholds in front of their faces.

“Did they really know or didn’t they? Was I actually discovered at that time or wasn’t I?” See, that is the question.

“Who has nearly known about you?” Think that over for a while, you’ll come up with people you have been leery of or felt nervous around.

And when I tell you to pick up somebody’s missed withholds on Scientology, I don’t want you to pick up the overts that they have been withholding. See? I couldn’t care less about these overts, don’t you see, that they have been withholding. That they have been withholding them, oh, alto right, so they have been withholding them. You can get TA action by finding all the things the fellow has been withholding. That’s good. That’s fine. But this is a junior action. That would be asking you to run General O/W on a PC. That’d have nothing to do with missed withholds.

Now, when I ask you to find out something about missed withholds, get this PC’s missed withholds. Don’t you dare come up with any withholds. Just don’t you dare. I want the name, rank and serial number of the person who missed it. Ah, I couldn’t care less what was missed. you understand? I don’t want the PC’s actions, I want the PC’s guesses about the other gun see? That’s what I’m asking you to find out.

Now, this is very arduous to run, because sometimes you actually have to bear down on it if your command has not been sufficiently explicit. You have too direct the PC’s attention rather heavily. Let’s sat you’ve run a lot of O/W and so forth. Well now, you think you’ve got this all licked, you see? This person has been taking things from their company, you see? And you’ve run this; and they’re taking things from their company and—stealing them, actually—and you think you got it all licked. You’ve got the number of fountain pens and the number of stenographers, and all these things they’ve stolen from their company, you see? And you think you’ve got a tabulated list now and you say, “Well, that cured it” and so forth, and nest week, why, they take a typewriter.

There’s something missing here, something—something went wrong. You got all of the overts, and you got the fact they were withholding it. They’re not now withholding because they told you see, there’s the rationale. And so therefore it’s now all hunky-dory. And so they go back and steal a typewriter, and the week after steal the boss’s secretary, see? 

They’re still nervous about the company. The person is not in a forgive-or-forget mood about the company. See, just because they’ve gotten off these overts, why, you have a feeling, and your feeling is quite right by the way— you’re not totally stupid—your feeling is quite right when you suppose that when they’ve gotten this straightened out in their mind they’ll feel all right about the company. And they very often don’t. They feel propitiative, or they feel sort of guilty, or they feel some other weird misemotional way about the target of these overts and withholds, and you don’t feel this is right.

And so you keep plunging and asking for something else they did. And if there’s anything guaranteed to drive the PC round the bend, it’s after he has told you everything be has did, you insist there must be something else the PC has did-did. You’re in essence cleaning a clean, see?

Now actually, because you sense that this PC is still a little bit “nyah” about the company, why, then you assume there must have been some other overt. Well, he can always dig up another one or two, or something like this, and the basic on the chain, and . . . And the trouble is you so often have a near win on this that you really never get your win. You sort of quit eating just before dessert.

And there was a lot of people that were with us in ‘50, ‘51, that sort of thing, are starting to write me now and they’re starting to get in contact again and that sort of thing.

I just sort of laugh rather raucously, by the way. The last one that did, I said he quit before dessert, you know? I realized after I had mailed the letter that I had missed a wonderful sort of an epigrammatic sort of thing that he deserted before the dessert, you know, but it . . .

Well, that’s what you’re denying yourself. You’re denying yourself a forkful of strawberries and cream, see? You quit with the gravy and mashed potatoes, you know? There’s still more of course.

So, he stole a typewriter, and he stole an eraser, and be did this, and be withheld it from this person, he withheld it from that person, and he stole the boss’s secretary, and—yes, all fine. Yea And he’s withheld it all these years, and now you know about it, and that’s fine.

And he’s sort of still kind of blowy and sort of nattery about the company a little bit. A week or so later, you see him; he really doesn’t feel good about the company, and so forth. Well, you just quit before the desert was served, that’s all.

You’ve got to find out who nearly discovered this, when and how often? And he’ll give you exact split instants Now. Now. Now. Now. All of a sudden he goes “Uu-huugh-coooo. I should say so. Ohhhh.”

See, the idea is you’ve gotten off all the overts, you’ve gotten off all the withholds and he still doesn’t like the Materiel Executive. Got the idea? He still feed a little peculiar in some parts of the organization.

You see, you really didn’t clean it up. Became the key-in—the bullet that passed almost into his ear, but not quite, you know, just fanned air—was one day the Materiel Executive stepped out of the back door putting an inventory sheet in his pocket and looked at him rather frowningly and went on by into his office.

Like somebody who has been in a hotel that had thin rooms and floors, you know, and the guy upstairs drops one shoe, you see? Five o’clock in the morning, he’s still waiting there for the other shoe, you see?

Next action, you see, never proceeds from this point. We have started a piece of time track here which doesn’t go anyplace. Nest action is, he’s—you see, he’s doing all this quite reactively, and it’s down underneath the surface of analysis, you know? I mean, at the surface of his analytical processes. And he saw the fellow do this, and he knew it made him nervous, and he goes back in, and he doesn’t want to have the phone ring. Because he knows what’s now going to happen, you see? 

If the fellow did know, this is what’s going to happen: You see, the phone is going to ring, and he’s going to be sent for by one of the directors of the company. And then one of two things will happen: They will either hand him the pink slip, or there will be a policeman standing there, see? And then there’s two choices that come out of that. And if it’s the policeman, that’s got one choice, you see? And you get a big dramatic sequence about the trial, you see, and he has to have all of the bad things the company did to him, and how it’s actually one of the junior directors trying to cover up. See, he’s got to have ad the whole story manufactured for this, but is there any reason to manufacture the story? Did the Materiel Executive really know? See?

Here we’ve got the trade that goes nowhere, don’t you see? And it could develop into track, but is it going to develop into. track or isn’t it going to develop into track? Here’s where this thing. . . Just as far as time is concerned, it becomes a mystery sandwich, and there’s no time in it because those events don’t take place.

So therefore, there is no time track for it, so the which hangs it. it’s not spotted in time. It doesn’t fire off right, don’t you see? There’s nothing goes right about it at all because this isn’t any estimation of it. You can’t figure out what you would do, because it didn’t happen. You can’t figure out what you would have said, because nobody said it. You can’t figure out what explanation was the right explanation, because you never had to explain it. You see? But you should have explained it, but you didn’t.

So there’s just nothing known, and you just get this terrific area of just total—it’s not even hardly a positive-negative. It’s just lyaah. And that’s a missed withhold.

And the missed withhold depends on the other guy—the accidental action of another person.

Sometimes it’ll be a niece of paper. or something like that. He’s sitting there. He’s sitting there in conference, and he suddenly notices that just showing in the boss’s in-basket is a memorandum with his own name just showing above the covering pieces of paper. That conference is ruined for him. You see, he never has another thing to say during the whole conference. He sort of sits there and sweats, you know? But he really doesn’t quite realize what he’s sweating about. You see, there’s his name on a memorandum. He doesn’t know what the memorandum is about, except that it concerns him in some way, and he can’t see what the subject of it is. You see?

Now actually, three people are standing together in the hall, you come by and they shut up. There’s a very good missed-withhold situation. If that was preceded by an overt which the person wasn’t telling anybody about, if that was the morning after the high-school girl’s first raw escapade see, the truth of the matter is that they probably had their mouths full of candy and couldn’t talk at that moment.

But then one never really knows what the truth is, you see? No, there’s no truth contained in any of it. It’s just one huge glob of mystery. And that is a missed withhold.

It’s a should-have-known, as it has been described, but you will pick it up and be able to relay it much more ably if you call it a nearly-found-out. It’s a nearly-known, see? Nearly found out.

Now, if you wished to clear up somebody’s missed withholds on Scientology and you said, “What have we failed to find out about you?” he would give you a whole string of withholds. And this would then go no place, see?

No. You want another word, and this will clarify it to you and this will clarify it to the PC and everybody will be happy as clambakes. “Now, what have we nearly found out about you and when did we nearly find it out?” comes much closer in to what you want, see?

See, you want to know what. Well, he’s not likely to give you the rest of it until he has identified, to some degree, what. See, “Well, my escapades with young boys,” see, or something like this, see, or wild women or something, see? “That’s what you failed to find out about me,” you see? That’s what he kind of answers.

“What did we nearly find out about you?”

“My escapades with wild women,” see?

Oddly enough, that doesn’t clarify the situation at all. That doesn’t make him like you any better, or anybody else. That doesn’t keep him from getting ARC breaks. You’ve got to follow it up with a second question. Now you’ve got the missed withhold, see? You’ve merely identified what the missed withhold was about. You haven’t got the missed withhold. Takes some additional step. All right.

“When did we nearly find out about it?” Now you could follow that through a little bit further if it wasn’t blowing well with “who?” you see? “Who nearly found out about it?” “When was that?” You get the concatenation of questions, the series of questions, that would deliver all of this data into your hands.

You’re looking for moments in the HGC’s—D of Ts office. You’re looking for the instant when the PE instructor all of a sudden paused. Fellow realized that he’d better cut this short because actually, he’s going to miss his ride home, see? This thought suddenly strikes the PE instructor, you see? He’s liable to miss his ride home, you know? So he’d better cut this short. So he’s looking over the class and he foes his beady eye on one person. Seems to lose track of what he was saying, don’t you see?

Said, “Well, all right. Now you understand ARC and we’re going to have to conclude the tack this evening. Uh ....and so, good night,” and hurriedly walks out the door.
 
Now, the person his eye accidentally lit on in those pauses goes “Eeenk,” see? Nearly found out. “Did he know? Didn’t he know?” See? “Wa—wa—wa— was he on the ri—ri—ri—ub . . . uohbhb. What did he guess at that moment? What did he recognize about me at that moment? Which one of my various crimes?”

You see, here’s something else; see? Now he doesn’t even know which one of his crimes have been identified. Maybe the instructor has been talking about the fact that people with big heads have more brains than people with little heads or something, you know? And this person gets some kind of a rationale about this thing.

He couldn’t make up his mind whether he had lots of brains or little brains, because he’s always realized that he had a medium-sized head. See? Now, that’s already got a little mystery connected with it, which is just nothing.

Then all of a sudden the instructor seems to completely look down, seems to completely change pace and then abruptly leaves. And you know there’ll be some people leave that PE class very, very nervous, because they realize when they go out the front door that the police are going to be waiting for them?

What did we nearly find out? Well, it isn’t good enough to find out just what was nearly found out. We’ve got to find when it was nearly found out or might have been found out but doesn’t know if it was found out, don’t you see? When and by whom? We got to spot these point And all of a sudden, why, this person, tah! everything is marvelous. Everything goes off beautifully, smoothly and there it is. 

Now, you can give me a gold star tonight, at least, for trying.

Thank you.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

 HCO BULLETIN OF 23 DECEMBER AD9

BPI

RESPONSIBILITY

If the definition of operating thetan is knowing and willing cause over all dynamics then we can see at once that responsibility must go hand in hand with making an operating thetan.

One cannot as-is acts for which one is taking no responsibility, but for which one is really responsible.

The reason one gets amnesia on his past lives or even denies their existence lies with responsibility. He or she is unwilling to take responsibility for having been this or that other identity. This keys in in present time and closes one down every time one stops taking responsibility for one’s fellows. Fighting ‘other identities’ in present time one ceases to be responsible for other identities. Therefore those he has had in the past become ‘other people’ and one dramatizes his own past identities because he cannot take responsibility for them.

When one falls away from responsibility on the various dynamics he can then become less and less able to influence those dynamics and therefore becomes a victim of them. One must have done to other dynamics those things which other dynamics now seem to have the power to do to him. Therefore one can be injured. One can lose control. One can become in fact a zero of influence and a vacuum for trouble.

The way one becomes separate from others is by his own overt acts against them. These overt acts become withholds and the person then individuates very strongly. You have seen this happening in auditing. The more overt acts the Auditor pulls on the pc the less willing the Auditor is to audit that pc. Further, the more overt acts the pc pulls on the Auditor the less willing he is to stay in session. It only looks as though cause and effect is at work. Actually all life consists of opposed causes where it is aberrated.

The way a person blows out of session or blows out of an organization or blows out of Scientology is a simple one. He withholds information and hides his overts. After a while he blows himself off. Show me a pc blowing session and I will show you a pc who has not levelled with his Auditor and who is guilty of undeclared overts against the dynamics and the Auditor. Show me a staff member who is blowing the Organization and I will show you a staff member who is guilty of undeclared overts against the Organization.

It is fatal to audit anyone unless full two-way comm is established between the Auditor and the pc. A person who goes on being audited without asserting his responsibility for what he has done is a person who will make no auditing gains or whose auditing gains will slump. As most of the human race has undeclared overts this fact alone assumes gigantic proportions in forwarding Scientology and for that reason alone we will have to give it a lion’s share of attention from here on out.

Of course you will see that many people at first will not come near us for fear of what we will find out. But as this is better understood you will find that the people who come to us will come with a willingness to bare their guilt to us and get it sorted out.

As this is so much the case we must then therefore have amongst us none with undeclared overts against the dynamics which would prevent their getting gains in processing or who would render a person’s confidences liable to use for less pure purposes.

Along with this technical discovery then goes the administrative must that our noses must be clean and our hearts cleared. Our strength will be the strength of a billion if we have nothing to hide.

This may or may not be popular. I don’t care about that. It is effective. I do care about that.

And remember that whenever a person discloses to view discreditable overts and withholds we must run what part of that act or incident could you be responsible for.

You’re going to see more case gains than you’ve ever seen before—providing you have the stamina to get over this first hump.

So here we change from irresponsible to responsible, from guilt to strength and all in the twinkling of an eye.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 31 DECEMBER AD 9
Fran Hldrs 
HCO Secs 
Assn Secs 
HASI 
Dept Heads
BLOW-OFFS

Scientology Technology recently has been extended to include the factual explanation of departures, sudden and relatively unexplained, from sessions, posts, jobs, locations and areas.

This is one of the things man thought he knew all about and therefore never bothered to investigate, yet, this amongst all other things gave him the most trouble. Man had it all explained to his own satisfaction and yet his explanation did not cut down the amount of trouble which came from the feeling of “having to leave”.

For instance man has been frantic about the high divorce rate, about the high job turnover in plants, about labour unrest and many other items all stemming from the same source—sudden departures or gradual departures.

We have the view of a person who has a good job, who probably won’t get a better one, suddenly deciding to leave and going. We have the view of a wife with a perfectly good husband and family up and leaving it all. We see a husband with a pretty and attractive wife breaking up the affinity and departing.

In Scientology we have the phenomenon of preclears in session or students on courses deciding to leave and never coming back. And that gives us more trouble than most other things all combined.

Man explained this to himself by saying that things were done to him which he would not tolerate and therefore he had to leave. But if this were the explanation all man would have to do would be to make working conditions, marital relationships, jobs, courses and sessions all very excellent and the problem would be solved. But on the contrary, a close examination of working conditions and marital relationships demonstrates that improvement of conditions often worsens the amount of blow-off, as one could call this phenomenon. Probably the finest working conditions in the world were achieved by Mr. Hershey of Chocolate Bar fame for his plant workers. Yet they revolted and even shot at him. This in its turn led to an industrial philosophy that the worse workers were treated the more willing they were to stay which in itself is as untrue as the better they are treated the faster they blow off.

One can treat people so well that they grow ashamed of themselves, knowing they don’t deserve it, that a blow-off is precipitated, and certainly one can treat people so badly that they have no choice but to leave, but these are extreme conditions and in between these we have the majority of departures: the auditor is doing his best for the preclear and yet the preclear gets meaner and meaner and blows the session. The wife is doing her best to make a marriage and the husband wanders off on the trail of a tart. The manager is trying to keep things going and the worker leaves. These, the unexplained, disrupt organizations and lives and it’s time we understood them.

People leave because of their own overts and withholds. That is the factual fact and the hardbound rule. A man with a clean heart can’t be hurt. The man or woman who must must must become a victim and depart is departing because of his or her own overts and withholds. It doesn’t matter whether the person is departing from a town or a job or a session. The cause is the same.
Almost anyone, no matter his position, can remedy a situation no matter what’s wrong if he or she really wants to. When the person no longer wants to remedy it his own overt acts and withholds against the others involved in the situation have lowered his own ability to be responsible for it. Therefore he or she does not remedy the situation. Departure is the only answer. To justify the departure the person blowing off dreams up things done to him, in an effort to minimize the overt by degrading those it was done to. The mechanics involved are quite simple.

It is amazing what trivial overts will cause a person to blow. I caught a staff member one time just before he blew and traced down the original overt act against the Organization to his failure to defend the Organization when a criminal was speaking viciously about it. This failure to defend accumulated to itself more and more overts and withholds such as failing to relay messages, failure to complete an assignment, until it finally utterly degraded the person into stealing something of no value. This theft caused the person to believe he had better leave.

It is a rather noble commentary on man that when a person finds himself, as he believes, incapable of restraining himself from injuring a benefactor he will defend the benefactor by leaving. This is the real source of the blow-off. If we were to better a person’s working conditions in this light we would see that we have simply magnified his overt acts and made it a certain fact that he would leave. If we punish we can bring the value of the benefactor down a bit and thus lessen the value of the overt. But improvement and punishment are neither one answers. The answer lies in Scientology and processing the person up to a high enough responsibility to take a job or a position and carry it out without all this weird hocus-pocus of “I’ve got to say you are doing things to me so I can leave and protect you from all the bad things I am doing to you.” That’s the way it is and it doesn’t make sense not to do something about it now that we know.

A recent Secretarial Executive Director to all Central Organizations states that before a person may draw his last pay cheque from an Organization he is leaving of his own volition he must write down all his overts and withholds against the Organization and its related personnel and have these checked out by the HCO Secretary on an E-Meter.

To do less than this is cruelty itself. The person is blowing himself off with his own overts and withholds. If these are not removed then anything the Organization or its people does to him goes in like a javelin and leaves him with a dark area in his life and a rotten taste in his mouth. Further he goes around spouting lies about the Organization and its related personnel and every lie he utters makes him just that much sicker. By permitting a blow-off without clearing it we are degrading people, for I assure you, and with some sorrow, people have not often recovered from overts against Scientology, its Organizations and related persons. They don’t recover because they know in their hearts even while they lie that they are wronging people who have done and are doing enormous amounts of good in the world and who definitely do not deserve libel and slander. Literally, it kills them and if you don’t believe it I can show you the long death list.

The only evil thing we are doing is to be good, if that makes sense to you. For by being good, things done to us out of carelessness or viciousness are all out of proportion to the evil done to others. This often applies to people who are not Scientologists. Just this year I had an electrician who robbed HCO of money with false bills and bad workmanship. One day he woke up to the fact that the Organization he was robbing was helping people everywhere far beyond his ability to ever help anyone. Within a few weeks he contracted TB and is now dying in a London hospital. Nobody took off the overts and withholds when he left. And it’s actually killing him-a fact which is no fancy on my part. There is something a little terrifying in this sometimes. I once told a bill collector what and who we were and that he had wronged a good person and a half hour later he threw a hundred grains of Veronal down his throat and was lugged off to hospital, a suicide.

This campaign is aimed straightly at cases and getting people cleared. It is aimed at preserving staffs and the lives of persons who believe they have failed us.
Uneasy lies the head that has a bad conscience. Clean it up and run responsibility on it and you have another better person, and if anybody feels like leaving just examine the record and sit down and list everything done to and withheld from me ;and the Organization and send it along. We’ll save a lot of people that way.

And on our parts we’ll go along being as good a manager, as good an Organization and as good a field as we can be and we’ll get rid of all our overts and withholds too.

Think it will make an interesting new view?

Well, Scientology specializes in those.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :js.cden 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 DECEMBER 1961

Tech Depts
Franchise

VARYING SEC CHECK QUESTIONS

You only  vary a sec check question when by repeating it you would create an impasse.

Example: 	“Have you stolen anything?”
		“Yes, an apple.” 
	“Good. Have you stolen anything?”
		“No.” 
	“Good. (Look at meter.)
	Have you stolen anything?”
		“No. “ (Meter reacts. )

NOW  vary the question.

And always end by making sure the original question “Have you stolen anything?” is nul.

This all comes under the heading of getting one auditing question answered before you ask a second.

If you create an impasse you will pile up missed withholds, throw ruds out and really mess it up. Therefore, until you do find out what the answer was on a sec check question, you do NOT repeat the question—only variations (except to test for nul after getting a withhold) until the meter nuls on the first question.

                                                   				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: esc.rd 
Copyright © 1961 
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

10 DECEMBER 1972
Reissued 12 July 1974 as BTB
Remimeo
CANCELS
HCO BULLETIN OF 10 DECEMBER 1972
SAME TITLE

Integrity Processing Series 7

FUNDAMENTALS

The most fundamental thing to know about Integrity Processing is that a case with withholds will not clear. And the next most fundamental element to know is that: A CASE WITH WITHHOLDS WILL NOT CLEAR. Perhaps, if this is repeated loud enough and long enough, not only Preclears, but perhaps even Auditors will realize that this is an absolute, unavoidable truth, one which can not be overlooked or neglected at any time, under any circumstances.

First of all, what is a withhold? A withhold is a no action after the fact of action in which the individual has done or been an accessory to doing something which is a transgression against some moral code consisting of agreements to which the individual has subscribed in order to guarantee, with others, the survival of a group with which he is co-acting or has co-acted toward survival.

Because a withhold is a no action or a no motion after doingness, it naturally hangs up in time and floats in time due to the actions or the overts which preceded the no action or no motion of the withhold. The reactive mind is, therefore, the combined withholds stocked up which the individual has against groups from which he feels that he is individuated but from which he has not separated due to the fact that he has these withholds in his bank and also all the combined agreements toward survival of all these groups, from which he is not separate, and which he uses reactively to solve problems now without inspection.

Example: The individual belonged at some time to the Holy Fighters. One of the mores of this group was that all should be destroyed who do not accept the Word. The Holy Fighters went out on a punitive expedition against a neighboring tribe who would not accept the Word, but accepted some other belief. There was a great battle with much killing; however, during the battle, the individual took pity upon a helpless child and did not kill him, but took the child off the field of battle, gave him food and drink, and left him, returning, himself, to the battle.

After the battle was successfully won, the Holy Fighters had their usual service during which all spoke of how they had killed all non-believers. Our individual withheld from the group that he had not only failed to kill, but had saved the life of a non-believer. Thus we have the no action of the withhold after the overt or action of saving the child, all of which added up to a transgression against the mores of the Holy Fighters.

Because of such similar transgressions, the individual finally individuated from the group of Holy Fighters and became a member of the Board of Directors of the Society for Kindness to Humans, which itself had its own agreements to survival and with which the individual agreed; however, when difficulties or problems arose, the individual instead of treating all with kindness tended to covertly try to destroy all who would not accept the tenets of kindness. So he reactively was solving the problems of the Society of Kindness with a survival mores of the Holy Fighters. Due to all his transgressions and withholds of his destructive impulses while a member of the Society for Kindness, he finally individuated from this group.
Now he is a member of Anti-Emotions, Incorporated, but he finds that he can’t rule out all his emotions, but tends to be destructive and kind at the same time. So he is still solving problems not only with the mores of the Holy Fighters, but with those of the Society for Kindness to Humans. And so it goes.

Processing this individual we will find that he has all these withholds of overts against the Holy Fighters, the Society for Kindness to Humans, and Anti-Emotions, Incorporated. After we have pulled all these overts, he will truly be separate from these groups and no longer reactively use their survival mechanisms as solutions to problems.

Further the action of withholding is one point where the Preclear does what the reactive mind does. He withholds his own overts of transgressions against the moral code of a group in order to avoid punishment, thusly enhance his own survival, and he withholds himself from the group finally in an effort to avoid committing further overts. So just as the reactive mind contains all past survival agreements which are used to solve problems threatening the survival of the individual, so does the individual decide to withhold transgressions, in order to survive himself, and withholds himself from groups to avoid committing overts.

Withholding and surviving occur at the same time. So the communication bridge between the Preclear and the reactive mind is the withhold.

The pulling of overts which have been withheld then is the first step towards getting the Preclear to take control of the reactive mind. The more withholds he gives up, the more the old survival mechanisms of the reactive mind are destroyed.

Further as a withhold of an overt creates a further overt act of not-know on the group with which one is co-acting toward survival along an agreed upon moral code, so we are running off all the ignorance created for others by an individual which results in ignorance to himself. In this fashion, we are processing the individual up toward Native State or Knowingness.

Therefore, in doing Integrity Processing on a Preclear, you are really attacking the whole basis of the reactive mind. It is an activity which the Auditor should earnestly and effectively engage upon. In doing this the Auditor always assumes that the Preclear can remember his overts and can overwhelm the reactive mind. Just as with the CCHs so with Processing Checks, any objections raised by the Preclear as regards Integrity Processing are only a confusion being thrown up by the reactive mind, but the individual is really trying to look for what is there despite the reactive mind’s doing this. This is why any failure to pull an overt is considered a crime against the Preclear. The Auditor in failing to pull an overt has given the reactive mind a win and the Preclear a failure, and has further given the Preclear another overt against the group he is now associated with, namely, that of Scientology, because he has succeeded in withholding from it.

So in Integrity Processing the Auditor must get the Preclear to answer the question without developing meter-dependency. This creates confidence that the Auditor and the Preclear are really working together to overwhelm the reactive mind.

If the meter gives an instant read to the question then the Auditor uses the E-Meter to assist the Preclear in pulling all further overts and takes it earlier similar to get an F/N ON THE QUESTION BEING ASKED.

A stable datum as regards this is that if the question reacts, there are withholds there or not all about a particular withhold was pulled. Never allow a Preclear to persuade you that it is only already pulled withholds which are still reacting. A withhold pulled will not cause a question to still react; it can only be that not all about the withhold was pulled or that there are further undisclosed withholds on that question, or it is a false read (withhold of nothing) in which case the question will F/N on false.

DO NOT LEAVE AN INTEGRITY PROCESSING QUESTION UNTIL THE AUDITOR, THE PRECLEAR, THE REACTIVE MIND, AND THE E-METER ARE IN

 ABSOLUTE AGREEMENT THAT THERE IS NOTHING MORE ON A PARTICULAR QUESTION. THIS WILL BE RECOGNIZED BY THE EP OF F/N COG VGIs ON THE QUESTION.

Remember the E-Meter is not bound by the Auditor’s Code. If it reacts on a question, then the Auditor must take that question to full EP with an F/N. A question, having once read, is NOT nulled to a no-read. It is audited to an F/N. Obtaining a read and taking the read to F/N depends on good Auditor presence and excellence of TRs, Basic Auditing and Metering.

A Processing Check question must never be left without F/Ning. If the Preclear’s intensive is terminating, you must complete that question no matter how many extra hours you have to put in on the Preclear. Do not end session without carrying the question you are working on to EP. Any failure to pull an overt is a crime against that Preclear.

Eliminate all “unkind thought” questions in Integrity Processing. Use “done anything to” type questions. Unkind thoughts are merely tags telling you that the Preclear has actually done something. Unkind thoughts are merely a mechanism of lessening the overt.

In pulling overts, be careful that you do not allow the Preclear to give you his justifications for having committed it. In allowing him to give you motivators or “reasons why” you are allowing him to lessen the overt.

You are only interested in what the Preclear has done, not what he has heard that others have done. So never allow a Preclear to get off withholds to you about others, except in the case where he has been an accessory to a criminal act.

“Other people’s overts” are handled by asking the Preclear, “Have you ever done anything like that yourself?”

Remember that your duty as an Auditor is to simply employ your skill to obtain a greater decency, ability and integrity on the part of others. You do this by performing well your function of clearing the meter and getting off all overts and withholds. An Auditor is not an enforcer of public morals. If an Auditor tries to make a Preclear guilty, he is violating Clause 15 of the Auditor’s Code, which says: “Never mix the processes of Scientology with those of various other practices”. Punishment is an old practice which is not part of our activities in Scientology. Audit against the reality of the Preclear and his moral code and do not try to make him guilty. The value of any withhold is only the value the Preclear puts on it.

As a case improves, his responsibility level will increase, and if his responsibility level is increasing he will get off further, new withholds. If an Auditor is not getting new withholds coming off a Preclear, he had better look for a gross error in his auditing. He either is disinterested and unwilling to help the Preclear, or he is technically unskillful on his TRs, Basic Auditing and the E-Meter, or he does not have the Preclear in session or he has withholds himself. Only an Auditor with withholds will fail to pull them on others.

The number of withholds a Preclear has available at any given time depends upon those that are available at that given time. To clarify this point, assume that all Preclears have the same set number of withholds. Well, the number available within the realm of the Preclear’s present state of reality and responsibility will naturally vary. Preclears with a high reality and responsibility level will have more withholds available for pulling than Preclears with a low reality and responsibility level. This is why it is so important that Processing Checks be continued throughout auditing. His reality and responsibility level will increase throughout processing bringing to light many new overts. If these are not pulled, the Preclear will be forced into unintentionally withholding them and his case will bog down and not progress.

There are prepared Integrity Processing Forms to assist you in pulling withholds. In using these, an Auditor must never, never omit a question on any of these, but he  can add questions to them. Then there are specialized Integrity Processing Forms tailored to fit the professional or present activities of the Preclear, and special forms to cover the transgressions of the Preclear against the moral code of any group with which he has co-acted. On the latter, as a person in one lifetime only has belonged to many different groups, you can see the tremendous possibility of Integrity Processing applied to the moral code of all groups on a whole track basis. Particular attention must be paid to the present group with whom he is currently co-acting, namely Scientology. This is why it is important to do the last two pages* of the Basic Integrity Processing Form and others specifically related to the subject of Scientology as applicable on all Scientologists first, because in the first place he is expecting something to help him against which he has overts and to that degree these overts are overts against himself as they will, if not pulled, prevent him from being helped, and in the second place overts against current groups are most important, then overts committed in this lifetime, and then overts committed on the track, the reason being that he is still connected with these current groups and with this lifetime.

Integrity Processing is a most fruitful source of cognition, because you are pulling off the Preclear’s not-knows on the Third Dynamic, which have kept others in ignorance and himself in stupidity. Besides this, you tremendously increase the Preclear’s ability to communicate. And on top of all this you make a Preclear much easier to audit. And if all his withholds are pulled, he can be cleared.

Pretty good gains to work for?

Well then, let’s get busy.

Compiled from LRH briefings 
and materials by 
Lt. Comdr. Brian Livingston

Reissued as BTB 
by Flag Mission 1234

I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis
2nd: Molly Harlow

Authorized by AVU 
for the 
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
of the 
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

BDCS:SW:AL:MH:BL:mh.rdjh 
Copyright © 1972, 1974 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 FEBRUARY 1962

Franchise
URGENT

MISSED WITHHOLDS

The one item Scientologists everywhere must get an even greater reality on is MISSED WITHHOLDS and the upsets they cause.

EVERY upset with Central Orgs, Field Auditors, pcs, the lot, is traceable to one or more MISSED WITHHOLDS.

Every ARC Breaky pc is ARC Breaky because of a Missed Withhold. Every dissatisfied pc is dissatisfied because of MISSED WITHHOLDS.

We’ve got to get a flaming reality on this.

WHAT IS A MISSED WITHHOLD?

A missed withhold is not just a withhold. Please burn that into the stone walls. A Missed Withhold is a withhold that existed, could have been picked up and was MISSED.

The mechanics of this are given in the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course Lecture of 1 February 1962.

The fact of it is stated in the Congress Lectures of the D.C. Congress of December 30-31, Jan. 1, 1962.

Since that Congress even more data has accumulated. That data is large, voluminous and overwhelming.

The person with complaints has MISSED WITHHOLDS. The person with entheta has MISSED WITHHOLDS. You don’t need policies and diplomacy to handle these people. Policy and diplomacy will fail. You need expert auditing skill and a British Mark IV meter and the person on the cans and that person’s MISSED WITHHOLDS.

A MISSED WITHHOLD is a withhold that existed, was tapped and was not pulled. Hell hath no screams like a withhold scorned.

A MISSED WITHHOLD programme would not be one where an auditor pulls a pc’s withholds. A MISSED WITHHOLD programme would be where the auditor searched for and found when and where withholds had been available but had been MISSED.

The withhold need not have been asked for. It merely need have been available. And if it was not pulled, thereafter you have a nattery, combative, ARC Breaky or entheta inclined person.

THIS is the only dangerous point in auditing. This is the only thing which makes an occasional error in the phrase, “Any auditing is better than no auditing.” That line is true with one exception. If a withhold were available but was missed, thereafter you have a bashed-up case.
HOW TO AUDIT IT

In picking up Missed Withholds you don’t ask for withholds, you ask for missed withholds.

Sample question:

“What withhold was missed on you?”

The auditor then proceeds to find out what it was and who missed it. And the Mark IV needle is cleaned of reaction at Sensitivity 16 on every such question.

Gone is the excuse “She doesn’t register on the meter.” That’s true of old meters, not the British Mark IV.

And if the pc considers it no overt, and can’t conceive of overts, you still have “didn’t know”. Example: “What didn’t an auditor know in an auditing session?”

SAMPLE MISSED WITHHOLD SESSION

Ask pc if anyone has ever missed a withhold on him (her) in an auditing session. Clean it. Get all reactions off the needle at Sensitivity 16.

Then locate first auditing session pc had. Flatten “What didn’t that auditor know?” “What didn’t that auditor know about you?”

For good measure get the ruds in for that first session. In auditing an auditor, also do the same thing for his or her first pc.

Then pick up any stuck session. Treat it exactly the same way. (If you scan the pc through all his auditing ever from the cleaned first session to present time, the pc will stick in a session somewhere. Treat that session the same as the first session. You can scan again and again, finding the stuck sessions and get the withholds off in that session and the ruds in as above.)

Clean up all sessions you can find. And get what the auditor didn’t know, what the auditor didn’t know about the pc, and for good measure, get in the other ruds.

Cleaning up an old session will suddenly give you all the latent gain in that session. It’s worth having!

This can be extended to “What didn’t the org know about you?” for those who’ve had trouble with it.

And it can be extended to any life area where the pc has had trouble.

SUMMARY

If you clean up as above withholds that have been missed on any pc or person, you will have any case flying.

This then is not just emergency data for use on flubbed intensives. It is vital technology that can do wonders for cases.

ON ANY CASE THAT HAS BEEN AUDITED A PART OF AN INTENSIVE, BEFORE GOING ON THE AUDITOR SHOULD SPEND SOME TIME LOCATING WITHHOLDS HE OR SHE MIGHT HAVE MISSED ON THAT PC.

Any pc that is ending a week’s auditing should be carefully checked over for withholds that might have been missed.

Any pc that is ending his or her intensives should be most carefully checked out for missed withholds. This makes sudden auditing gains.

Any case not up to recognizing overts will respond to “didn’t know about you” when the case doesn’t respond to “withhold”.

Any student should be checked weekly for missed withholds.

Any person who is giving an auditor, the field, the Organization, a course or Scientology any trouble should be gotten hold of and checked for missed withholds.

It is provenly true on five continents that any other meter reaches only occasionally below the level of consciousness and the British Mark IV reaches deeply and well. It is dangerous to audit without a meter because then you really miss withholds. It is dangerous to audit without knowing how to really use a meter because of missing withholds. It is dangerous to audit with any other meter than a British Mark IV. It is SAFE to audit if you can run a meter and if you use a British Mark IV and if you pull all the withholds and missed withholds.

EVERY blow-up you ever had with a pc was due ENTIRELY to having missed a withhold whether you were using a meter or not, whether you were asking for withholds or not.

Just try it out the next time a pc gets upset and you’ll see that I speak the usual sooth.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: sf.rd 
Copyright © 1962 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 FEBRUARY 1962
sthil	
CenOCon

	HOW TO CLEAR WITHHOLDS AND MISSED WITHHOLDS

I have finally reduced clearing withholds to a rote formula which contains all the basic elements necessary to obtain a high case gain without missing any withholds.

These steps now become THE way to clear a withhold or missed withhold.

AUDITOR OBJECTIVE

The auditor’s object is to get the pc to look so that the pc can tell the auditor.

The auditor’s objective is not to get the pc to tell the auditor. If the pc is in session the pc will talk to the auditor. If the pc is not in session, the pc won’t tell the auditor a withhold. I never have any trouble getting the pc to tell me a withhold. I sometimes have trouble getting the pc to find out about a withhold so the pc can tell it to me. If the pc will not tell the auditor a withhold (and the pc knows it) the remedy is rudiments. I always assume, and correctly, that if the pc knows about it the pc will tell me. My job is to get the pc to find out so the pc has something to tell me. The chief auditor blunder in pulling withholds stems from the auditor assuming the pc already knows when the pc does not.

If used exactly, this system will let the pc find out and let the pc get all the charge off of a withhold as well as tell the auditor all about it.

Missing a withhold or not getting all of it is the sole source of ARC break.

Get a reality on this now. All trouble you have or have ever had or will ever have with ARC breaky pcs stems only and wholly from having restimulated a withhold and yet having failed to pull it. The pc never forgives this. This system steers you around the rock of missed withholds and their bombastic consequences.

WITHHOLD SYSTEM

This system has five parts:

0. 	The Difficulty being handled.
1. 	What the withhold is.
2. 	When the withhold occurred.
3. 	All of the withhold.
4. 	Who should have known about it.

Numbers (2) (3) and (4) are repeated over and over, each time testing (1) until (1) no longer reacts.

(2) (3) and (4) clear (1). (1) straightens out in part (0).

(0) is cleaned up by finding many (1)’s and (1) is straightened up by running (2) (3) and (4) many times.

These steps are called (0) Difficulty, (1) What (2) When (3) All (4) Who. The auditor must memorize these as What, When, All and Who. The order is never varied. The questions are asked one after the other. None of them are repetitive questions.

USE A MARK IV

The whole operation is done on a Mark IV. Use no other meter as other meters may read right electronically without reading mental reactions well enough.

Do this whole system and all questions at sensitivity 16.

THE QUESTIONS

0. 	The suitable question concerning the Difficulty the pc is having. Meter reads.

1.	What. “What are you withholding about ............?” (the Difficulty) (or as given in future issues).

	Meter reads. Pc answers with a w/h, large or small.

2. 	When. “When did that occur?” or “When did that happen?” or “What was the time of that?”

	Meter reads. Auditor can date in a generality or precisely on meter. A generality is best at first, a precise dating on the meter is used later in this sequence on the same w/h.

3. 	All. “Is that all of that?” Meter reads. Pc answers.

4. 	Who. “Who should have known about that?” or “Who didn’t find out about that?” Meter reads. Pc answers.

Now test (1) with the same question that got a read the first time. (The question for (1) is never varied on the same w/h.)

If needle still reads ask (2) again, then (3), then (4), getting as much data as possible on each. Then test (1) again. (1) is only tested, never worked over except by using (2), (3) and (4).

Continue this rotation until (1) clears on needle and thus no longer reacts on a test.

Treat every withhold you find (or have found) in this fashion always.

SUMMARY

You are looking at a preview of PREPARATORY TO CLEARING. “Prepclearing” for short. Abandon all further reference to security checking or sec checking. The task of the auditor in Prepclearing is to prepare a pc’s rudiments so that they can’t go out during 3D Criss Cross.

The value of Prepclearing in case gain, is greater than any previous Class I or Class II auditing.

We have just risen well above Security Checking in ease of auditing and in case gains.

You will shortly have the ten Prepclearing lists which give you the (0) and (1) questions. Meanwhile, treat every withhold you find in the above fashion for the sake of the preclear, for your sake as an auditor and for the sake of the good name of Scientology.

(Note: To practise with this system, take a withhold a pc has given several times to you or you and other auditors. Treat the question that originally got it as (1) and clean it as above in this system. You will be amazed.)

LRH:sf.cden 							L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright © 1962 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 FEBRUARY 1962

Franchise 
CenOCon
WITHHOLDS, MISSED
AND PARTIAL

I don’t know exactly how to get this across to you except to ask you to be brave, squint up your eyes and plunge.

I don’t appeal to reason. Only to faith at the moment. When you have a reality on this, nothing will shake it and you’ll no longer fail cases or fail in life. But, at the moment, it may not seem reasonable. So just try it, do it well and day will dawn at last.

What are these natterings, upsets, ARC breaks, critical tirades, lost PE members, ineffective motions? They are restimulated but missed or partially missed withholds. If I could just teach you that and get you to get a good reality on that in your own auditing, your activities would become smooth beyond belief.

----------------

It is true that ARC breaks, present time problems and withholds all keep a session from occurring. And we must watch them and clear them.

But behind all these is another button, applicable to each, which resolves each one. And that button is the restimulated but missed or partially missed withhold.

----------------

Life itself has imposed this button on us. It did not come into being with security checking.

If you know about people or are supposed to know about people, then these people expect, unreasonably, that you know them through and through.

Real knowledge to the average person is only this: a knowledge of his or her withholds! That, horribly enough, is the high tide of knowledge for the man in the street. If you know his withholds, if you know his crimes and acts, then you are smart. If you know his future you are moderately wise. And so we are persuaded towards mind reading and fortune telling.

All wisdom has this trap for those who would be wise.

Egocentric man believes all wisdom is wound up in knowing his misdemeanors.

IF any wise man represents himself as wise and fails to discover what a person has done, that person goes into an antagonism or other misemotion toward the wise man. So they hang those who restimulate and yet who do not find out about their withholds.

This is an incredible piece of craziness. But it is observably true.

This is the WILD ANIMAL REACTION that makes Man a cousin to the beasts.

A good auditor can understand this. A bad one will stay afraid of it and won’t use it.
----------------

The end rudiment for withholds for any session should be worded, “Have I missed a withhold on you?”

----------------

Any ARC broke pc should be asked, “What withhold have I missed on you?” Or, “What have I failed to find out about you?” Or, “What should I have known about you?”

----------------

An auditor who sec checks but cannot read a meter is dangerous because he or she will miss withholds and the pc may become very upset.

----------------

Use this as a stable datum: If the person is upset, somebody failed to find out what that person was sure they would find out.

----------------

A missed withhold is a should have known.

----------------

The only reason anyone has ever left Scientology is because people failed to find out about them.

----------------

This is valuable data. Get a reality on it.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :sf.cden
Copyright ©1962
L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 MARCH 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise
SUMMARY OF SECURITY CHECKING

(As Security Checking is the one form of auditing that does not interfere with R2 or R3, I asked Reg Sharpe to do a run-down on what we know about it—L. RON HUBBARD.)

____________

Security Checking has an important part to play in modern auditing. We have the datum that as a PC comes up in responsibility so does his recognition of overts. This factor can seriously hamper a PC’s progress. Security Checking is a case cleaning activity and it should be thoroughly and competently applied. It is not something to be done just for form’s sake. It is done to speed up the advance of the case. A PC who has overts ready to be pulled just cannot make the rapid progress which modern clearing techniques make possible. So don’t underestimate the value of Sec Checking. Learn to do it. Learn to do it well and when you do it, go in and do an expert and thorough job.

Security Checking is a specialized type of auditing, and it takes a lot of skill and at times some courage to do it well. Auditors must not be kind nor yet unkind. This does not mean that you steer a luke warm middle course between kindness and unkindness. Neither of these two impostors have anything to do with it. You Just go in and audit, you go in to find—and that means dig for OVERTS. If you go in with PC’s needle clean and your questioning can get that needle to react, then you are winning.

The success of an auditor can be measured by the extent to which he can get reactions on the needle and then cleaning those reactions getting more reactions and cleaning those and so on. It’s a probing operation like probing for sore places on a body, locating them and then healing them. The skilled auditor, however, gets to the root of the trouble and clears up a whole batch of overts at once.

Security Checking is done in Model Session. The beginning rudiments are put in and by the time you start the body of the session, in this case the security check, the PC should have a nice clean needle. The next thing is to tell the PC that you are going to help him to clean up, and really clean up, the questions on the Form that you are using. REMEMBER IT IS THE QUESTION YOU ARE GOING TO CLEAN—NOT THE NEEDLE. You’ve already got a clean needle and you could probably keep it clean by Bad TR 1, failure to dig, or just sheer bad auditing. No, it’s the question you are cleaning, and in the process you are going to get a dirty or reacting needle. So really get it over to your PC that you are going to CLEAN THE QUESTION.

The next action is to announce the first question that you are going to clean. The important thing at this stage is to groove in the question. There are a variety of ways to do this, e.g., ask what the question means. What period or time the question covers. What activities would be included. Where the PC has been that might be something to do with the question. If any other people are likely to be involved. In other words you are steering the PC’s attention to various parts of his bank and getting him to have a preliminary look. When this has been done, using very good TR l, you give him the question-OFF THE METER. You can forget your anti Q and A drill. You take your PC’s answer and bird dog him about it. If he gives you a general answer you ask him for a specific time (or a specific example) DON’T ACCEPT MOTIVATORS. If he gives you a motivator you say “OK, but what did you do there?” and you want something before the motivator. Example:- PC: “I got mad at him because he kicked my foot.” Aud: “What had you done before he kicked your foot?” In this case the PC is giving an overt “I got mad at him” but in fact he is cunningly selling the motivator “He kicked me in the foot”. So the rule here is “go earlier than the motivator”. Similarly you don’t accept criticisms, unkind thoughts, explanations. You want what the PC has done and you want the Time Place Form and Event.

When you have succeeded in this you don’t leave it there. You ask for an earlier time he had done something like it and you keep going earlier. What you are after is the earliest time he stole, hit somebody, got angry with a PC or whatever is his “crime”. Get the earliest one and you will find that the others will blow off like thistledown.

Keep a sly eye on your meter and you can tell when you are in a hot area. Use it to help you to know where to dig, but don’t use it to steer the PC at this stage. This encourages laziness on the part of the PC. YOU want him in there foraging about and digging up his bank in the process.

Only when your PC is thoroughly and healthily exhausted do you check the question on the meter. If you have done an excellent job the question will be clean.

However if you get a read you steer your PC by saying “There”, “There” whenever you see a repetition of the original read. When he finds it you repeat the procedure outline above. YOU don’t go back to the meter until you have really got all there is to be got. When you have got a clean needle you put in your mid ruds on the session, and if these are clean and only if they are clean you go on to the next question. If the ruds do bring out something then you go back to the question and start over again. And so you go on cleaning question after question. The success of a Sec Check Session is not judged by the number of questions cleaned but by the amount of looking you succeeded in making your PC do.

If you do this properly, that is the whole outline, you will have a well satisfied PC. If he ARC breaks then you have missed something, so pull your missed withholds. A Rising TA is a clue to something missed. If a PC isn’t happy—very happy—at the end of a question then you have missed something. PC’s will tell you a hundred and one things that are wrong with your auditing, the D of P’s instruction, the form of the question, etc., but they all add up to the same thing-something has been missed.

Finally do end Ruds and these should run quickly and smoothly. Run a bit of havingness if necessary. Sharpen your pencil for the goals and gains and you’ll leave the session happy and satisfied because that’s how your PC feels.

One word of warning. If you leave a question unflat, mark it on your auditor’s report and TELL YOUR PC it isn’t flat.

Good digging.

	Issued by:	Reg Sharpe
SHSBC Course Secretary
for
L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 JULY 1963
Central Orgs 
for info 
Sthil SHSBC

AUDITING RUN DOWN
MISSED WITHHOLDS
TO BE RUN IN X 1 UNIT

(supersedes HCO Bulletin of July 11, 1963, same title,
which was issued to Sthil SHSBC only)

1. 	Ask pc following question:

	“In this lifetime what have you done that you have withheld from someone?”

2. 	When pc has answered ask:

	(a) 	“When was it?”

	(b) 	“Where was it?”

	(c) 	“Who failed to find out about it?”

	(d) 	“Who nearly found out about it?”

	(e) 	“Who still doesn’t know about it?”

Each withhold and answer must be written down and the sheet of withholds and answers must be turned in with the auditing report.

The sheet will be made available to all instructors on the Briefing Course.

The above suggestion was made by Bernie Pesco, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course student and accepted for use.

L RON HUBBARD

LRH:jw.cden
Copyright © 1963 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 JULY 1964
Remimeo 
Sthil Students 
Franchise

OVERTS—ORDER OF EFFECTIVENESS IN PROCESSING
(STAR RATED except for Forbidden Words List)

It will be found in processing the various case levels that running overts is very effective in raising the cause level of a pc.

The scale, on actual tests of running various levels of pc response, is seen to go something like this:

I ITSA — Letting a pc discuss his or her guilt feelings about self with little or no auditor direction.

I ITSA — Letting a pc discuss his or her guilt feelings about others, with little or no auditor direction.

II REPETITIVE O/W — Using merely “In this lifetime what have you done?” “What haven’t you done?” Alternate.

III ASSESSMENT BY LIST — 	Using existing or specially prepared lists of possible overts, cleaning the meter each time it reads on a question and using the question only so long as it reads.

IV JUSTIFICATIONS — Asking the pc what he or she has done and then using that one instance (if applicable) finding out why “that” was not an overt.

Advice enters into this under the heading of instruction: “You’re upset about that person because you’ve done something to that person.”

Dynamics also permissively enter into this above Level I but the pc wanders around amongst them. In Level III one can also direct attention to the various dynamics by first assessing them and then using or preparing a list for the dynamic found.

RESPONSIBILITY

There is no reason to expect any great pc responsibility for his or her own overts below Level IV and the auditor seeking to make the pc feel or take responsibility for overts is just pushing the pc down. The pc will resent being made feel guilty. Indeed the auditor may only achieve that, not case gain. And the pc will ARC break.

At Level IV one begins on this subject of responsibility but again it is indirectly the target. There is no need now to run Responsibility in doing O/Ws.

The realization that one has really done something is a return of responsibility and this gain is best obtained only by indirect approach as in the above processes.

ARC BREAKS

The commonest cause of failure in running overt acts is “cleaning cleans” whether or not one is using a meter. The pc who really has more to tell doesn’t ARC Break when the Auditor continues to ask for one but may snarl and eventually give it up.

On the other hand leaving an overt touched on the case and calling it clean will cause a future ARC Break with the auditor.

“Have you told all?” prevents cleaning a clean. On the unmetered pc one can see the pc brighten up. On the meter you get a nice fall if it’s true that all is told.

“Have I not found out about something?” prevents leaving an overt undisclosed. On the unmetered pc the reaction is a sly flinch. On a metered pc it gives a read.

A pc’s protest against a question will also be visible in an unmetered pc in a reeling sort of exasperation which eventually becomes a howl of pure bafflement at why the auditor won’t accept the answer that that’s all. On a meter protest of a question falls on being asked for: “Is this question being protested?”

There is no real excuse for ARC Breaking a pc by

1. 	Demanding more than is there or

2. 	Leaving an overt undisclosed that will later make the pc upset with the auditor.

FORBIDDEN WORDS

Do not use the following words in auditing commands. While they can be used in discussion or nomenclature, for various good reasons they should be avoided now in an auditing command:

Responsibility	(ies)
Justification	(s)
Withhold	(s)
Failed	(ures)
Difficulty	(ies)
Desire	(s)
Here
There
Compulsion	(s) (ively)
Obsession	(s) (ively)

No unusual restraint should be given these words. Just don’t frame a command that includes them. Use something else.

WHY OVERTS WORK

Overts give the highest gain in raising cause level because they are the biggest reason why a person restrains himself and withholds self from action.

Man is basically good. But the reactive mind tends to force him into evil actions. These evil actions are instinctively regretted and the individual tries to refrain from doing anything at all. The “best” remedy, the individual thinks, is to withhold. “If I commit evil actions, then my best guarantee for not committing is to do nothing whatever.” Thus we have the “lazy”, inactive person.
Others who try to make an individual guilty for committing evil actions only increase this tendency to laziness.

Punishment is supposed to bring about inaction. And it does. In some unexpected ways.

However, there is also an inversion (a turn about) where the individual sinks below recognition of any action. The individual in such a state cannot conceive of any action and therefore cannot withhold action. And thus we have the criminal who can’t act really but can only re-act and is without any self direction. This is why punishment does not cure criminality but in actual fact creates it; the individual is driven below withholding or any recognition of any action. A thief’s hands stole the jewel, the thief was merely an innocent spectator to the action of his own hands. Criminals are very sick people physically.

So there is a level below withholding that an auditor should be alert to in some pcs, for these “have no withholds” and “have done nothing”. All of which, seen through their eyes is true. They are merely saying “I cannot restrain myself” and “I have not willed myself to do what I have done.”

The road out for such a case is the same as that for any other case. It is just longer. The processes for levels above hold also for such cases. But don’t be anxious to see a sudden return of responsibility, for the first owned “done” that this person knows he or she has done may be “ate breakfast”. Don’t disdain such answers in Level II particularly. Rather, in such people, seek such answers.

There is another type of case in all this, just one more to end the list. This is the case who never runs O/W but “seeks the explanation of what I did that made it all happen to me”.

This person easily goes into past lives for answers. Their reaction to a question about what they’ve done is to try to find out what they did that earned all those motivators. That, of course, isn’t running the process and the auditor should be alert for it and stop it when it is happening.

This type of case goes into its extreme on guilt. It dreams up overts to explain why. After most big murders the police routinely have a dozen or two people come around and confess. You see, if they had done the murder, this would explain why they feel guilty. As a terror stomach is pretty awful grim to live with, one is apt to seek any explanation for it if it will only explain it.

On such cases the same approach as given works, but one should be very careful not to let the pc get off overts the pc didn’t commit.

Such a pc (recognizable by the ease they dive into the extreme past) when being audited off a meter gets more and more frantic and wilder and wilder in overts reported. They should get calmer under processing, of course, but the false overts make them frantic and hectic in a session. On a meter one simply checks for “Have you told me anything beyond what really has occurred?” Or “Have you told me any untruths?”

The observation and meter guides given in this section are used during a session when they apply but not systematically such as after every pc answer. These observations and meter guides are used always at the end of every session on the pcs to whom they apply.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
LRH: nb. cden 
Copyright © 1964 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 JULY 1964

Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students
SCIENTOLOGY I to IV

MORE ON O/Ws

The Itsa processes for O/W are almost unlimited.

There is, however, the distinct must not at Level I, as at upper Levels, DON’T RUN A PROCESS THAT MAKES THE PC FEEL ACCUSED.

A pc will feel accused if he is run above his or her level. And remember that temporary sags in level can occur such as during ARC Breaks with the auditor or life.

A process can be accusative because it is worded too strongly. It can be accusative to the pc because the pc feels guilty or defensive anyway.

At Level I proper O/W processes can take up the troubles that are described as peculiar to some pcs without getting too personal about it.

Here are some varied Level I Processes:

“Tell me some things you think you should not have done.”

“Tell me what you’ve done that got you into trouble.”

“What wouldn’t you do over again?”

“What are some things a person shouldn’t say?”

“What gets a person into trouble?”

“What have you done that you regret?”

“What have you said you wish you hadn’t?”

“What have you advised others to do?”

There are many more.

These at Level II all convert to repetitive processes.

At Level III such processes convert to lists.

At Level IV such processes convert to how they weren’t overts or weren’t really done or justifications of one kind or another.

Care should be taken not to heavily run an out-of-ARC type process. This is the command which asks for out-of-Affinity moments, out-of-Reality moments and out of-Communication incidents.

All after charge is based on prior ARC. Therefore for a withhold to exist there must have been communication earlier. ARC incidents are basic on all chains. Out of ARC are later on the chain. One has to get a basic to blow a chain. Otherwise one gets recurring answers. (Pc brings up same incident over and over as you don’t have the basic on the chain.)

You can alternate an ARC command with an out-of-ARC command. “What have you done?” (means one had to reach for and contact) can be alternated with “What haven’t you done?” (means not reached for and not contacted).

But if one runs the out-of-ARC (not reached for and not contacted) process only the pc will soon bog.

On the other hand an ARC process runs on and on with no bad side effects, i.e. “What have you done?”

“What bad thing have you done?” is a mixture of ARC and out-of-ARC. Done reached and contacted. Bad wished one hadn’t.

So solely accusative commands upset the pc not because of social status or insult but because a pc, particularly at lower levels of case, wishes so hard he hadn’t done it that a real bad done is really a withhold and the pc not only withholds it from the auditor but himself as well.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :jw.cden 
Copyright © 1964 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 SEPTEMBER 1964

Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students	
LEVELS II to IV

OVERTS, WHAT LIES BEHIND THEM?

I recently made a very basic discovery on the subject of overts and would like to rapidly make a note of it for the record.

You can call this the “Cycle of an Overt”.

4. 	A being appears to have a motivator.

3. 	This is because of an overt the being has done.

2. 	The being committed an overt because he didn’t understand something.

1. 	The being didn’t understand something because a word or symbol was not understood.

Thus all caved-in conditions, illness, etc, can be traced back to a misunderstood symbol, strange as that may seem.

It goes like this:

1. 	A being doesn’t get the meaning of a word or symbol.

2. 	This causes the being to misunderstand the area of the symbol or word (who used it whatever it applied to);

3. 	This causes the being to feel different from or antagonize toward the user or whatever of the symbol and so makes it all right to commit an overt;

4. 	Having committed the overt, the being now feels he has to have a motivator and so feels caved in.

This is the stuff of which Hades is made. This is the trap. This is why people get sick. This is stupidity and lack of ability.

This is why Clay Table Auditing works.

Clearing a pc then consists only of locating the area of the motivator, finding what was misunderstood and getting the word made into clay and explained. The overts blow. Pure magic.

The trick is locating the area where the pc has one of these.

This is discussed further in Saint Hill lecture of 3 Sept 1964, but is too important a discovery to leave only in tape form.

The cycle is Misunderstood word or symbol—separation from ARC with the things associated with the word or symbol—overt committed—motivator felt necessary to justify the overt—decline of freedom, activeness, intelligence, well being and health.

Knowing this and the technology of auditing one can then handle and clear these symbols and words and produce the gains we have described as being clear, for the things causing the decline are cleared out of the being.

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 5 MARCH 1965
Issue II
Remimeo	
Franchise
Sthil Students
Sthil Staff	ALL LEVELS

BOOK OF CASE REMEDIES
APPLICATION OF TECH

A sure road to award and glory is to find a new application for an existing Scientology process or principle or book.

The period of the discovery of principles, processes or original works is surely over as we have everything between the snake’s stomach and the high sky by way of natural laws. Inventing and using new processes is a sure way to slow down the advance. There were only so many anyway and it’s been done.

But new ways to apply or disseminate what we’ve got are welcome, welcome, welcome. We’ve not nearly enough of those and we’ll be inventing or seeing them for the next umpty trillion years.

So my hat is off to Beth Fordyce, HCO Area Sec Detroit, U.S.A., who informed us via U.S. Continental of a new use for The Book of Case Remedies for which she’ll receive a bow and appropriate award, to wit her DScn.

Here is her report.

“At the January D.C. Congress, I had some interesting data about The Book of Case Remedies that you (HCO Cont Sec U.S.) thought I ought to write up for Ron because you felt he’d be interested in it. Here it is.

“We’ve had several instances where people have read the remedies and come in to tell me that certain ones ‘fit’ them. Then when they started to tell me which ones specifically, they couldn’t remember them—or they would be able to remember only one. The book obviously indicates by-passed charge, and handles most of the problems. They find out what their problem actually is.

“One fellow who has been ARC broken with Scientology for years (even before I heard of Scn), came in and I asked him to find himself in the remedies. He started reading them, and each one seemed to fit him (except about 3 or 4 of them). I noted them down one by one, as he called them to me. When he finished, I said no more about it.

“Later on—about 15 minutes—he decided he’d better look through those again because he ‘was sure that they didn’t all fit—maybe some of them have changed’. So he went through them again, one by one, and only 3 still seemed to apply—and only ONE of them was strongest, he felt. The other two seemed to have lost their punch.

“He was quite different after that. I also did what the remedy called for, which cleaned it up. The last time I saw him—at our Congress—he not once mentioned the problem he’s always had with eye-spots. (And, frankly, I was afraid at that point to say ‘eye-spots’ to him for fear he’d key it back in again, so I just settled for HIS not mentioning it ! )

“As soon as we get our next batch of Remedies, I intend to send at least 4 of them as gifts to people who are badly ARC broken with us. If they actually read them, I know exactly what will happen—they can’t stay ARC broken.

                                 					Best,
                                   					Beth”

So there’s a wide open door. Try it out on “rough cases” and demand ARC Broken ones do it and write you back or tell you which one it is.

	L. RON HUBBARD 

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 APRIL AD15
Remimeo
Franchise

ARC BREAKS AND MISSED WITHHOLDS

The primary error one can make in ARC Break handling is to handle the pc with ARC Break procedure when the pc really has a missed withhold.

As some auditors dislike pulling withholds (because they run into pcs who use it to carve the auditor up such as “I have a withhold that everybody thinks you are awful ——”) it is easier to confront the idea that a pc has an ARC Break than the idea that the pc has a withhold.

In case of doubt one meter checks on a withhold to see if it is non-existent (“Am I demanding a withhold you haven’t got?”). If this is the case the TA will blow down. If it isn’t the case the needle and TA remain unchanged. If the pc’s nattery or ARC Breaky condition continues despite finding by-passed charge, then of course it is obviously a withhold.

ARC Break finding does work. When the pc doesn’t change despite skillful ARC Break handling, locating and indicating, it was a withhold in the first place.

The hardest pc to handle is the missed withhold pc. They ARC Break but you can’t get the pc out of it. The answer is, the pc had a withhold all the time that is at the bottom of all these ARC Breaks.

Scientology auditing does not leave the pc in poor condition unless one goofs on ARC Breaks.

ARC Breaks occur most frequently on people with missed withholds. \-

Therefore if a pc can’t be patched up easily or won’t stay patched up on ARC Breaks, there must be basic withholds on the case. One then works hard on withholds with any and all the tools that we’ve got.

ARC Breaks don’t cause blows. Missed withholds do. When you won’t hear what the pc is saying, then you have made him have a withhold and it responds as a missed withhold.

In short, the bottom of ARC Breaks is a missed withhold.

But an anti-social act done and then withheld sets the pc up to become “an ARC Breaky pc”. It isn’t an accurate remark really since one has a pc with withholds who on being audited ARC Breaks easily. So the accurate statement is “the pc is a withholdy type pc that ARC Breaks a lot”. Now that type exists. And they sure have lots of subsequent ARC Breaks and are regularly being patched up.

If you have a pc, then, who seems to have a lot of ARC Breaks, the pc is a “withholdy pc” not an “ARC Breaky pc”. Any auditor miss causes a pc blow-up. The auditor by calling this pc an “ARC Breaky pc” is not using a description which leads to a resolution of the case as thousands of ARC Break assessments leave the case still liable to ARC Break. If you call such a case that ARC Breaks a lot a “withholdy pc that ARC Breaks a lot” then you can solve the case. For all you have to do is work on withholds.

The actual way to handle a “withholdy pc that ARC Breaks a lot” after you’ve cooled off the last of his many ARC Breaks is:
1. 	Get the pc to look at what’s going on with his sessions.

2. 	Get the pc in comm.

3. 	Get the pc to look at what’s really bugging him.

4. 	Get the pc’s willingness to give withholds up on a gradient.

5. 	Bring the pc to an understanding of what he’s doing.

6. 	Get the pc’s purpose in being audited in plain view to him or her.

Those are of course the names of the first six grades. However, low down, these six things are all crushed together and you could really pursue that cycle in one session just to get the pc up a bit without even touching the next grade up.

Whenever I see a sour-faced person who has been “trained” or is being “trained” I know one thing—there goes a pc with lots of withholds. I also know, there is a pc who ARC Breaks a lot in session. And I also know his co-auditor is weak and flabby as an auditor. And I also know his auditing supervisor doesn’t shove the student auditor into doing the process correctly.

One sour-faced student, one glance and I know all the above things, bang!

So why can’t somebody else notice it?

Auditing is a pleasure. But not when an auditor can’t tell a withhold from an ARC Break and doesn’t know that continual ARC Breaks are caused by missed withholds on the bottom of the chain.

I never miss on this. Why should you?

The only case that will really “bug you” is the CONTINUOUS OVERT case. Here’s one that commits anti-social acts daily during auditing. He’s a nut. He’ll never get better, case always hangs up.

Unless you treat his continual overts as a solution to a PTP. And find what PTP he’s trying to solve with these crazy overt acts.

You see, we can even solve that case.

BUT, don’t go believing Scientology doesn’t work when it meets an unchanging or continually misemotional pc. Both of these people are foul balls who are loaded with withholds.

We’ve cracked them for years and years now.

But not by playing patty-cake or “slap my wrist”.

Takes an auditor, not a lady finger.

“Mister, you’ve been wasting my time for three sessions. You have withholds. Give!” “Mister, you refuse just once more to answer my question and you’re for it. I’ve checked this meter. It’s not a withhold of nothing. You have withholds. Give!” “Mister, that’s it. I am asking the D of P to ask the Tech Sec for a Comm Ev on you from HCO for no report.”

If skill couldn’t do it, demand may. If demand couldn’t do it, a Comm Ev sure will.

For it’s a no report!

How can you make a man well when he’s got a sewer full of slimy acts.

Show me any person who is critical of us and I’ll show you crimes and intended crimes that would stand a magistrate’s hair on end.

Why not try it? Don’t buy “I once stole a paper clip from the HASI” as an overt or “You’re a lousy auditor” as a withhold. Hell, man, people who tell you those things just stole your lunch or intend to empty the till.

Get clever, auditor. Thetans are basically good. Them that Scientology doesn’t change are good—but down underneath a pile of crimes you couldn’t get into a Confession Story Magazine.

Okay. Please don’t go on making this error. It grieves me.

                                        					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 29 SEPTEMBER 1965
Issue II
Remimeo	
Franchise
Students
BPI
All Levels

THE CONTINUING OVERT ACT

Pity the poor fellow who commits daily harmful acts.

He’ll never make it.

A criminal pilfering the cash box once a week has himself stopped cold as far as case gains are concerned.

In 1954 I counted some noses. I checked up on 21 cases who had never had any gains since 1950. 17 turned out to be criminals! The other 4 were beyond the reach of investigation.

That gave me my first clue.

For some years then, I watched for no-gain cases and carefully followed up those that I could. They had major or minor criminal backgrounds.

This gave the 1959 breakthrough on the meter checks (Sec Checking).

Following it further since 1959 I have finally amassed enough histories to state:

THE PERSON WHO IS NOT GETTING CASE GAINS IS COMMITTING CONTINUING OVERTS.

While this sounds like a very good “out” for us, we assume that the auditor at least tried something sensible.

Today—the running of a pc by grades is a saving grace for merely “tough cases”. Directors of Processing are doing well with the modern graded process approach, level by level, and the D of P Washington has just told me they were cracking cases with the lowest grade processes DC had never been able to handle well before.

So, given processing by Grades (the best case approach we’ve ever had), we crack the rough ones.

But will that be all cases?

There’s still one. The case who continually commits overts before, during and after processing.

He won’t make it.

One thing helps this, however.

You have seen the Ethics Codes appear.
By putting a bit of control in the Scientology environment we have enough threat to restrain dramatization.

The phenomena is this: The reactive bank can exert stress on the pc if it is not obeyed. Discipline must exert just a shade more stress against dramatization than the bank does. This checks the performance of the continual overt long enough to let processing bite.

Not everyone is a continuous overt committer by a thousand to one. But this phenomenon is not confined to the no-gain case.

The slow gain case is also committing overts the auditor doesn’t see.

Therefore a little discipline in the environment speeds the slow gain case, the one we’re more interested in.

The no-gain case, frankly, is one I am not panting to solve. If a fellow wants to sell his next hundred trillion for the sake of the broken toy he stole, I’m afraid I can’t be bothered. I have no contract with any Big Thetan to save the world complete.

It is enough for me to know:

1. 	Where bottom is, and

2. 	How to help speed slow gain cases.

Bottom is the chap who eats your lunch apple and says the children did it. Bottom is the fellow who sows the environment with secret suppressive acts and vicious generalities.

The slow gain case responds to a bit of “keep your nose clean, please, while I apply the thetan-booster.”

The fast gain case does his job and doesn’t give a hoot about threatened discipline if it’s fair. And the fast gain case helps out and the fast gain case can be helped by a more orderly environment. The good worker works more happily when bad workers see the pitfalls and desist from distracting him.

So we all win.

The no-gain case? Well, he sure doesn’t deserve any gain. One pc in a thousand. And he yaps and groans and says “Prove it works” and blames us and raises hell. He makes us think we fail.

Look down in our Sthil files. There are actually thousands upon thousands of Scientologists there who each one comment on how wonderful it is and how good they feel. There are a few dozen or so who howl they haven’t been helped! What a ratio! Yet I believe some on staff think we have a lot of dissatisfied people. These no-gain characters strew so much entheta around that we think we fail. Look in the Saint Hill files sometime! Those many thousands of reports continue to pour in from around the world with hurrah! Only the few dozen groan.

But long ago I closed my book on the no-gain case. Each of those few dozen no-gains tell frightening lies to little children, pour ink on shoes, say how abused they are while tearing the guts out of those unlucky enough to be around them. They are suppressive persons, every one. I know. I’ve seen them all the way down to the little clinker they call their soul. And I don’t like what I saw.

The people who come to you with wild discreditable rumours, who seek to tear people’s attention off Scientology, who chew up orgs, are suppressive persons.
Well, give them a good rock and let them suppress it!

I can’t end this HCO B without a confession. I know how to cure them rather easily.

Maybe I’ll never let it be done.

For had they had their way we would have lost our chance. It’s too near to think about.

After all, we have to earn our freedom. I don’t care much for those who didn’t help.

The rest of us had to sweat a lot harder than was necessary to make it come true.

                                        				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 20 MAY 1968
CORRECTED & REISSUED MARCH 1974
Remimeo	
(Only change is in this type sty/e)

OVERT-MOTIVATOR SEQUENCE

DIANETICS COURSES
LEVEL TWO
SOLO AUDIT
OT SECTIONS

There was an important discovery made in 1952 on the subject of engrams which did not get included in “Book One”, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.

This was the “Overt-Motivator sequence of ENGRAMS”.

AN OVERT, in Dianetics and Scientology, is an aggressive or destructive ACT by the individual against one or another of the 8 dynamics (self, family, group, Mankind, animals or plants, MEST, Life or the Infinite).

A MOTIVATOR is an aggressive or destructive act received by the person or one of the dynamics.

The viewpoint from which the act is viewed resolves whether the act is an overt or a motivator.

The reason it is called a “Motivator” is because it tends to prompt that one pays it back—it “motivates” a new overt.

When one has done something bad to someone or something one tends to believe it must have been “motivated”.

When one has received something bad, he also may tend to feel he must have done something to deserve it.

The above points are true. The actions and reactions of people on the subject are often very falsified.

People go about believing they were in an auto accident when in actual fact they caused one.

Also people may believe they caused an accident when they were only in one.

Some people, on hearing of a death, at once believe they must have killed the person even though they were far away.

Police in large cities have people turn up and confess to almost every murder as a routine.

One doesn’t have to be crazy to be subject to the Overt-Motivator sequence. It is not only used on him continually by others, it also is a basic part of his own “case”.

There are two extreme stages of Overt-Motivator phenomena. One is a person who gives up only motivators (always done to him) and the other is the person who “has done only overts” (done to others).

In running engrams you will find

1. 	All overt engrams that hang up (won’t audit easily) have also a motivator engram as the same or different incident.

2. 	All motivator engrams that hang up have an overt engram in the same or different incident.

The two types of engrams then are OVERT Engrams and MOTIVATOR Engrams.

Example of Overt Engram—SHOOTING A DOG.

Example of Motivator Engram—BEING BITTEN BY A DOG.

The rule is that the SUBJECT MATTER MUST BE SIMILAR.

They can be in different points in time.

When you can’t run out (erase) a dog bite engram, why then you find the “shoot dog” engram.

PSYCHOSOMATIC ILLS OR ABERRATIONS THAT DO NOT RESOLVE BY RUNNING ONE SIDE, USUALLY RESOLVE BY FINDING AND RUNNING THE OTHER.

When you can’t erase an engram about shooting a dog, why then there’s a bitten by dog.

It’s all very simple really. There are always two sides to the coin. If one won’t run, you try the other.

BASICS

Finding the basic engram on a chain also applies to finding the basic overt or basic motivator engram.

Engrams then hang up (won’t run out) when
(a) 	The other type needs to be run and
(b) 	The one found has earlier engrams on it.

NONEXTANT ENGRAMS

An “engram” sometimes didn’t exist. A pc can be trying to run being run over by a car when he never was.  What needs to be done, when the incident won’t run, is get the pc’s incident of running over somebody.  It also works in reverse. A pc can be trying to run an engram of running over somebody when he was in fact only run over himself and never did run over anyone.

So BOTH engrams can exist and be run or only one side exists and can be run or with a heavy foul-up on overts and motivators, one side can be non-factual and won’t run because only the other side exists.

It is easy to visualize this as a matter of flows. An overt of course is an Outflow and a motivator is an Inflow.
SECONDARIES

It may never have been said that secondaries always sit squarely on incidents of actual pain and unconsciousness.

Also secondaries can exist on the overt-motivator sequence pattern just as in engrams.

This is the cause of frozen emotions or “unemotional” people. Also some people complain they can’t feel anymore.

This works out by overt-motivator sequence. A person in grief over loss (grief is always loss) who then can’t run it has caused grief and that overt-secondary can be run.

Also a person misemotional over causing grief has been caused grief. It works both ways with ALL POINTS ON THE TONE SCALE.

The last is a newer discovery and wasn’t known to early Dianeticists.

The Overt-Motivator Engram phenomena did not receive adequate dissemination. The principle applied to secondaries has not before been released.  It is basically Dianetic Engram running that resolves all cases in the end so one had better be pretty good at auditing Engrams and Secondaries, Motivator and Overt both.

LRH:jp.nt.cden:jh						L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1968, 1974					Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 26 AUGUST 1968

BPI Auditor
SECURITY CHECKS
ABOLISHED

The practice of security checking from security check lists like the “Joburg” has been abolished.

There are several reasons for this:

1. 	We have no interest in the secrets and crimes of people and no use for them

2. 	Security checking is often done without regard to the point where the pcrs feels better and so became overrun.

3. 	Security checking is often done in disregard of the state of a person’s case.

4. 	Low level cases do not react on actual crimes and so the “security” furnished is often a false security.

5. 	There is public criticism of security checking as a practice.

6. 	The existence of lists of crimes in folders often makes it necessary to destroy the folders which may contain other technical data which is constructive and valuable.

7. 	If a person is  a criminal or has overt acts which affect his case, and speaks of them to an auditor of his own volition, the auditor is bound by the Auditor’s Code not to publish use or reveal them.

Nothing in this policy letter alters standard grade processing or rudiments.

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 6 JUNE 1969
Remimeo
Class II
Checksheets
Academy
SHSBC	
PREDICTION AND CONSEQUENCES

Probably the reason overts of omission and commission are done at all lies in Man’s inability or faulty ability to predict and to realize consequences.

Men are rather thoroughly stuck in the present and so involved with its confusions that they rarely foresee anything and are mainly oblivious to any consequences of their own actions or failures to act.

This gives them the appearance of being stupid.

When men become too confused to even stay in the present they slide into the past and become “psychotic” or, at best, “neurotic”.

The Russian psychologist Pavlov was acceptable in Western Universities and governments mainly because he dealt only in stimulus and response mechanisms. Men in universities and governments and other places from which it is difficult to view life (since the situations are so lofty) took psychology and psychiatry at face value. Men were animals one trained like dancing bears. In other words these subjects were political subjects aimed at control. There was no thought of healing anything. “Treatment” meant, not heal or cure, but train by punishing “bad” characteristics. It is interesting that neither subject ever listed any good characteristics. A typical “treatment” was to punish with electric shock a “bad habit”. They would give an alcoholic a taste of liquor and shock him so that he would feel the shock each time he thought of liquor.

This is the Russian Pavlov at work in all American mental practice prior to Dianetics and Scientology. Needless to say a great many people were injured for life but no one was cured of anything.

The psychiatrist and psychologist who did these things were themselves of a criminal temperament and widely boasted they could not tell right from wrong. The ability to tell right from wrong is the legal definition of sanity.

The reason domineering politicians in government supported the psychologist and psychiatrist with billions in funds and helped them destroy any potential rival was that certain types in government conceive it their duty to control populations. In their view populations were merely a herd of animals to be managed and kept from committing anti-social acts as well as milked for tax money or slaughtered.

By making a totally confusing and violent environment and stripping the country of any constitutional safeguards the security of the individual was undermined to a point where he had to be continually alert to immediate threat in his environment.

This tended to pin people in close to present time. It inhibited any future, planning for the future or any long distance consequences in the future.

Thus Russian mental “treatment” imported into the West actually did prevent the people from being able to predict—as they were continuously battered by government.
Thus crime rose to a fantastic level. The citizen, pinned into insecurity in the present by outrageous economic, governmental and social duress, became much less able to predict and therefore became oblivious of the consequences of his own acts.

Most “criminal” types are completely unable to predict and thus have no fear of any consequences even when they are obvious to a more sane person.

The case that is very bad off therefore does not register on a meter. Having no awareness of good or evil due to his low case condition there is no apparent charge on overt acts of omission or commission, regardless of who has been hurt.

Man is basically good.

When his level of awareness rises he begins to be able to predict and see the consequences to himself or others of evil actions.

The more he is freed and the higher his intelligence and ability rise the more “moral” he becomes.

Only when he is beaten down below awareness as a chronic condition does Man commit evil actions.

It is not for nothing that soldiers have to be brutalized and stuck in the present by threat and duress to make them commit harmful actions.

When a person’s awareness is improved he is also able to predict and can foresee consequences on the eight dynamics.

Criminal governments and brutalizing societies are poor things to have around, they are not “clever” enough to forecast their own demise. They engage in cold or hot wars instead of working out their problems. They buy Pavlov and dog technology to crush “bad traits” rather than cure and heal anyone. They work to decrease all liberty or abolish constitutional safeguards.

True Sanity is that condition wherein one is sufficiently intelligent to solve his problems without physical violence or destroying other beings and yet survive happily and prosperously.

The road from insanity to sanity is a road of recognition of the world around one, the future, and consequences of one’s own actions.

Thus the principle of the overt motivator sequence will be found to explain and its techniques remedy the brutality into which races fall.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:fas.ei.rd 
Copyright © 1969 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 31 JANUARY 1970
Remimeo	
SHSBC Checksheet
Academy Checksheet	
Level II
WITHHOLDS, OTHER PEOPLE’S

Now and then, quite rarely, you find an auditor who in being audited “gets off” other people’s withholds.

Example: “Yes, I have a withhold from you. Charley said you were insane.”

Example: “Yes, I have a withhold. Mary Agnes has been in prison.”

One also finds public pcs trying to do this occasionally.

The facts of the case are that it doesn’t do anybody any good casewise to “get off” other people’s withholds.

Essentially, a withhold by definition is something the pc did that was an overt act, which the pc is withholding and thus keeping secret.

Thus, getting off things that somebody else did is not helpful to a case as such things aren’t aberrative to the pc.

But now let’s look at this more closely.

If a pc is “getting off” other people’s withholds HE HIMSELF MUST HAVE A CHAIN OF SIMILAR OVERTS AND WITHHOLDS that are his own.  Getting off other people’s withholds is then seen as a symptom of the pc withholding similar actions of his own.

Let us then complete the two examples above.

Auditor: “Do you have a withhold?”

Pc: “Charley said you were insane.”

Auditor, correctly: “Do you have a similar withhold of your own?”

Pc: “Er-uh—well actually I told the class you were crazy last month.”
____________
Auditor: “Do you have a withhold?”

Pc: “Mary Agnes has been in prison.”

Auditor: “Ok. Do you have a similar withhold of your own?”

Pc: “Er-uh—well—I spent two years in a reform school and I’ve never told anybody. “

You can assume that any pc who is trying to get off withholds someone else had is making a sort of out-of-valence effort to avoid giving his own withholds.

This applies, of course, to all overts as well. Somebody giving other people’s overts (which aren’t aberrative to him) is actually failing to give overts of his own which are aberrative to him.

This is the mechanism behind the fact that if a pc is nattering about somebody the pc has overts on that somebody. The natter is “other people’s overts”. Getting these off does not help the pc. Getting the pc’s off does.  Never be misled by a nattering pc. Never be hooked into letting him get off other people’s overts and withholds.

LRH:js.rd							L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright © 1970                             				Founder 
by L. Ron Hubbard                             
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO Bulletin of 22 OCTOBER 1970
Issue II
Remimeo
Class II

“NO OVERTS” CASES

Occasionally you run into a case that “has never committed any overts.” Such a person might, for example, never seem to have anything on F2.

The proper way to do a Return (Progress) on this is GRADIENT SCALES, discussion of what a harmful act would be, who could be harmed.

An HC Out-point session should be done first if it’s really bad.

You’ll find a kooky fixed idea like “thetans cannot be hurt” or “overts are their own fault,” etc.

Versions, very light of A-R-C-U, notably agreements crack this sort of thing.

Ron, in mid-1970, developed some additional processes to handle the type of case that “has never done anything bad.”

Some appropriate C/Ses are listed here for use on this type of case.

For someone achieving minimal results, or with a generally fat Review folder:

1. 	Fly all Ruds.

2. 	List to a BD F/N item - “What shouldn’t be known?”

For someone responding to routine overt pulling (due to, say, natter or no gain) with “no overts,” “no withholds,” “I wouldn’t expect anything to happen from it...,” etc.:

1. 	Assess GF 40. Include O/R.

2. 	Two-way comm the points that read (except Ruds that read as out).

Try to phrase the Two-way comm to get his attitude towards the subject that reads rather than do the Class VIII remedy.

Don’t use “you,” use “anyone,” “others,” “another” as he hasn’t great reality on himself and it would sound accusative.

Followed later by:

1. 	Discuss why overts are necessary.

A pc with RSes doesn’t really run right. His F/Ns collapse at Exams. This pc can be listed on “What would be an overt?” to BD F/N item. Then next session, the item found can be run Quad Recall and Quad R3R.

This last list question can miss a withhold, so check for such if there are unexpected BIs at Exam after the listing session (as well as for wrong items).
For someone with fixated attention on an individual (e.g. tends to natter about that person for session after session):

1. 	Fly a Rud if no F/N.

2. 	List by L&N - Who or what in your past does________remind you of?

3. 	What did you do to (item found)?
    	What did you withhold from (item found)?

Also there is:

1. 	Fly a Rud if no F/N.

2. 	List “Give me an example of an overt” to BD F/N item.

Followed by:

1. 	Fly a Rud if no F/N.

2. 	Run (on item found on “Give me an example of an overt”):

	Quad Recalls
	Quad R3R

Another C/S is:

1. 	Fly a Rud if no F/N.

2. 	Assess Help, Failed Help, Refused Help, Prevented Help.

3. 	On result: Quad Recalls, Quad R3R.

		Extracted from LRH C/Sed 				Folders

		by D/CS-4

		for
		L. RON HUBBARD
		FOUNDER

LRH:JE:rr
Copyright © 1970
By L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 NOVEMBER 1970 
Remimeo 
Class VIIIs 
Class VIII Chksheet
C/S Series 22

PSYCHOSIS

Through a slight change of procedure on certain preclears I have been able to view the underlying motives and mechanisms of psychosis.

Very possibly this is the first time the mechanisms which bring about insanity have been fully viewed. I must say that it requires a bit of confronting.

The alleviation of the condition of insanity has also been accomplished now and the footnote in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health concerning future research into this field can be considered fulfilled.

The things a C/S should know about insanity are as follows:

HIGHER PERCENT

About 15% to 20% of the human race apparently is insane or certainly a much higher percent than was estimated.

The truly insane do not necessarily act insane visibly. They are not the psychiatric obvious cases who go rigid for years or scream for days. This is observed only in the last stages or during temporary stress.

Under apparent social behavior the continual crimes knowingly committed by the insane are much more vicious than ever has been catalogued in psychiatric texts.

The actions of the insane are not “unconscious”. They are completely aware of what they are doing.

All insane actions are entirely justified and seem wholly rational to them. As they have no reality on the harmful and irrational nature of their conduct it does not often register on an E-Meter.

The product of their post duties is destructive but is excused as ignorance or errors.

As cases in normal processing they roller coaster continually.

They nearly always have a fixed emotional tone. It does not vary in nearly all insane people. In a very few it is cyclic, high then low.

All characteristics classified as those of the “suppressive person” are in fact those of an insane person.

The easiest ways for a C/S to detect the insane are:

1. 	Pretending to do a post or duties, the real consistent result is destructive to the group in terms of breakage, lost items, injured business, etc.

2. 	The case is no case gain or roller coaster and is covered under “PTS symptoms”.

3. 	They are usually chronically physically ill.

4. 	They have a deep but carefully masked hatred of anyone who seeks to help them.

5. 	The result of their “help” is actually injurious.

6. 	They often seek transfers or wish to leave.

7. 	They are involved in warfare with conflicts around them which are invisible to others. One wonders how they can be so involved or get so involved in so much hostility.

TYPES

The German psychiatric 1500 or so “different types of insanity” are just different symptoms of the same cause. There is only one insanity and from it springs different manifestations. Psychiatry erred in calling these different types and trying to invent different treatments.

DEFINITION

Insanity can now be precisely defined.

The definition is:

INSANITY IS THE OVERT OR COVERT BUT ALWAYS COMPLEX AND CONTINUOUS DETERMINATION TO HARM OR DESTROY.

Possibly the only frightening thing about it is the cleverness with which it can be hidden.

Whereas a sane person can become angry or upset and a bit destructive for short periods, he or she recovers. The insane mask it, are misemotional continuously and do not recover. (Except by modern processing.)

THE NATURE OF MAN

Man is basically good. This is obvious. For when he begins to do evil he seeks to destroy his memory in order to change and seeks to destroy his body. He seeks to check his evil impulses by inhibiting his own skill and strength.

He can act in a very evil fashion but his basic nature then makes it mandatory that he lessens himself in many ways.

The towering “strength” of a madman is a rarity and is compensated by efforts at self-destruction.

Man’s mortality, his “one life” fixation, all stem from his efforts to check himself, obliterate his memory in a fruitless effort to change his conduct and his self-destructive habits and impulses and losses of skills and abilities.

As this rationale proves out completely in processing and fits all cases observed, we have for the first time proof of his actual nature.

As only around 20% are insane, and as those who previously worked in the mental field were themselves mainly insane, Man as a whole has been assigned an evil repute. Govemments, where such personalities exist, listen to the opinion of the insane and apply the characteristic of 20% to the entire hundred percent.

This gives an 80% wrong diagnosis. Which is why mental science itself was destructive when used by states.

TECHNIQUES

The only technique available at this writing which will benefit the insane is contained in all the overt-motivator sequences and Grade II technology.

At Flag at this writing new improvement on this exists but it is so powerful that slight errors in use can cause a psychotic break in the insane. It therefore will only be exported for use by specially trained persons and this programming will require quite a while.

MEANWHILE it helps the C/S to know and use these firm rules:

ALWAYS RUN DIANETIC TRIPLES.

Never run Singles. The overt side (Flow 2) is vital. If you only run Flow 1 Motivators, the pc will not recover fully. Further running Flow 1 (Motivator only) any psychotic being processed will not recover but may even trigger into a psychotic break. If one never ran anything but motivators, psychotic manifestations would not erase.

DEPEND ON EXPANDED GRADE II TECHNOLOGY TO EASE OFF OR HANDLE THE INSANE.

Don’t keep asking what’s been done to him as he’ll trigger.

A new discovery on this is that when you run out the motivator the person gets a higher reality on his overts. If you ran out all his motivators he would have no reason for his overts. If these are not then run out he might cave himself in.

PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR

The APPARENT pattern of insane behavior is to come in (ask for processing, go on staff, etc) with the advertised intention of being helped or helping, then mess up either as a pc or on post, then state how bad it all is and leave. It looks obvious enough. He came, found it bad, left.

That is only the APPARENT behavior. APPARENT REASONS.

Based on numerous cases, this is the real cycle. Hearing of something good that might help these hateful awful rotten nasty people, the psycho comes in, wrecks this, upsets that, caves in this one, chops up that one and WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS “NO!” the psychotic either

(a) 	Caves himself in physically or

(b) 	Runs away.

The psychotic is motivated by intent to harm.

If he realizes he is harming things he shouldn’t, he caves himself in. If he is afraid he will be found out, he runs.
In the psychotic the impulse is quite conscious.

CONCLUSION

None of this is very nice. It is hard to confront. Even I find it so.

Freud thought all men had a hidden monster in them for he dealt mainly with the psychotic and their behavior was what he saw.

All men are not like this. The percentage that are is greater than I supposed but is a long way from all men.

Sometimes one only becomes aware of these when things are getting worked on and improved. They stay on as long as it can be made bad or there is hope it can be destroyed. Then when attention is given to improvement they blow.

Artists, writers often have these types hanging around them as there is someone or something there to be destroyed. When success or failure to destroy or possible detection appears on the scene they blow, often as destructively as possible.

Orgs are subjected to a lot of this. A psychotic sometimes succeeds in blowing off good staff. And then sooner or later realizes how evil he is acting and sickens or leaves.

The society is not geared to any of this at all. The insane walk around wrecking the place and decent people think it’s “human nature” or “inevitable” or a “bad childhood”.

As of this writing the insane can be handled. The proof of any pudding is the processing. And this is successful. It is also rather swift. But, as I say, it is so swift the special technique has to be done by the specially trained flubless auditor.

For a long while I’ve realized that we would have to be able to handle insane people as the psychiatrist is fading. I have had opportunity to work on the problem. And have it handled. Until it is fully released, the C/S will benefit greatly from knowing the above as these come on his lines far more often than he has suspected.

The insane can be helped. They are not hopeless.

I trust this data will be of use.

	L. RON HUBBARD 
	Founder 
LRH: rr.rd 
Copyright © 1970 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 MARCH 1974
Remimeo

TWC CHECKSHEETS
TWC, USING WRONG QUESTIONS

Two Way Comm is not an art. It is a science which has exact rules.

Foremost in the rules is:

DON’T USE A LISTING QUESTION IN TWO WAY COMM.

By a “listing question” is meant any question which directly or indirectly calls for items in the pc’s answer.

Use of “who”, “what”, “which” instantly turns a TWC into a listing question.

Listing questions are governed by the rules of Listing and Nulling.

If you use a listing question accidentally in TWC you can get the same bad reactions from a pc that you would get on a wrongly done list.

The reason for pc upsets in TWC is hidden as it is not apparently a listing process, rarely gets the correction a bad list would get.

Asking “who” or “what” or “which” during a TWC after the main question can also turn it into a Listing and Nulling process.

TWC questions MUST be limited to feelings, reactions, significances. They must NEVER ask for terminals or locations.

EXAMPLE: “Who upset you?” in TWC causes the pc to give items. This is a LIST. “What are you upset about?” does the same thing. “Which town were you happiest in?” is also a LISTING question NOT a TWC question. Any of these results in the pc giving items. They are not then nulled or correctly indicated. The pc can get VERY upset just as he would with a wrong list. Yet the session is not a “listing session” so never gets corrected.

EXAMPLE: “How are you doing lately?” is an example of a correct TWC question. It gets off charge and gets no list items. “Are you better these days than you used to be?” “How have you been since the last session?”

“What happened” is different than “What illness”, “What person”, “What town” which are listing questions.

REPAIR

When other things fail to locate the upset of a pc look into TWC processes in the folder and treat them as L&N processes where the pc has answered with items. The relief is magical.

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

R2-25: VIEWPOINT AND VIEWPOINT ARC STRAIGHTWIRE

Exerpted from Book: Creation of Human Ability

Viewpoint and Viewpoint ARC Straightwire in a brief form has the following commands, ‘Give me some things which it would be comfortable for you to look at’. And when the communication lag on this is flattened, ‘Give me some emotions it would be all right for you to look at’, ‘Give me some efforts it would be all right for you to look at’. These are the chief concerns of the auditor in this process: The auditor must make sure that the preclear is absolutely certain he is comfortable in viewing such objects. The process fails when the auditor is incapable of pressing the preclear until this certainty is attained.              

Viewpoint ARC Straightwire then follows, ‘Who would it be all right for you to like?’ And, as in any of these questions, when the communication lag has been fattened by repeated use of the first question, ‘Who would it be all right for you to agree with?’ ‘Who would it be all right for you to communicate with?’ ‘Who would it be all right to have like, you?’ ‘Who would it be all right to have agree with you?’ ‘Who would it be all right to have communicate with you?’ The basic formula and goal of this process is to increase the preclear’s ability to tolerate views. The auditor is trying to do two things. He is trying to improve the tolerance and comfort of the preclear in viewing and experiencing knowingness, lookingness, emotingness, effortingness, thinkingness, symbolizingness, eatingness, sexingness, and mystery.

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
157 Spring Street, Melbourne, Australia

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 NOVEMBER 1959
ACC Instructors
ACC Students
ALLOWED PROCESSES 1ST MELBOURNE ACC

The following processes are to be run in the last three weeks of the ACC at the option and discretion of the Instructors in consultation with individual auditors:

Melbourne 1.

Arduous Case Assessment by dynamics and other means: Overt-Withhold Straight Wire only on terminals having mass and no terminals of significance only. General terminals preferred.

Melbourne 2.

Preclear put in two-way comm with auditor by “Think of something you are willing to let me know.” “Think of something you could withhold.” And by other means if indicated by Instructor. Occasionally auditor asks, “How are you going?” “Is there anything you would like to tell me?” This is followed by “What would you like to confront?” alternated with “What would you rather not confront?”
Two-way comm is re-established frequently by above method where pc is in or near PT on process.

Melbourne 3.

Establish two-way comm with the pc and get tone arm down by getting off all overts and withholds on any dynamic.
Run dynamic assessment. Run small amounts of alternate create with large amounts of alternate confront on the same terminal create was run on.
Commands of Alternate Create: “What part of a .....would you be willing to create?” “What part of a .....would you rather not create?”
Commands of Alternate Confront: “What part of a (same terminal as used for create) could you confront?” “What part of a ......would you rather not confront? “
Alternate means two questions run one after the other consecutively, one command positive followed by one negative.

Melbourne 4.

Two-way comm established and continued by auditor with pc during session. Get the stories, establish the overts, pinpoint incidents in time helpfully for pc.

Melbourne 5.

Assists on body to be run by Communication Processes. “From where could you communicate to a ..........(body part)?” Assists for PT location to be run with “To what could you communicate from this room?”
Any other ways of cracking cases now known will be run only by Instructors.

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 8 MARCH 1962
Franchise
Sthil
THE BAD “AUDITOR”

It is time we spent time on improving auditing skill.

We have the technology. We can make clears and OTs with it as you will find out. Our only remaining problem is getting it applied skillfully.

This is why I started the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. The extremely high calibre of auditor we are turning out is causing gasps of amazement whenever these fine graduates return into an area. We are not trying for cases at Saint Hill. I can always make clears. We are trying for skilled auditors. But we are getting there on cases, too, faster than anywhere else on the average.

This training has been almost a year in progress. I have learned much about training that is of great benefit to all of us, without at the same time skimping the training of the Saint Hill student.

Looking over incoming students I find we have, roughly, two general categories of auditor, with many shades of grey between:

1. 	The natural auditor.

2. 	The dangerous auditor.

The natural auditor ties right into it and does a workmanlike job. He or she gets lots of bulletin and tape passes in ratio to flunks, absorbs data well and gets it into practice, does a passable job on a pc even at the start of training, and improves casewise rapidly under the skilled training and auditing at Saint Hill. This is true of the clears and releases that come on course as well as those who have had much less case gains prior to this training. These, the natural auditors, make up more than half the incoming students.

The other category we will call the “dangerous auditor”. The severe examples of this category make up about 20% of the incoming students and are very detectable. In shades of grey the other 30% are also, at the start, to be placed in the category of “dangerous auditor unless tightly supervised”.

At Saint Hill, with few exceptions, we only get the cream of auditors and so I would say that the overall percentage across the world is probably higher in the second category than at Saint Hill.

Thus it would seem we must cure this matter at the Academies and cure it broadly throughout Scientology, and if we do, our dissemination, just on this effort alone, should leap several thousand percent. If all pcs audited everywhere were expertly audited, well, think of what that would do. To accomplish this we need only move the dangerous auditor out of the danger class.

I have found out what makes a pc suffer a deterioration of profile (missed withholds) and have found out why a dangerous auditor is dangerous. Therefore, there are no barriers to our handling the matter as even the dangerous auditor, oddly enough, wants to be a good auditor but doesn’t quite know how. Now we can fix it up.

The difference between a natural auditor and a dangerous auditor is not case level as we have supposed, but a type of case.

The earliest observation on this came in ACCs. About 1% of the students (say two students every ACC) could be counted on to be miserable if his or her pc made gains and happy if the pc was collapsing. This was an observation. What were these students trying to do? What did they think they should accomplish in a session? They are an extreme case of “dangerous auditor”.

This is how to detect a “dangerous auditor” in any shade of grey:

Any auditor who (a) cannot achieve results on a pc, (b) who finds items slowly or not at all, (c) who gets low marks on tape tests, (d) who has a high flunk-to-pass ratio on taking tests for classification, (e) whose own case moves slowly, (f) who does not respond well to a “think” process, (g) who chops a pc’s comm, (h) who prevents a pc from executing an auditing command, (i) who obsessively changes processes before one is flat, (j) who apologizes or explains why he or she got no results session after session, (k) who tries to make pcs guilty, (I) who blames Scientology for not working, (m) whose pcs are always ARC breaking, or (n) who will no longer audit at all, is suffering not from withholds but from the reverse of the withhold flow, “Afraid to find out”.

The person with withholds is afraid he or she will be found out. The other type of case may have withholds but the dominant block is exactly the reverse. Instead of being afraid he or she will be found out, the opposite type of case is afraid to find out or afraid of what he or she may find out. Thus it is a type of case that makes a dangerous auditor. He or she is afraid of finding out something from the pc. Probably this case is the more usual in society, particularly those who never wish to audit.

A person with withholds is afraid to be found out. Such a person has auditing difficulties as an auditor, of course, because of restraint on their own comm line. These difficulties sum up to an inability to speak during a session, going silent on the pc, failures to ask how or what the pc is doing. But this is not the dangerous auditor. The only dangerous thing an auditor can do is miss withholds and refuse to permit the pc to execute auditing commands. This alone will spin a pc.

The dangerous auditor is not afraid to be found out (for who is questioning him or her while he or she is auditing?). The dangerous auditor is the auditor who is afraid to find out, afraid to be startled, afraid to discover something, afraid of what they will discover. This phobia prevents the “auditor” from flattening anything. This makes missed withholds a certainty. And only missed withholds create ARC breaks.

All cases, of course, are somewhat leery of finding things out and so any old-time auditor could have his quota of ARC breaks on his or her pcs. But the dangerous auditor is neurotic on the subject and all his or her auditing is oriented around the necessity to avoid data for fear of discovering something unpleasant. As auditing is based on finding data, such an auditor retrogresses a case rather than improves it. Such an auditor’s own case moves slowly also as they fear to discover something unpleasant or frightening in the bank.

Today, the increased power of auditing makes this factor far more important than it ever was before. Old processes could be done with minimal gain but without harm by such an auditor. Today, the factor of fear-of-discovery in an auditor makes that auditor extremely dangerous to a pc.

In Prepchecking, this becomes obvious when an auditor will not actually clean up a chain and skids over withholds, thus “completing” the case by leaving dozens of missed withholds and an accordingly miserable pc.

In Routine 3D Criss Cross this becomes obvious when the auditor takes days and weeks to find an item, then finds one that won’t check out. An item every three sessions of two hours each is a low average for 3D Criss Cross. An item a week is suspect. An item a month is obviously the average of an auditor who will not find out and is dangerous. The auditor who uses out-rudiments always to avoid doing 3D Criss Cross is a flagrant example of a no-discovery-please auditor.

In the CCHs, the dangerous auditor is narrowed down to prevention of executing the auditing command. This, indeed, is the only way an auditor can make the CCHs fail. In any of the CCHs, the commands and drills are so obvious that only the prevention of execution can accomplish not-finding-out. The dangerous auditor is never satisfied the pc has executed the command. Such an auditor can be seen to move the pc’s hand on the wall after the pc has in fact touched the wall. Or the pc is made to do a motion over and over which is already well done. Or the pc is run only on processes that are flat and is halted on processes that are still changing.

The pc is never permitted to reveal anything by the dangerous auditor. And so “auditing” fails.

The remedies for the dangerous auditor, by class of process, are:

Class I—Repetitive Process, run in sequence

REVELATION PROCESS X1

What could you confront?
What would you permit another to reveal?
What might another confront?
What might another permit you to reveal?
What would you rather not confront?
What would you rather not have another reveal?
What might another hate to confront?
What might another object to your revealing?
What should be confronted?
What shouldn’t anyone ever have to confront?

(Note: This process is subject to refinement and other processes on the same subject will be released.)

Class II—Prepchecking Zero Question

Have you ever prevented another from perceiving something? (Other such Zero Questions are possible on the theme of fear-of-discovery.)

CCHs should be used if tone arm action during any Prepchecking is less than 3/4 of a division shift per hour.

Class III—Routine 3D Criss Cross

Find Line Items as follows:

Who or What would be afraid to find out? (then get oppterm of resulting item)
Who or What would prevent a discovery? (then oppterm it)
Who or What would startle someone? (then oppterm it)
Who or What would be unsafe for you to reveal? (then oppterm it)
Who or What would be dangerous for another to reveal? (then oppterm it)

Note: Well run CCHs, run according to the very earliest data on them, given again on two Saint Hill Briefing Course Tapes (R-10/6106C22SH/Spec 18, “Running CCHs” and R-12/6106C27SH/Spec 21, “CCHs—Circuits”), benefit any case and are not relegated to the psychotic by a long ways. The CCHs do a remarkable job in making a good auditor for various reasons. The first CCH (Op Pro by Dup) was invented exclusively to make good auditors. The CCHs 1 to 4 are run each one in turn, only so long as they produce change and no longer, before going on to the next. When is a CCH flat so that one can go on to the next CCH? When three complete cycles of the CCH have a uniform comm lag it can be left. My advice in straightening out or improving any auditor is to first flatten the CCHs 1 to 4, and then flattening all in one run Op Pro by Dup. This would be regardless of the length of time the auditor had been auditing in Dianetics and Scientology. Then I would do the Class II and Class III processes above, preferably doing the Class III items first, then the Class II so it could go whole track, or doing the Class II, then the Class III and then the Class II again.

----------------

SUMMARY

Following out any part of this programme in any organization, in the field and on any training course will vastly improve the results of auditing and enormously diminish auditing failures.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:jw.rd 
Copyright © 1962 
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

Exerpt from Book: Phoenix Lectures

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE

VIEWPOINT STRAIGHTWIRE

This is a process which is very simple, very easy to use, and makes continuous advances.  This process is not mixed with other processes, it is not part of any Standard Operating Procedure.  It is not part of anything you would do ordinarily.  It doesn’t particularly apply to one case level or another case level.  It is an independent process which in itself is very simple to administer.

The formula of this process is: All the definitions and Axioms, arrangements and scales of Scientology should be used in such a way as to bring about a greater tolerance of such viewpoints on the part of the preclear.  That means that any scale there is, any arrangement of fundamentals in thinkingness, beingness, could be so given in a straightwire process that it would bring about a higher state of tolerance on the part of the preclear.

To make this more intelligible you should understand what a great many preclears are doing, and why an auditor occasionally has trouble with one preclear more than another.  A great many preclears are being processed solely and entirely because they are unable to bring themselves to tolerate an enormous number of viewpoints, and being unable to tolerate these viewpoints they desire processing so that they can fall away from them and not have to observe them, and the auditor is auditing somebody who is in full retreat, and Scientology is being asked to aid and abet the retreat by, for instance, taking the charge off an engram.  The auditor at the same time, if he does this, gives the preclear something in the way of a change of viewpoint in that he erases something so that the preclear doesn’t have to view it any more.

Well, as you can see, this is a weak direction.  What the auditor then is doing is to some degree holding in question the ability of the preclear to tolerate viewpoints.  Time itself may very well be caused by an intolerance of past viewpoints -- a person doesn’t want viewpoints in the past, and so at a uniform rate he abandons past viewpoints, and when he no longer is following this uniform rate but is abandoning them faster than the uniform rate, he starts to jam up in terms of time, and becomes obsessed about time, becomes very hectic, begins to rush time, push hard against the events of the day, feels that he doesn’t have enough time to accomplish everything he is supposed to accomplish, and this falls off on a very rapid curve to a point where an individual will simply sit around idle, fully cognizant of the fact that he doesn’t have enough time to do anything.  And so doesn’t do anything, but knows he should be doing something but can’t do anything because he doesn’t have enough time.  This is idiocy itself, but is the state in which you find a very great many people.

Time is the single arbitrary entered into life and is well worth investigating on the part of an auditor.  An unwillingness to tolerate viewpoints will cause a jam in time.  The fewer viewpoints which an individual will tolerate, the greater his occlusion and the worse his general state of beingness is.  As I said, an auditor can remedy this in various ways.   He can erase locks, secondaries and engrams (Lock, Secondary, Engram: A lock is a mental image picture of a non-painful but disturbing experience the person has experienced and which depends for its force on an earlier secondary and engram which the experience has restimulated.  A secondary is a mental image picture containing misemotion [encysted grief, anger, apathy, etc.] and a real or imagined loss.  These contain no physical pain -- they are moments of shock and stress and depending for their force on earlier engrams which have been restimulated by the circumstances of the secondary.  An engram is a mental picture of an experience containing pain, unconsciousness, and a real or fancied threat to survival; it is a recording in the reactive mind of something which actually happened to an individual in the past and which contained pain and unconsciousness, both of which are recorded in the mental image picture called an engram).  And by erasing these, he can make it possible for the individual to “tolerate the view”, as he finds it in his own bank.  Or, an individual can be so processed, as in exteriorization, that he can be caused to go around and look at various things and find out that they are not so bad.

Now, let’s just take the mean between these two, and realize that a person who doesn’t exteriorize is a person who does not want an exteriorized viewpoint.   He does not feel he can tolerate an exteriorized viewpoint.  He may have many reasons for this and one of the main reasons he will give is the consideration that someone may steal his body.  In other words here you have a tremendously valuable viewpoint which he’s likely to lose if he exteriorizes.  Viewpoints then must be scarce, viewpoints are all obviously too valuable to be used.  And this comes about by viewpoints becoming intolerable.  

Let’s take somebody standing and watching his family being butchered by soldiers or something of this sort, Indians or other wild people.  He would go along afterwards so intolerant of this viewpoint that he would fixate on it.  It’s the fact that he refuses to tolerate the viewpoint which makes him fixate on it.   Now the reason for this lies in the various Agree-Disagree scales in the Philadelphia Doctorate Course lectures -- the fact that if you want anything, in this universe, you can’t have it, and that if you don’t want it, you’re going to get it.  This is an inversion, and when this inversion comes about, an individual finds himself overwhelmed each time on whatever his own determinism is.  If he starts to desire something he will find out immediately that he can’t have it.  Actually, he himself will take steps to make sure that he can’t have it.  

When he wants something to flow in, it flows out, when he wants something to flow out, it flows in.  There is nothing more pathetic, for instance, than watching a psychotic try to give up any material object -- trying to make them hand over or give up, or throw away one possession, such as an old Kleenex, almost anything -- just try to make them give it up.  No, no, they just won’t do it.  They clutch it to them and I swear that if you handed them an adder, wide-mouthed and fully fanged, they would clutch it to their bosom.   Anything that comes in they immediately seize and that’s that.

Now you as an auditor, every time you are trying to get someone to give up something, are asking them to give up a compulsive viewpoint.  You will see that every time you ask someone to give up something he is likely to hold it closer.

Now there are many processes.  There are a great many processes, there are all the Standard Operating Procedures, and in good hands they all work.  There’s Universe Processing, there’s Advanced Course Procedure, there’s Creative Processing, on and on and on and on, a tremendous number of techniques, which can be applied with good sense to preclears.  There are an enormous number of Straightwire processes, there’s old-time Straightwire.  The earliest Straightwire we had, which, by the way, was a marked advance on Freudian analysis, went like this: say we noticed that the preclear is afraid of cats.  We would say: “Recall a time when you were afraid of cats”, then:  “Recall somebody who was afraid of cats”, and then: “Find a time when somebody said you were like this person”.   That was approximately its formula -- just Straightwire, and you sprung apart these valences very gently.   However, it required a great deal of good sense on the part of the auditor.

An auditor now and then would become a Straightwire expert, and by just asking searching questions and causing the individual to recall certain things he would bring about a great deal of relief on the case.  Why did the relief take place? The individual has been going along in the full belief that he could not tolerate a certain viewpoint and the auditor has come along and demonstrated to him that that viewpoint was in the past and therefore is tolerable.  There, in essence, are the fundamentals of such Straightwire.  You get key-outs (Key-out: Release or separation from one’s reactive mind or some portion of it) on this -- the individual comes up to present time so that he isn’t looking in the past -- assuming a past viewpoint.  That is a goal of a great many processes, and is quite different from “wipe out the past so he won’t have to look at it or experience it”.

We have in Viewpoint Straightwire a very, very, new type of thinking.  This is not to be confused with what we have been doing for all these many years.  It hasn’t any connection with it.  It has an entirely different goal from that of any process you’ve ever done on a preclear.   It takes the benefit of exteriorization, and reduces it to Straightwire.  We get an individual to race around the universe to look at things observe things, experience things.  That’s a Grand Tour (Grand Tour:  The process R1-9, in The Creation of Human Ability by L.  Ron Hubbard.) -- that sort of drill -- and here we reduce it right down to a Straightwire which is done interiorized or exteriorized.

One simply goes on the basis that the preclear is in the state he’s in because he’s not tolerating many viewpoints, and the entire goal of the process is to bring him to a point where he will tolerate viewpoints.  That’s all there is to the process.

The key wording of the process is “you wouldn’t mind”.  Why do I announce this as something important, something new, something that is very useful to you? There are many varieties of viewpoint.  If we were to take Full Knowingness, and squash it, we would find we were first getting into space, which would be perception.  We have to perceive to know.  This is the level of Lookingness.  Now if we condense that we find out that we have to get Emote to know.  A person has to emote.  We squash perception, and we go into Emotion to know.  Now, if we squash down and condense even further, we get Effortingness, and if we condense Effort even further, we get Thinkingness, and if we condense and package Thinkingness, we get Symbols.   As an example of this, what is a Word but a package of thought, and if we were to condense Symbols, we would get actually the wider definition of the symbol -- we would get animals.  You are probably thinking of it in terms of a viewpoint of a body, if you don’t see that clearly, but the definition of a symbol is a mass with meaning, which is mobile.  That is a symbol and of course that is an animal, too.  An animal has certain form which gives him certain meaning and he is mobile, and if you see that the Thinkingness condenses, then, into form, you will understand art.  Just in so many words, a very simple thing.

We have Thinkingness condensing into Symbolizingness, ideas condensing into actually solid objects, and when these are mobile, we have symbols, and when these symbols are observed, they are found to wind themselves up with other symbols and take an associate, they associate with one and another, and take things from one and another, and you get Eatingness.  That’s a big, big band we’re covering in there, that’s the whole business of: “I have an idea about a form in this space and matter, and I’m going to get it all together, and I’m going to make this all mass together.” Well, the second we’ve done that, something has been created.  Now don’t expect that thing which has been created to create anything.  This is a thing which isn’t creating, and therefore must subsist on an interchange of energy, and we get eating.  Now we take eating and condense it down, that is to say, let’s make food scarce, and let’s make it very hard to get, and we get a condensation which completely escapes time itself, and you go outside of time and you get Sexingness.

That is to say that outside of present time, you get future time, which is sex.

An individual is right straight off the time track between Eating and Sex, and there’s nothing will float on a time track like a sexual engram.  They just float all over the time track.  They don’t nail down at all.   They are very mobile.  The individual, in Eatingness, starts to slide out of present time by this token alone, and people are terribly worried about how are they going to eat tomorrow, and when they have reduced this down to the reductio ad gastronomy you get to a point where “I can’t solve this problem of eating tomorrow, therefore I’d better just leave it all up to somebody else,” and slide in on the genetic protoplasm line and go up the line a little bit, and get another form, and be that.

That’s the best way to solve eating -- just to live tomorrow and maybe tomorrow there will be more food.

A very readily available test will demonstrate this.   Notice those countries of the world which breed faster and harder than other countries of the world.  We find India and China doing this.  And we find that these are two countries which have extreme, chronic food scarcity.  Now we can say, well look, they have the greatest food scarcity because they keep breeding people, and that eats up all their food.  No, it’s the other way around.  They eat up all their food, and so they breed like mad.  This can be tested also with animals.  If you starve an animal, an animal will procreate faster.  If you were, for instance, to give any family of homo sapiens a carbohydrate diet with a very, very low protein content -- by the way this would be, you’d say, terribly unconducive to the production of estrogen, androgen.  It’s proven to be very unproductive of it -- but if you give them a high carbohydrate, very low protein diet, the next thing you know they’ll start to get very anxious about breeding.  That’s because you’re telling them in essence right where they can understand it in their stomachs that they are unable to obtain enough food today, and so must eat tomorrow.  Therefore you get countries of the Western hemisphere, which are very heavily starch dieted, and you find out that these countries are the most anxious about breeding and about tomorrow.  There is no reason to stand around and prove this for hours.  It’s just the Know-to-Sex scale.  Condensed knowingness.

“I don’t know how I’m going to get along today therefore I’d better breed like mad and appear tomorrow and maybe I’ll know then,” is about the last ditch.  Well, if you notice this, death must come, in this band, above sex.  A person presupposes his own death to indulge in the protoplasm line.  And so we get people like Schopenhauer and The Will and the Idea closely associating sex and death, and we get certain animals and insects, which so closely associate sex and death that they have accomplished death when they have accomplished sex.  Fear Merchants (Fear Merchants:  The aberrative personality.  This was an early description of what is known as a Suppressive Person, or the Anti-Social Personality) like to tell you about the black widow spider.  I don’t know why the black widow spider is such an attractive beast to some people, but it is apparently so.  I noticed that it exists mainly in California -- Southern California.  Lots of black widow spiders down there, and most California girls, if you get into any kind of discussion on the second dynamic at all, will sooner or later inform you that the female black widow spider eats its mate after consummation of the sexual act.  Anyway, the main thing here is that actually when you go down this scale, although it doesn’t belong on the scale, you’ll find death just before sex.  Know, Look, Emote, Effort, Think, Symbol, Eat, Death, Sex.  Death doesn’t belong there, but this shows you where this mechanism comes in.

Now, beingness might also be on this scale somewhere.  Beingness might be on this scale, and if it were, you would have a tendency to look for it up toward the top, but the truth of the matter is, it’s all up and down the scale, and there is no beingness like that beingness at Symbols.  You find the human race having been made into a form -- a mass, meaning, mobility.  A mass with meaning which is mobile -- that’s a body, that’s a word in a dictionary, that’s a flag above a building, it can be moved around and it has meaning.  You’ll find that human beings indulge very, very heavily in being symbols.  Well, you’ll find people around being sexual objects too.  So that this scale sort of interlocks on beingness.  A fellow could be some effort -- and actually we don’t find beingness at the top of the scale at all, we find it down there pretty low on the scale, so when an individual has gotten to a point where he has to be something, he’s practically at bottom.  A further examination would have to put beingness at least at Symbols.   A person becomes things at that level, and you will frequently find a preclear mainly being his name.

Looking further, we find that there are different kinds of viewpoints.  There is something you might call a know-point.  That would be senior to a viewpoint.   An individual would not have dependency on space or mass or anything else.  He’d simply know where he was.  There would be a viewpoint, which is a perception point, which would consist of look, and smell, and talk, and hear, and all sorts of things could be thrown in under this category, viewpoint.  Ordinarily we simply mean at that level of the scale, looking, but you can throw all the rest of the perceptions in at that level of the scale.

Going down a little bit from there we get something we could call an emotion-point.  It would be that point from which a person emotes, and at which he emoted, and then there would be something else called an effort-point, and the effort-point would be that area from which a person exerted effort, and that area into which that person received effort.  And as we went down a little bit from that, we’d find we had a thinking-point, and there of course we get the “figure-figure-figure”.   The person is thinking there, not looking.  And if we go down a little bit further than this from a thinking-point, we get a symbol-point, and there, really properly, we get words.  And below that we get an eating-point, and below that we get a sex-point.

If you considered each one of these points below known as an effort to make space, a great deal of human behavior would make sense.  Let’s take an individual who is simply trying to make space with words.  Words don’t make good space.  So an individual who tries to make space with words sooner or later gets into bad condition.  Much lower than that would be a person who is trying to make space with eating.  Of course that’s inverted, isn’t it? And then there’s the person who is trying to make space with sex, and that is really inverted.  That goes both ways from the middle.  The lowest part of the eating scale is excreta and urine.   People will try and make space with that.  Dogs, for instance, are always trying to make space that way.

There are people who are trying to make space with effort.  This is the use of force, this is Ghengis Khan riding out and slaughtering villages.  He’s trying to make space.  You notice that the space had to exist before he could ride out any place.

And we go up a little higher, and maybe you’ve known somebody who’s tried to make space with emotion.  And we go up a little higher and we get to the way you do make space which is by looking.  And actually you get to make space by knowing.  If you just knew there was some space, there would be some space, and that would be all there was to that.  Just that simple.  That’s an effective way to go about it, and looking is another effective way to go about it, and when we get down to emotion, that is getting ineffective.  People who try to make space with emotion don’t get very far.  That’s literally, actually, figuratively, or any other way you want to look at it.  It’s too condensed, and it kicks back.  Yet that is above the individual who makes space by working hard or by pushing hard or by exerting force.

In other words we see that there is quite a little bit of band there, at effort, and you’ll see that they get less far than people who try to make space with emotion.   And now we get into the thinking band, and people who try to make space with thinking, which is about the most unworkable activity that anybody could engage in.

When we get down to making space with symbols, here is a nation trying to fly its flag over all the world, which doesn’t make much space, and then we go into eating, and an individual trying to make space by offering things to be eaten.  A cattleman, for instance, is doing this.  He’s making space with cattle.  And a fat man is trying to make space with food, and so on.  Now when we get down into sex, of course, if an individual could breed fast enough and far enough he would wind up with all sorts of space, he thinks.  Of course, he winds up with no space.  This is the most condensed activity you can get into: sex.  You can see somebody’s bank all short-circuited -- jammed on sex.  But remember, we are looking at a gradient scale that runs from Sexingness right on up through the levels to Knowingness.

And if anybody comes along and tells you that sex is the only aberration, please laugh.  You could answer, Yes, that was how we entered the problem, we found nut that people were loopy on the subject of sex.  So then we examined the problem further, and having examined the problem for many years, it was discovered that sex was part of a gradient scale of human experience which is basically an activity of trying to make space, and people try to make space in various ways.  And when they get down too low on the scale they are abandoning present-time life and at that point they have sunk to the level of Sexingness.  They are trying in this way to get some future up there on the track and it is a chaos.  It is an attempt to derive experience from external sources, and to pull experience in.

Operation at the level of Sexingness is really a cave-in.

When you examine this band and its inversions up and down the scale you see that it gives us an enormous number of Straightwire questions.

The basic question would reduce this first from the stand-point of viewpoint of the whole scale, and that is where you catch your preclear most ably.  You just take viewpoint of the scale, viewpoint of sex, viewpoint of effort, and so forth.

The systematic questions that go into this line would be as follows:  you ask the preclear to give:

“Something you wouldn’t mind knowing.”

“Something you wouldn’t mind looking at.”

“An emotion you wouldn’t mind observing.”

“Some effort you wouldn’t mind observing.”

“Some thinking which you wouldn’t mind observing.”

“Some symbols which you wouldn’t mind seeing.”

“Some eating which you wouldn’t mind inspecting.”

“Some sex which you wouldn’t mind looking at.”

Just as mildly and quietly as that.   And that’s Viewpoint Straightwire.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
23 Hancock Street, Joubert Park, Johannesburg

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 DECEMBER 1960

Franchise
O-W A LIMITED THEORY

Before I would permit you to believe that the overt-withhold mechanism was a total way of life, I would point out that it applies only to a strata of existence and that it stems from failures to help.

The theory that what you do to others will then happen to you is a punishment control mechanism peculiar to this universe. It derives from a deteriorated willingness to duplicate. It is the law of physics of Interaction—for every action there is an equal and contrary reaction.

“Love thy neighbour”, when it is no longer a willingness, is enforced by the theory of O-W. “Love thy neighbour” can exist only when help, control and communication are high. When all these go, then O-W comes into vogue as a method of enforcing peace.

O-W is a theory which sets in when aberration sets in. It is not a high natural law. It is junior to the various laws of Communication, Control and Help.

O-W can occur only when help has failed. Help is a co-joining of vectors of life. When two beings who have joined forces to help fail each other, only then does O-W come into existence.

The forces of two beings cannot come into dispute until after they have first joined. Thus there is no war like that seen between brothers or husband and wife.

The cycle is this:

          	INDEPENDENT BEINGS
          	COMMUNICATION
          	MIS-COMMUNICATION
          	CONTROL
          	MIS-CONTROL
          	HELP
          	FAILED HELP
          	OVERTS AND WITHHOLDS
          	OVERTS AND WITHHOLDS BY TRANSFER
          	WORRYING OTHERS
          	WORRYING ABOUT OTHERS
          	BEING CRITICAL
          	BEING CRITICAL OF SELF

Basically, O-W is an effort to regain the status of independent being without taking responsibility for any of the intervening steps.

The reason we run O-Ws is that most pcs are on O-W by Transfer, which is to say, when they kick George in the head they get a headache themselves. This makes them think they are George. We use O-W since it explains phenomena found at a low humanoid level. We do not use it because it is a senior governing law of the universe.

When Help comes up, O-W as a mechanism drops out. We could run a full case, it would appear, with Help. However, in practice it is better to run lots of O-W with failed help as they complement each other and move the case faster. By running O-W we disclose many new failed helps. Why? Look at the cycle above and see that O-W occurs only when Help has failed.

Similarly, on the same cycle we see that worry undercuts O-W. But if it is run, it should be worked with O-W. The worry cure has commands as follows:

Get the idea of worrying something. Get the idea of not worrying something. Get the idea of something being worrisome.

People, animals, things can be used in place of “something”. The process, going rapidly up toward failed help, is a bit limited and should be run with another process of the type of “Get the idea of attacking something” “Get the idea of not attacking something” to keep it going. The worry process bogs if run too long just by itself. It is a very valuable process as it explains many reactions and undercuts many cases. Worrying something is close to the lowest level of overt. It is the lowest effort to individuate.

But just as worry is not a way of life nor an answer to all of life, neither is the O-W mechanism an end-all law.

Many cases are not up to recognizing their overts. They will also have trouble recognizing their failures to help. Usually, then, they can recognize being worried or worrying people and thinking unkind thoughts and even attacking things.

Failed help also lies as a harmonic below O-W and so runs on any case if assisted with O-W as in Formula 13 or assisted with the Worry Process as above.

Worrying people is almost a way of life for the juvenile, just as O-W is with a criminal. People who feel childish or act that way are stuck in the violent motion of childhood and worrying others. Many pcs use their processing just to worry the auditor. Worry is the most easily dramatized O-W.

O-W, whether as worry or being critical (unkind thoughts), is the result of failure to help. O-W is the reason one gets another’s valence. O-W is why pcs have somatics. But O-W is not a high order law.

You will not always have to be careful not to bump Joe. It would be a horrible universe indeed if O-W was its senior law, for one could then never do anything.

Fortunately, it drops out, both as a governing law and a necessity in life.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: pe.cden 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 OCTOBER AD9

HCO Secs
D of Ps

A USEFUL PROCESS

On your HGC process you have many who cannot seem to plumb an overt/motivator sequence. On any such and many more, you will find the following process works admirably:

          	“Recall being critical.”
          	“Recall withholding criticism.”

If the pc tends to become ill push on through. This is the lowest level of force and influences body form. Try it and tell me how it goes.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :j s.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 MARCH AD 12
Franchise
Sthil
CenOCon
ADD HCO BULLETIN 8 March 1962
THE BAD “AUDITOR “

SUPPRESSORS

The discovery of the “other side of withholds” type of case, the person who is afraid to find out, brings to view the reason behind all slow gain cases.

My first release was directed at auditing because good auditing is, of course, my primary concern at the moment.

But let us not overlook the importance of this latest discovery. For here is our roughest case to audit, as well as our roughest auditor.

Every case has a little of “afraid to find out”. So you may have taken HCO Bulletin of March 8, 1962, more personally than you should have. BUT everyone’s auditing can be improved, even mine, and adding a full willingness to find out to one’s other auditing qualities will certainly improve one’s auditing ability. Here probably is the only real case difference I have had. My own “afraid to find out” is minimal and so I had no reality on it as a broadly held difficulty. Where I ran into it was in trying to account for differences amongst students and in auditors who sought to audit me. Some could, some couldn’t. And this was odd because my ability to as-is bank is great, therefore I should be easy to audit. But some could audit me and some couldn’t. Two different auditors found me reacting as two different pcs. Therefore there must have been another factor. It was my study of this and my effort to understand “bad auditing” on myself as a pc that gave us the primary lead in. I made a very careful analysis of what the auditor was doing who couldn’t or wouldn’t audit me, an easy pc. The answer, after many tries and much study of students, finally came down, crash, to the “afraid to find out” phenomena. Thus my first paper on this (HCO Bulletin of March 8, 1962) enters the problem as a problem of auditing skill.

THE ROUGH PC

The characteristic of the rough pc is not a pc’s tendency to ARC Break and scream, as we have tended to believe, but something much more subtle.

The first observation of this must be credited to John Sanborn, Phoenix, 1954, who remarked to me in an auditor’s conference, “Well, I don’t know. I don’t think this pc is getting on (the one he was staff auditing). I keep waiting for him to say, ‘Well, what do you know!’ or ‘Gosh!’ or something like that and he just grinds on and on. I guess you’d call it ‘No cognition’ or something.” John, with his slow, funny drawl, had put his finger on something hard.

The pc who makes no gain is the pc who will not as-is. Who will not confront. Who can be audited forever without cogniting on anything.

The fulminating or dramatizing pc may or may not be a tough pc. The animal psychologist has made this error. The agitated person is always to blame, never the quiet one. But the quiet one is quite often the much rougher case.

The person whose “thought has no effect on his or her bank” has been remarked on by me for years. And now we have that person. This person is so afraid to find out that he or she will not permit anything to appear and therefore nothing will as-is? therefore, no cognition!

The grind case, the audit forever case, is an afraid to find out case.

We need a new word. We have withholds, meaning an unwillingness to disclose past action. We should probably call the opposite of a withhold, a “suppressor”. A “suppressor” would be the impulse to forbid revelation in another. This of course, being an overt, reacts on one’s own case as an impulse to keep oneself from finding out anything from the bank, and of course suppresses as well the release of one’s own withholds, so it is more fundamental than a withhold. A “suppressor” is often considered “social conduct” in so far as one prevents things from being revealed which might embarrass or frighten others.

In all cases a suppressor leads to suppression of memory and environment. It is suppression that is mainly overcome when you run havingness on a pc. The pc is willing to let things appear in the room (or to some degree becomes less unwilling to perceive them). The one-command insanity eradicator, “Look around here and find something that is really real to you” (that sometimes made an insane person sane on one command), brought the person to discharge all danger from one item and let it reveal itself. Now, for any case, the finding of the suppressor mechanism again opens wider doors for havingness processes. “Look around here and find something you would permit to appear” would be a basic havingness process using the suppressor mechanism.

Thus we have a new, broad tool, even more important in half the cases than withholds.

Half the cases will run most rapidly on withholds, the other half most rapidly on suppressors. All cases will run somewhat on withholds and somewhat on suppressors, for all cases have both withholds and suppressors.

Withholds have been known about since the year one, suppressors have been wholly missing as a pat mechanism. Thus we are on very new and virgin search ground.

----------------

Additionally adding to the data in HCO Bulletin of March 8, 1962, another symptom of a dangerous auditor would be (o) one who Qs and As with a pc and never faces up to the basic question asked but slides off of it as the pc avoids it and also avoids it as an auditor. All dangerous Q and A is that action of the auditor which corresponds to the pc’s avoidance of a hot subject or item. If the pc seeks to avoid by sliding off, the auditor, in his questions, also slides off. Also, the auditor invites the pc to avoid by asking irrelevant questions that lead the pc off a hot subject.

Also add (p) who fails to direct the pc’s attention. The pc wants to cut and run, the auditor lets the pc run.

Also add (q) who lets the pc end processes or sessions on the pc’s own volition.
Also add (r) who will only run processes chosen by the pc.
Also add (s) who gets no somatics during processing.
Also add (t) who is a Black Five.

The common denominator of the dangerous auditor is “action which will forestall the revelation of any data”.

Because the auditor is terrified of finding out anything, the whole concentration of the auditor is occupied with the suppression of anything a process may reveal.

Some auditors suppress only one type of person or case and audit others passably. Husbands as auditors tend more to fear what their wives may reveal to them and wives as auditors tend to suppress more what their husbands may reveal to them. Thus husband-wife teams would be more unlucky than other types of auditing teams as a general rule, but this is not invariable and is now curable if they exclusively run on each other only suppression type processes.

Add Class I
REVELATION PROCESS X2

What wouldn’t you want another to present? 
What wouldn’t another want you to present? 
What have you presented? 
What has another presented?

Class II—Added Zero Question:

Have you ever suppressed anything?

Class III—Add Lines:

      Who or What would suppress an identity? (oppterm it)
      Who or What would make knowledge scarce? (oppterm it)
      Who or What would not want a past? (oppterm it)
      Who or What would be unconfrontable? (oppterm it)
      Who or What would prevent others (another) from winning? (oppterm it)
      Who or What should be disregarded when you’re getting something done?
          	(oppterm it)
      Who or What would make another realize he or she hadn’t won?
          	(oppterm it)

(In choosing which one of the above to oppterm first, read each one of all such Class III Lines [including those of HCO Bulletin of March 8] once each to the pc watching the meter for the largest reaction. Then take that one first. Do this each time with remaining Lines. One does the same thing [an assessment of sorts] on Line Plot Items when found to discover the next one to oppterm.)

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:jw.cden 
Copyright © 1962 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 JANUARY 1962
Franchise
Sthil

FLOW PROCESS

(A Class I or Class IIb Skill)

First mentioned at the June Congress 1952 at 1407 North Central, Phoenix, Arizona (the first Scientology Congress), compulsive outflow and obsessive withhold are alike aberrated.

With the advent of Security Checking as a process (as opposed to a prevention of subversion) and the 1960 work on overt-withhold and responsibility, still continuing, means of “cracking cases” now lie open to the skilled auditor which, if expertly done, are capable of cracking the most resistant case.

The main emphasis has been lately upon withholds. These, coming after the confusion of an overt, of course hang up on the track and tend to stop the pc in time. The overt is the forward motion, the withhold coming after it is the inward motion.

While not ranking with the power of the O/W mechanism, there are, however, some very important flows which could be released and which, if released from the bank, could assist Security Checking. These are “laudable outflows” and some others.

The most important flows can be listed as follows:

1. 	Outflow.

2. 	Restrained Outflow.

3. 	Inflow.

4. 	Restrained Inflow.

All ridges and masses develop around these flows.

You recognize in 1, Outflow, the overt act, as its most important item. In 2, Restrained Outflow, you recognize all withholds. In 3, Inflow, we have a less well studied flow and in 4, Restrained Inflow, we have a newcomer to Scientology.

In that we have heretofore considered Inflow as Other-Determined it has not seemed aberrative on the basis that all acts that influence a thetan are done by himself.

But Inflow and Restrained Inflow can be Self-Determined Actions, as well as Other-Determined and therefore merit study.

Thus all four principal flows can be Self-Determined or they can be Other Determined. Thus all four flows can be aberrative.

In an effort to speed up Security Checking as class of processes, I am now studying 3. Inflow and 4. Restrained Inflow.

An example of Inflow would be Eating. An example of Restrained Inflow would be Dieting.

A general process which covers all four of these flows in the most general form would be:

FLOW PROCESS

WHAT HAD TO BE OUTFLOWED?

WHAT HAD TO BE WITHHELD?

WHAT HAD TO BE INFLOWED?

WHAT HAD TO BE HELD OFF?

This process is a safe process for a Class IIb or an auditor in training to run on HGC pcs or others.

It is a cyclic process and is ended with the cyclic wording in Model Session.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:sf.rd 
Copyright © 1962 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 MARCH 1959
BPI

HOW TO DO A
DIAGNOSIS ON DYNAMIC STRAIGHTWIRE

You ask the person to describe the dynamics from one to eight. We don’t care about them being sequitur; any way you want to break it up, we don’t care.

Now you ask a person to describe each one of these dynamics. You are watching an E-Meter for a change in pattern. Therefore, you have to carefully isolate the change of pattern before you can tell whether or not the pattern’s changed on the E-Meter needle reading. But more important than that, you are looking for a dynamic that he makes mistakes on while he is trying to describe it, a dynamic he cannot describe, a dynamic that he won’t even approach, that he is very leary of, and his statement is confirmed by the E-Meter reading. In other words, you have got the statement of the pc in this particular analysis or diagnosis for Dynamic Straightwire.

All right, then, we go all the way through asking for a terminal on these dynamics and we finally get a repeat. We will ask him for terminals on these dynamics; we’ll get the same dynamic to read again. Now the basic rule which sorts this out is—any dynamic which doesn’t clear by two-way comm has to be run. Simple as that. Any dynamic which doesn’t clear by two-way comm has to be run.

Don’t run a terminal that is totally unreal to the preclear. Another stable datum which comes on top of it is: Never run a terminal that’s sensible. Never. If a terminal belongs on the dynamic you can almost say you’ll get nowhere running it. So, you are looking for terminals that they give you for a dynamic which don’t belong on the dynamic at all.

Now, if that terminal is real to the pc you will get a tremendous change in the case. If that terminal is totally unreal to the pc and if it does belong on the dynamic, why you’re not going to get any change on the case, why run it? Might as well run some other process. It is neither a long process nor an invariable process. Given enough skill you could undoubtedly find one of these on every case. Given enough skill. But it is limited by auditor skill. Furthermore, it gives auditors a chance to chop up pcs and it gives auditors a chance to write some script.

You do not let the pc choose. You have auditors who actually believe that a pc is permitted power of choice in an auditing session. That one’s a blinker.

Where you find pcs out of session, it’s because nobody has trailed down a nutty dynamic.

                                       				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:mg.rd

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

STAFF AUDITORS’ CONFERENCE OF FEBRUARY 16, 1959

REGARDING HCO BULLETIN OF FEBRUARY 16, 1959:

HGC PROCESSES FOR THOSE TRAINED IN ENGRAM RUNNING
OR TRAINED IN THESE PROCESSES

Nearly everyone here has been trained in these exact processes and, if anyone here hasn’t been trained in these processes, then everything on this Bulletin applies except Engram Running. The whole bulletin applies except Engram Running.

There will be a staff Theta Clearing Course, and those auditors who are on staff who have not been trained by an ACC in Engram Running will have an opportunity to get that training; and not too many months will go by before they are up to this, too. So this will apply at that time. Maybe it will have shifted slightly by that time, but I don’t think very much.

Now what you are looking at here is the aggregate know-how that was gained and assembled on the 21st American ACC.

UNDERCUTTING CASES:

Now the undercuts of cases became a vital necessity. This whole ACC was devoted to the R factor plus Engram Running. It was discovered that the thing that keeps individuals from running engrams adequately was their R factor, and when their R factor was very poor they could not run an engram adequately. Now the funny part of it is that an engram can be contacted and run and, if done persistently and well without ARC breaks, can run the following Scale of Confront. Here is the Scale of Confront, just to refresh your minds:

DUB-IN: 	Lowest scale. This scale could possibly invert, and down below that you might have a black dub-in. Once you had run blackness, you would find a dub-in case. But the scale we are mostly interested in, because that is the one we most commonly see, begins at the bottom with dub-in, runs up, turns
BLACK. 	Runs through blackness, turns
INVISIBLE. Runs from invisible to
ELSEWHERE—a desire to be elsewhere. The way they solve things is elsewhereness. Runs up from elsewhereness to
ABILITY TO CONFRONT. Runs from confront to
EXPERIENCE or PARTICIPATE. And only then are you up to
BEINGNESS.

Now this is the Confront Scale, and it is the scale of disintegrating Reality. It is how a person handles terminals or a situation. A person handles terminals and situations above all this by not having to participate, by not having to confront, finding no necessity to do anything about it unless he chooses so on his own determination; and if he did so, could do so with no personal liability. He could experience or not as the case may be. Now you’ll find a lower harmonic on this in some philosophic level of somebody saying, “Yap, yap, well, I could, or I couldn’t, and that’s my choice,” etc, well, he hasn’t got any power of choice. He’s just using this as the final escape mechanism—a philosophic escape mechanism.

If I said “bottom”—the bottom mechanism—it would be the one most commonly contacted. But you are apt to get a mechanism which is philosophic, which is simply a figure-figure mechanism about a situation, and the individual feels that if he could just figure it out he would be all right. In other words, this is a thought-thinkingness figure-figure, and he not-ises by figure-figure. Such a case, not-ising by figure-figure, will turn into a dub-in case as soon as you start curing his figure-figure; would turn into a black case; would turn into an invisible case; would turn into a confront case; would turn into an experience case. Which is quite interesting.

Now it is true that an engram could be found, started, and, if the auditor were good and held the individual right on the time period and had the time period well spotted, and had the overt and motivator, no matter how crazy they seemed or sounded, contacted, he could theoretically, just by running that engram, run a person through the totality of this Reality Scale. See? So there’s another approach here. You get a guy who is figure-figure, find the engram necessary to resolve the case. First he figure-figures about it, and he’ll run it, and run it just with the auditing commands—the five auditing commands to run an engram—he figure-figures about it, then after a while he dubs-in about it, then after a while it all goes black; and then after a while it eases into an invisibility—it’s just not there—somatics are, and discomfort and other things are, but it’s not there—and its not-thereness suddenly turns into little flicks—little flicks of confront. And boy, he goes elsewhere. It just starts to turn on and he gets it for the least little Flick and he goes elsewhere. And then pretty soon he can confront the thing; then pretty soon he can participate—he can run it in valence, squarely in valence, right in its moment of time, at which time it becomes pretty damn real. And then he goes to being able to put it there or not put it there, and its importance-unimportance factor flattens out so that it’s neither important nor unimportant. And that engram is licked.

Theoretically, this could happen. That is actually the way I run engrams. But you will find in auditing in the HGC that the public expects of you a different thing than is expected of you by students. And that’s why I wanted to talk to you for a few minutes. They expect a different thing. They expect you to be interested in their case. And that is quite amusing—because it’s your job to get them interested in their case. But they want you to be interested in their case. A11 right, any case is interesting, so that’s a pretty easy one. But you can get so interested in their case that you do a lot of talking to them and burn up an awful lot of auditing time. So there is some point where your interest becomes an indulgence, and on the happier side of that, where the pc is pleased you’re interested in his case, and that’s enough. Then you get him interested in his case.

All right. Now, we have for a long time not used PT problems. I’ll tell you why very bluntly. It was not unusual for an auditor to burn up twelve and a half hours on a PT problem. It was not unusual. He did this with two motives: one just yak, letting the pc go on and on, poor control, not controlling the pc’s comm outflow, letting the pc get into non-essentials. And the other side of it: he was trying to run the whole case with the PT problem. Well, wonderful—you can run a whole case with a PT problem—but why? Since it’s slow freight. That’s a very slow way to go about it. So we take a PT problem now and handle the session in this fashion:

We establish the rudiments every time we establish a session. Find the auditor, find the pc, find the auditing room, establish a goal for the session. Do that rapidly. We don’t care what goal it is, so long as he has some kind of a goal. And then we ask for a PT problem. And we take an E-Meter (up to that time we didn’t care whether the pc was handling the cans or not) but we take an E-Meter, and we have this PT problem appear on the E-Meter, or we don’t run it. Got it? And we run the PT problem that appears on the E-Meter. So we get him to state this problem, and we don’t care how he states the problem, because all we want to know is “Did it drop?” That tells you at once you won’t run a PT problem on a stage-4 needle. Didn’t drop-see, that’s all within the requirements—it didn’t drop, so skip it. It isn’t going to be real to the pc anyhow. You’ll have to do something else with this case. He’s probably got thousands of problems; probably all of life is a problem. Probably every time he walks in a room he installs an engram. You know, the furniture’s there—that’s an engram. Get the idea? So why worry about a problem?

But if you got a PT problem that drops, you should remove yourself at that moment from all temptation. As soon as the problem drops, and as soon as he states that it is a problem to him and is worrying him in present time, you take the cans away from him and put the thing aside. Just lay the E-Meter aside. You’re not interested in an E-Meter from there on. The reason why is because you’ll increase the drop, you’ll increase more drop and more drop as you ask him about it. You’re already running it. And the problem is going to change. You have seen this phenomenon. You’re not interested in a problem changing. The fact of your laying aside the E-Meter will rather convince him that you have found it and that’s it. And you only want to know this: the personnel associated with that problem. You don’t want to know more about the problem. You just want to know the personnel associated with that problem. His wife, his mother, and his wife’s boy friend, or something of that sort. And that’s the personnel associated with the problem. You just check that off.

Now, I’m going to ask you to take a notebook and a ball-point into the auditing room, because you’ve got two or three things to do here that require a list. I want you to get accustomed to establishing a list and then flattening it, not trying to run the case all over new again every time the case changes. That’s one of the ways to waste time. You run one terminal, and of course the case changes, the problems change, everything changes on the case. If you re-assessed it at this time to find a new terminal, you’d for sure find new terminals. Well, the devil with it. Let’s just flatten what we contact, and when we’re contacting and scouting and using cans and the E-Meter, just write down what we find. Then put the E-Meter aside and run what we’ve found until we get rid of all of that. Now you’re going to do something new—give him back the E-Meter cans. Got the idea?

Pcs don’t much like to hold onto these E-Meter cans forever. Furthermore, they become restive, and they want to scratch their heads, and they want to do this, and they want to rassle around, and most pcs you get are slightly nervous in this direction. Why should you worry about it? Because the E-Meter is only going to give you a certain amount of the information that is quite valid. Now, you’re going to write down the personnel connected with this PT problem. You’re going to take SELECTED PERSON OVERT-WITHHOLD on each one of these people. And the commands for this are right here:

“Think of something you have done to (	 ),” and 
“Think of something you have withheld from (	).”

And you are going to run one of those commands and the next command, and then the next command—first command again, then the second command, first command, second command. In that way, you’ll never lay an egg on an unbalanced flow. No flow will unbalance on you. They’ll always stay there more or less stable. The case won’t suddenly turn black when it’s not supposed to turn black, and so forth. You won’t ever over-run a flow and the pc will never get upset.

Now, let’s look at this again. You have written down “wife”, “his mother”, and “his wife’s boy friend”. Which one do you run first? You have to ask this question to establish that terminal: “Which one of these things do you think is the most real to you?” The individual says, “Oh, Mother, of course.” Who cares? That’s what he says. All right, so that’s the first one you take. Then you take the two remaining ones: “Which one is most real?” That’s the one you knock out. That leaves you one more person. Knock that one out.

Now, there is something that is not stated here. I just typed this up rapidly for you—I didn’t have a backing sheet, so there are typographicals because I couldn’t even see what I was typing. This has a criterion, and it is an old criterion of all PT problems—it is, they are PT problems. By definition, a PT problem must exist right now in the physical universe. By definition. So therefore, the personnel involved in a PT problem must exist right now in the physical universe. He will tell you halfway through the run, that “It was actually my mother who influenced me this way”—ah skip it. That’s not a PT personnel in that problem. His mother isn’t really part of, let us say—it was her mother that was part of the PT problem. In other words, the people have to be actually associated with the problem and existing at this time in this pc’s life influencing that problem, for this to be a PT problem. So therefore, we don’t dive in any direction to pick up any new personnel we don’t care about.

We get this problem flat. It is only flat if it answers this question: “Now, what do you have to do about that problem now?” And the pc says, “Nothing.” It’s flat. For our purposes, it’s flat. The only reason we’re running it is we’re trying to get rid of the obsession he has to jump out of the auditing room and go do something about this problem. If he doesn’t have to do anything about it, it’s flat. But if he says, “Oh, it’s flat, because I could go and talk to my wife’s boy friend now, and I could handle him.” No. Start right back over from the beginning—the first person you wrote down—and run that person again for a short time—next person for a short time—next person for a short time—on these exact auditing questions. “Now, what do you have to do about the problem?” He’ll tell you, “Well, I don’t have to do anything about it just now.” That’s enough. You consider that flat. Got it?

All right. This will keep you out of all kinds of trouble. And it will keep the pc from being all hung up in trying to go elsewhere in an auditing session. So much for that.

This is done at the beginning of every session. That first section there—it says, “STARTING A CASE: AND BEGIN EVERY SESSION”. Well, you not only start each intensive with this, but you start every session with this, and you do the same thing.

If it takes you two hours to flatten the PT problem, I will think something is hung up. This is a rapid one. This is not a slow one. If it takes a couple of hours, well, something’s really haywire here. He didn’t say the problem, or he didn’t do something, or he’s holding something back. But notice we have said, “Think of something you have done to” and “Think of something you have withheld from”. This will also get the pc talking to you, because it gets rid of the withhold. Got that? All right. So much for that.

Now, DYNAMIC STRAIGHT WIRE you were taught in the 21st American, but the commands for the general public were not given to you. And they are given to you here on this sheet, this HCO Bulletin. Now, the only thing you are looking for is a represented substitute. In other words, you’re looking for substitutes. You ask him for a substitute for himself, and you ask him for a substitute on the basis of “Tell me something that would represent yourself.” And he says, “Represent myself? Oh, that’s very, very easy—a tree.” Get your ball-point busy at that point and put down “tree”. Got it? Now, if he even says “toothbrush”, get your ball-point busy. The proper answer, of course, is “Myself”. It’s just as simple as that. But the more a case is daffy on this line, the more attention you’re going to pay to it. So you just run this whole assessment right straight on through: Self, sex, family, children, groups, mankind, the animal kingdom, birds, beasts, fish, vegetables, trees, growing things, matter, energy, space, time, spirits, souls, gods, God. Just one question. Each time you say this you just take one of those: “Tell me something that would represent, for instance, souls.” The individual says, “Running water.” Get the ball-point busy. Write it down. When you have got this whole list assessed, take the list you have written and run:

“Think of something you have done to (a toothbrush).” 
“Think of something you have withheld from (a toothbrush).”

You’ll be amazed, but they have actually done something to a toothbrush, and they have actually withheld something from a toothbrush. This is pretty terrific. Quite amazing. But you are only looking for daffiness on this, and a sensible answer you don’t pay much attention to. You say, “Tell me something that would represent trees.” And the fellow says, “Leaves.” Now, there’s a matter of judgment involved here. What if he said, “Shadows”? Well, I don’t know. That’s a matter of judgment. Try to run it or not try to run it, as the case may be. If it looks daffy to you, run it. You’re the judge. Got the idea?

Now don’t let it look daffy to you when you say, “Tell me something that would represent spirits,” and he says, “Souls.” When you say “souls”, he says “spirits”. That’s not daffy.

But how about this guy that gives you the perfect representation all the way down the line like a little wound-up doll? You already, in looking him over, find out he has a sticky needle, he’s registering at 6 on your E-Meter when you first put the cans in his hands, and he gives you all the answers perfectly. That case is giving you an intellectual response which has nothing to do with any reality under the sun, moon or stars. Something he read in a book and a machine is rattling it off. So you do the assessment again. The second time you go through you’re liable to trip him on something. Got the idea? So, if you get a perfect assessment, run it again. I actually don’t care how many times you run it, but you’re apt to be wasting time, because by two-way comm and definition alone you may not get anywhere with a very badly machined case. Nevertheless, a couple of times through, he should trip somewhere. Machine case generally does.

The rule governing Dynamic Straight Wire is: That which doesn’t fall out by two-way comm just on assessment. He says it, and then it looks funny to him, and he laughs, and he thinks this is for the birds, and he says, “Oh, no, that wouldn’t be one-actually, a substitute for a tree would be a leaf, or a small tree,” or something like this. That’s fine. Nothing wrong with letting him correct himself, because you are actually auditing him just by asking him the question. People, when they straighten out things in their own categories, very often recover very, very easily.

All right. Let’s take up this next one here. That’s an easy way to run Dynamic Straight Wire, isn’t it, huh? I would ask you to do this, however, in view of the fact that you are doing a professional job of auditing for the public mainly, and that is, I’d ask you to memorize that list—rather than hold a bulletin in your hand and read it.

Now, the next thing we’re going to run into here is PAST AND FUTURE EXPERIENCE. This is a bid for two things: One, the lowest level case there is—because experience, to him, is a dub-in, usually. Or it’s a figure-figure, or it’s something, so it compares to the Reality Scale. His definition of experience compares with the Reality Scale.

His definition of experience is a direct index to the Reality Scale, by the way. What does experience mean? He’ll say, “Experience—that’s very easy. To consider.” There you’ve got your figure-figure level. “What does experience mean?” Well, “To write about it or make something out of it—experience is that thing which you use to manufacture the future.” He’s dub. “Now, what is an experience?” “Well, experience is that which you try not to have.” That’s probably black or invisible. Or, “It’s the thing you forget,” would be blackness. “Experience is something you try to forget”— invisibility level. “Experience is something you have to cope with.” Obsessive confront. “Experience is—ah—well, experience—that’s pretty hard to define—experience. I guess it’s to go through something.” You’re getting a fairly sane response—to go through something. To have an actual adventure, something of this sort. You’re getting a fairly sane reaction to experience.

So don’t think that Past and Future Experience is pegging up at the highest level of the Reality Scale. It isn’t. This process was found, in the 21st American, to be the undercut process. This was the lowest undercut process. And this is a killer, and it is very trying to an auditor. A very trying process, because it offers so many wonderful temptations. And that’s what’s wrong with this process.

Now, you run these two questions, one after the other, with no assessment, no E-Meter, nothing. You just put the E-Meter down after you’ve done the Dynamic Straight Wire thing, because on Dynamic Straight Wire, when you said, “Children,” the needle was going on a gradual shift over here, and a little theta bop now and then. You said, “Children,” and it fell a dial, or all of a sudden started doing a big theta bop in the middle. When you got off of children, it settled down to the other pattern. That told you that you had something to be run on the subject of children. That he will also, at the same time, give you a daffy reading, he will tell you some daffy terminal to represent—so you needed the E-Meter there. But you don’t need the E-Meter on Past and Future Experience, not even vaguely. You can just put the E-Meter aside and turn it off, and just run these two commands. Just clear them with the pc very bluntly. Say, “We’re going to run something about experience. Now, we’re going to see how you get along with this little process, and here are the commands of it: What part of your life would you be willing to re-experience? And the other command is: What part of the future would you be willing to experience? Now, here’s the first command: What part of your life would you be willing to re-experience?”

The answer actually called for is a time, isn’t it? And this is a time process. But there are very few preclears that will find this out for a very long period. They won’t give you anything but super-significances and ball-up, and the pc who is real bad off will give you a type of experience. You accept all these things. You say, “What part of your life would you be willing to re-experience?” He says, “Well, eating cake.” That’s an answer? That’s an answer. And that’s followed with this: “What part of the future would you be willing to experience?” He says, “Well, more cake.” That’s an answer. So you just accept any answer that he gives you on the line. It gradually will boil down to a time answer. And it will gradually go back-track. The longer you run it, the more track you’re going to cover, the more future you’re going to cover. And there will be periods when the individual is absolutely sure that he is totally predicting the future. He gets into implants, let us say, that tell him what the future is all about. He’s stuck 8000 years ago, but he’s telling you about the future. All kinds of odd phenomena show up. But engrams come up and slap you in the teeth, one right after the other.

You run this for a while, and the individual says, “OOOh, well, you know I really wouldn’t be willing—well, I would be willing—I don’t know—I would—oohh, well—I really don’t know—dental operation there, I was a young boy—I don’t know if I’d like to re-experience that—I guess I could re-experience sitting in the—no, no, no. I could re-experience—I could re-experience the next day after it.” You say, “That’s fine,” and just mark it down with the ball-point: “Dental experience as a child.” That one he can’t confront. Now, you’re never going to run it as an engram, but you’re going to have some tag of it as an engram. See, it may show you something.

As you go along and he runs into hot experiences, real, real hot experiences one right after the other, it is about time you put the E-Meter back in his paws. Get the idea? You don’t have to start it with the E-Meter, but if he starts running into hot experiences, or if he gets into an engram and he can’t seem to get out of the thing, the thing to do is not run the engram but give him an E-Meter and spot it in time for him. Get it spotted in time. If he’s running into them hot and heavy, one right after the other, just leave him with the E-Meter. But if there is only one you have to spot in time, and then in a little while he doesn’t seem to be running any more, take the cans away from him again and put the E-Meter aside. But if he starts running into one that obsessively sticks with him, don’t let him flounder in the thing for an hour. Don’t let him wallow in this one. Because he will just wallow in it, and this is no process-this is not a good process to run an engram with. So you let him out, OK? And the way you let him out is to locate it in time with an E-Meter. And you go on running the process. Now, as I say, it offers enormous temptations to the auditor—beautiful temptations to run the things contacted. As you sit this out, you actually are going to change the characteristic of the engram you will ultimately run on the case. But you keep listing engrams that he runs into. Keep listing engrams that he runs into, well knowing that he will favor motivators. For every one of those motivators there is an overt. Now an engram that he consistently and persistently keeps hitting and hitting and hitting, you are going to find in that engram probably the engram you will run, eventually. But not until he is in PT, out of the engram, it seems to have dropped out, and so forth, and he seems to be all smooth on this thing, are you going to reach for that one again. You are going to flatten the process and then go to the engram.

Here we go. ENGRAM RUNNING. Of course, that is run all the way through with an E-Meter. Give him the cans and start out on this engram that you more or less found with Past and Future Experience.

Now, this is going to undercut cases, and I don’t care how long you run it. I don’t care if you run it for two weeks, because this is a very productive process. But if you are going to run it over that period of time, it isn’t noted here, but some THIRD RAIL had better be brought in here some place. And he’d better be shifted up finally until havingness. And you put in PAST AND FUTURE EXPERIENCE, right after that line, “COMBINE WITH THIRD RAIL IF RUN MORE THAN 8 HOURS”. If you run it eight hours, this guy’s havingness is going to start dropping on him, and you are going to run into difficulties. You could get into difficulties. All right.

ENGRAM RUNNING. Well, Engram Running, when the case has been prepared this way, becomes very simple. A case will start running like a little typewriter, if you have got this Past and Future Experience pretty flat.

Once you have picked an engram, make sure you get its motivator not only its overt. If you have got an overt, get the motivator. If you have got the motivator, get the overt. And only when you have got that have you got an incident. Now, an engram that is having one side of the overt or motivator run will get sticky. You have got to find the other side, and you have got to get both of these things in date. Normally, this will start showing up on Past and Future Experience. Well, we are going to run this engram with an E-Meter, we are going to consider that we have an incident when we have got both a motivator and an overt that fit together. And if the thing is just awful sticky, and dubby, and shockingly poor, and a lot of other things, you just started running it too fast, that is all.

We have got several things you can do at this state of the case, and so forth. Probably the best of them is go back to running Past and Future Experience. You didn’t flatten it.

Now, here is this Engram Running. If you notice here, it says you run all the commands that run an engram twice. Run them all twice. That’s because “Find something unimportant in that incident” is going to stir up stuff that newly has to be confronted.

Once you have chosen an engram and you have begun to run it, you have had it. That’s it. That’s the engram you are going to run. So it has to be chosen with considerable care. Listen to me now: If you re-assess the case after you have started an engram, you will get almost any other incident that is hot to drop more than the engram you started, because most of the charge is already dissipated. So if you keep re-assessing a case, thinking another engram would be better to run for the case, you are of course always going to find another engram. You will never find the one you started to run again dropping with as much velocity. You see? That’s something you have to keep in mind. If you are going to run an engram, that’s the engram you are going to run. It’s got to have its overt or motivator; suppose you are running the overt side of it, you have got to have the motivator side of it. So you really haven’t got an incident until you have got both of these things located. And once you have started to run that, you have had it. Because it will discharge its charge and won’t register on a meter any more the way some other incident will.

You can get a case just stirred all up and run all backwards and upside down, and that’s the biggest mistake an auditor can make. I have given you the reason for the mistake-because now almost anything will drop better than the one you partially flattened.

If in doubt, run the engram you were running. If you are not getting rapid recovery, go back to the first engram you ran and considered flat and run it again. Sometimes, it will only take you fifteen minutes to run all five commands. You do it very fast. But very often something happened that it re-charged in some fashion. Very peculiar.

If you leave about a third of an engram missing and unflat, the whole engram has a tendency to charge up again. It is kind of funny. But you have got to flatten the engram you contacted.

Now the rule of the Last Largest Object is the only one I want you to pay any attention to in questioning the pc. Pc apparently is getting out of it. Change your auditing command. You are running, “What part of that incident can you confront?” He says, “Well, I don’t know, it’s pretty unreal to me, I don’t know whether this happened or not.” What was the last largest object? If he said anything that was offbeat and showed an unwillingness to run any more of the engram, you want to find out at once what was the last largest object that you contacted in there. And he says, “A house.” You are going to shift your auditing command now to: “What part of that house can you confront?” And you are going to run that simply until he is back in the incident, and then you are going to go off on to “What part of that incident can you confront?” Doesn’t require any vast bridge. You just tell him you are going to shift.

In that way, using that rule, you can actually pick up an engram where he was running as Abraham Lincoln, and in the engram he was shot in Ford’s Theatre—you know—and the date is obviously correct. Dropped and everything. And then he runs John Wilkes Booth—no, he wasn’t Lincoln, he was John Wilkes Booth. And so help me God, you may find that he was the Secret Service Agent who had a couple of drinks that night and wasn’t watching. You don’t care whether he runs it dub or not. Don’t give up because he’s running it wrong, because it’ll come out right.

There was a joke on us in the 21st American. We had our paws on Bowie. He was Jim Bowie. And of course everybody doubted this, because it is a famous historical figure. And they tried to do everything under the sun to shake him out of this engram, and they finally went back to running it, and it was the one that flattened out. The trouble was, he had dub on it, which made Bowie die the wrong kind of a death under wrong circumstances. But as he ran it, the more he ran it, the more he ran it, the more right the circumstances got. And it finally all came out in the wash. He did run the death of Jim Bowie.

Historical figures, however, are usually the yo-yo point used. The guy went out of his own body at the death; there was some current historical figure; he said, “That is the identity necessary to resolve this incident. That identity could handle it. So I will just be Catherine the Great.” And he goes and runs Catherine the Great. The only mistake is to let him escape out of the time period. Maybe he did yo-yo right into the palace, maybe he did go right through her skull. But the right engram will shake out, because the Reality Scale is run by running an engram.

Theoretically, you could clear a person just by running one engram well enough. So never get off onto quantitative engrams. An engram is merely something for him to get used to confronting, and creating, and mocking up, and so forth. It’s just a playing field you are using. The significance, the amount of change he gets in his life, none of these things have anything to do with it at all. It is just how well he can handle a mental image picture, and you have chosen a honey for him to handle. That is about all it amounts to. And when he finds out he can handle this thing from A to Izzard and beginning to end, and he can do it well, then the next engram to resolve the case will run quite rapidly. And you will run on down and finally run his basic, earliest shift of identity, which is the rock. And formerly he said, “There is a beautiful, clear sphere—that’s the rock. And that’s all the rock.” Oh, heck. When you get several engrams run and get the rock as one of the engrams, you find out this beautiful, clear sphere was something he customarily clamped around thetans as a trap, and they sometimes clamped it around him, and there were raiding parties, and there was all kinds of personnel and there is drama and there is strain, and there is scenery and everything else. When you contacted the rock first and ran the rock first, he was insufficiently able to contact things. The date when he was mocking up this thing, he was so capable of mocking up that later on this poor, little, weak ole thetan, years and years and centuries and so forth afterwards going back to mock up this rock—uh-uh— it’s too beefy. That’s too much engram for him to confront first off.

So you choose the engrams—it doesn’t much matter what you choose. You will find that every sexual incident you contact is a bounce from a death. A little rule for you. So don’t let me catch anybody in the HGC running prenatals, birth, conception, because that is a bounce. Those are all tied in with the death, and the death is the engram which is necessary to resolve the case. So you keep running Past and Future Experience until you get them down to that—OK? Leave the second dynamic incidents severely alone.

Now it can be that he died, and he died is followed by a conception sequence, and he goes back to the old body to see if it is still decently buried—you know—and then he can’t find the person that he thought he was going to be, get the next body from, and he gets all confused. And mess-ups of this character can occur. But keep him on the incident. Is this part of the text? When you finish a death and go through the exteriorization sequence, right at the end of it there is a conception or a prenatal or a birth. They quite ordinarily bounce into it, and you don’t want it. You want nothing to do with it. So you stop him when you have got all of the exteriorization run.

There is a lot to know about engrams. You have been taught all this, but I am just showing you what you can do to win in the HGC with Engram Running. This would be a good, clean job then.

Every time you run an engram, now is the time to use some Not-Is Straight Wire, with its ordinary commands which you know. They are:

“Recall something that you implied was unimportant.” “Recall something somebody else thought was important.”

Don’t ever let a pc run it in reverse, because it discharges havingness in about five commands. That is real rough the other way, too.

All right. Now there we have a rundown that will get engrams run, that will get ordinary, run-of-the-mill cases squared around, and that will get a lot done. But what about people who were not through the American 21st? And during that period of time up until they start in with a Theta Clearing Course, to run actual engrams on pcs, how about these people? Well, you have Selected Person Overts, with the “withhold” command added, and you will have a new bulletin out on these things, and so forth. We want that auditing to be relatively muzzled. It will win and everything will go along just dandy. But if you have got some case (and this is more for D.O.P.s than anything else)—if you have got some case that was awfully hard to start, very low random profile, you’d better turn it over to a graduate of the 21st American. And if you have got some case that, after he ran along for a while and was getting up to a point where he’d just run engrams beautifully, and the whole track’s opening up, everything is going along just dandy, and it is certain that the engram necessary to resolve the case is just waiting, give him an auditor that can run it.

In other words, you can run an HGC this way: You can get some auditors that set pcs up to run engrams. You got the idea? And then you can have some auditors that run engrams. This is not any real violation of the Auditor’s Code, because that will still give him the best processes and the best treatment for the pc that can be given.

Now there is no reason why, particularly after a staff Theta Clearing Course, that everybody can’t run a regimen of this sort. But running it in the HGC, with all the profiles being submitted to me and all the Case Analysis Reports—the Case Analysis Reports now are more vital than profiles, because R changed on a case does not necessarily change the profile at all. You should know about that. You can change the R of the case without changing the profile. The person answered the same questions, only he answered them with Reality. This is quite remarkable. We need a brand new test. That test is in development right at this moment. It is a confront test, and that test will be coming up, but there is no reason to rush it, particularly. Let’s just do it by Case Analysis.

I will get out a Bulletin that will take care of auditors who were not trained to run engrams, what they will run. But you already have data and material on this, and it is just as before, what you have been running.

Now, to start a case out with NOT-IS STRAIGHT WIRE is adventurous. That’s an adventurous thing to do. That’s a rough thing to do. We learned a great many things in the 21st American ACC. Learned a great many things, and that was one of them. Selected Persons Overt-Withhold is very, very superior in undercutting cases to Selected Persons Overts. The only main change we have got is that we run Selected Person Overt-Withhold commands, just as it is given here in PT problem. That is a wonderful thing to do with a case, as long as the terminal is real to the pc. And there is no real reason that running a Scientologist, who knows what the command is, why ARC Break Straight Wire cannot be run on a person by an auditor who has not been through an Engram Running Course. That’s a beautiful process.

I want to tell you something else. Can I tell you something here? A lot of research was done in the 21st American ACC, and students didn’t see me as much as they thought they should, I suppose, but I was around. And I never saw so many flips and changes and vagaries in my life as I saw in that particular unit. The reports which I got were very—very helpful to me—very, very helpful to Scientology at large. There was a great deal done in that course. I spent about three weeks of the course—did very rapid research just in catching up with some of these undercuts. Because, let me assure you, the R factor in most of the cases you approach is so low that it poses a problem of running greater than we had ever imagined. Therefore, these are the processes that we are handing out.

Now, these are a Not-Is type of process. Dynamic Straight Wire runs a straight identification, but the rest of these things are Not-Is types of processes. To cure somebody from not-ising. When a person can confront something, he no longer has to not-is it.

But there was a funny command came up along the line, that I don’t fully understand yet, but it takes care of a theta body. Now this is part of the research that was never given to the 21st American. And this is a peculiar darned thing. You can write it down on the back of this Bulletin, if you want to.

It is:

“Recall a time when you thought something bad was unimportant.”

And that is just about the wildest thing you ever saw. Now that runs all by itself but can be combined with:

“Recall a time somebody else thought something bad was important.”

And you will run all the newspapers off the case. The second command there is really not essential, but you just run this first command repetitively, and if it seems to run down or something bad happens, flip over to the other command. But you will as-is a theta body.

This is the doggondest thing you ever saw. It is a perfectly wild pitch. I was just adding up all possible combinations and working in all possible directions, and this one fell out of the hamper, and it doesn’t integrate too well with the rest of your data. But this is the goofy one.

Now, something else came up in the 21st American that I should tell you in the HGC, and that is: After nine years, we have found out WHY. We had nine years of HOW, and now in the ninth year we find out why. Why people are aberrated. Why they are sick. Why they act the way they do. Why individuation takes place. And that is all wrapped up with WITHHOLD. I had withhold earlier, but didn’t shake it all out of the hamper, because I didn’t have the overts to go with it. We find out that an individual gets sick by having the overt impulse to make somebody else sick and then withholds it, because it is less social to give people illnesses. So he gets them himself. This is Freudian transference, it is a whole number of things. So when you run these overts, run the withhold with it and the case will start finding out why.

The theta body thing, and the masses and ridges, why, they run out when you ask a person to recall a time when he thought something bad was unimportant, or recall—well, that is the best command—recall a time when he thought something bad was unimportant. When you run this, you evidently run the center pin of the withhold. But you will get his tolerance. And this is the first straight ethical process, evidently, we have. It raises a person’s ethics. It as-ises a theta body. It takes demon bodies and things like that off cases. I tested it two or three times here, just monkeying around with this thing, and it is one of the wilder ones. This is a wild pitch, that particular process.

So you could say that when a field doesn’t immediately disintegrate, when you can’t get an individual easily in the engram, when the field stays persistently black or something like that, you have got another string to your bow, and I don’t care if you use it. But if you do use it, know this: It runs as an automaticity on such a demon case. He runs br-r-r-r-t—the last two thousand years he has been not-ising and saying it was unimportant that something was bad. And he will start coming up with, “Well, I should do something—no, I shouldn’t do something—well, what is this? I should do something about it. I shouldn’t do something about it. I have been very neglectful, but that really isn’t bad. Not really. Somebody dying from the bullet wound I gave ‘em—that really isn’t bad. But—” And he is stuck right with the consideration on all of his overts—consequences of overts. They all must be unimportant. And it reduces his ethical level. But I have now seen two demon bodies disintegrate just with that one command just disintegrate—and this is the first time we ever had something that would disintegrate the astral body. So we find out at once that the astral body was an aberration. It isn’t a necessary thing to make a thetan stick in the head at all.

All right. Now I wanted to give you this rundown, because today you were having a little bit of a rough time doing a transition from student to pro auditor, and I wanted to talk to you, even though it burned up some of your valuable time and mine. And ask you to sic semper transit, huh?

Now are there any questions? Yes, Jean.

Q. I have two questions. In running of the engram, do you ignore what they were running in the ACC, or do you just go back and run them? My preclear has had several engrams started.

A. Now, if we look over this carefully, we see in running an incident: Find the engram necessary to resolve the case. Once you have chosen it and have begun to run it, be sure you have the motivator and the overt and then do not, do not, do not, do not, depart from that incident to run another that “drops better” or comes up. Now look here. The engrams that were run on them in the course are no longer going to fall. And an engram is not going to show on an E-Meter. And if there were several engrams run on somebody in the course, and the first one wasn’t flattened, then whoever audited them ought to be hit in the head with a sledge-hammer. There’s only one or two cases that got by with this, that I have checked up on so far, and it is about the most serious blunder that could be made. Now, what you do in a case that’s had an engram already started is get a lie reaction check—that’s all you want—of some sort or another, concerning this particular thing. You can put him on the E-Meter and ask him if it was run, and so forth, and ask him which one was the first one run. You could possibly get an occlusion, but usually the pc will tell you. There’s no particular reason to doubt the pc. Get the first one, and get that one flat, and then you have no choice but to pick up the next one and flatten that one.

This applies without regard to how many auditors were on the case. This also, you will find out, will sometimes apply to somebody who had an engram audited in 1950. The only trouble with a 1950 engram is that it is probably an operation in the current lifetime, or a prenatal in the current lifetime, and it was the wrong engram necessary to resolve the case, and you won’t get very far running the thing. And we have no data at this time, whether it’s best to pick that one up and run it or not. But I would say for sure that an engram that should have been run to resolve the case, such as a past death, if that was ever entered in all of those years, including 1950—it may no longer drop on the E-Meter, because some of its charge is gone. That is the engram necessary to resolve the case.

Yes, got another one?

Q. Yes. The Dynamic Straight Wire—do you keep running this until you have picked up all the daffy terminals, then go through it several times and get the daffy ones each time?

A. If you get a daffy one, if you get several daffy ones, you take those you got on the first run and run them. Don’t bother to go through again, because it will have straightened out. Enough will have straightened out to admit progress of the case. But if you don’t get any daffy ones through once, then run it again. Any other questions? Dale.

Dale: I just had a comment on that. One 1950 engram, in which the auditor blew session because it was whole track, was the engram necessary to resolve the case and finally showed up. The guy had been black since 1950.

A. Good. Picked it up and flattened it. Well, that’s a good job. That tells you that a black case, then, doesn’t necessarily require five or six weeks of preparation before you run an engram. You pick up an engram as early as you can on a case and charge through. But it doesn’t get you around starting a case. You have always got to start a case or start a session. Yes?

Q. On this re-experience process, do I run it until I get 3-D pictures, and track?

A. Yes. Oh, 3-D pictures and back in PT. Back in PT. I’ll give you an example of one of these. Here’s the pc. He is sitting in a terror charge, in a total black freeze, at 1500 AD. One second later, everything went to hell. One second before, everything had gone to hell. And he’s sitting in this split second, at a rest point. Got it? Well, now, what do you think happens when you start asking him about future and past, alternately? He’ll move right off that rest point, won’t he? So this is an explosive, doggoned process. Now, I say you run it until he gets to PT. Some time or other you might find it impossible to get him to PT on the process. You just might. But the experience that has been had with it so far is that it does eventually move him to PT. Now is the time to take him back, at the auditor’s discretion, and have him run that incident in which he was stuck.

By the way, “What part of PT are you willing to experience?” has on several cases exposed the engram necessary to resolve the case. It is the engram he’s sitting in, and it is the one necessary to resolve the case. Yes?

Q. If you leave a process very unflat one afternoon, and come back in the morning and start questioning the guy, and you pick up first of all present time problems. Now supposing that process is the basic of his present time problem of the morning. Are he and you the terminals, the preclear and auditor the two terminals?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you run it that way?

A. Oh, well, if he got a lot of ARC breaks, it would be a good thing to run it this way. That would clean up all the ARC breaks, wouldn’t it?

Now I am going to give you that again on ARC breaks. This is the hottest one to run ARC breaks on. Just pick up the auditor and pick up the pc, as the two people involved in the present time problem. I am glad you brought that up, Joe.

This idea of throwing him back into session after you have ended a session the day before is another point of judgment. Just how do you smoothly get him into it? Usually he has piled up something on top of the engram. There is a process here, which is not really a very good process, but which kicks them out, and it was not given in this ACC. That is Problems of Comparable Magnitude to that Engram, or that Incident. It will actually de-intensify an engram. You should have that as a little panacea.

That is an interesting one to wind up an intensive on. About noon of the last day you all of a sudden realize, “Boy, this man isn’t going to make it.” And you could run a problem of comparable magnitude to that engram and get it keyed out. However, you are better than that, and you will have had it flat by the last day of the last intensive he has, that’s for sure. Any other questions? Don?

Q. Is “recall something” preferred over “recall a time”? I have heard “Recall a time you did something to somebody,” and also “Recall something you did to somebody,” which is slightly different.

A. “Recall a time” is always a superior process, unless the individual is consistently not recalling a time, at which time he is not obeying the auditing command. So you should say, “Recall something you have done to” to somebody who can’t spot something on a time track.

Q. What’s the difference there?

A. You are running really two processes with “Recall a time you did something,” and you are running only one process, “Recall something you have done.”

Q. Can he continue to do that without recalling a time?

A. Yeah. Definitely. Anything else?

“Recall a time,” all by itself—you just sit down and say to a pc, “Recall a time. Thank you. Recall a time. Thank you.” Some interesting things would happen to a case. Time, you see, is the single aberration. Joe?

Q. In running an engram, when you are tagging the engram for the first time, is it possible to peg, say, a 2-ton motivator and a one-pound overt, and that’s the incident?

A. Yes. Because until they get some of the overt flat, the motivator will come off. The right one to run there, by the way, is the overt. You get that overt damn real, and all of a sudden you’ll find the 20-tons have departed down to about 1 0-tons on the motivator. Now they’ll run on comparable lines. Yes.

Q. Couldn’t you have, say, a 20-ton motivator, as he was saying, and twenty one-ton overts tied to the same motivator, rather than one large overt?

A. You could. You could. Nevertheless, you’ll find somebody getting all loused up on this, and best remedy is just to play what overt you find against what motivator you find as the incident. And just keep playing them one against the other, back and forth, back and forth, and eventually the thing will come out right.

There are many remedies, and one is Selected Persons Overt-Withhold Straight Wire on the personnel of the incident. You could take any incident as a PT and run any PT process on the incident. That’s a little rule. I don’t advise you doing it, however, but you can do it. It’s very interesting: “Find something unimportant about that executioner,” is just about the same as, “Find something unimportant about this room.” If you want to get a reality soaring on a pc, just run “Find something unimportant about this room.” And he’ll start this not-is machinery going, you know, and he’ll run it out to some degree, and all of a sudden the room will brighten up. Very interesting.

“Think of something you did to an executioner” would be it, rather than, “Think of something you did to that executioner.” And he will come up with the overt, and he will find out he was the executioner in the same castle for about three lifetimes before he suddenly came back there and got executed. That usually is the way these things compare.

Any other questions? There is a burning question that you should ask, is: “Are we supposed to run these things muzzled?” Now, let me just say this, to do this for me: Let’s cut down the unnecessary yak. And if the pc seems to be ARC breaking at all, you voluntarily muzzle your auditing. You got it? Because what he’s got is an engram of being talked to or being interrogated in some fashion, and everything that he doesn’t consider exactly necessary to the auditing session he resents. So if you find a pc is ARC breaking, you muzzle your session. Any other questions before we break this up?

Thank you very much for your time, I appreciate very much your coming in. I know you had a hard day getting on to a new routine, and you have got auxiliary duties. Several people in the HGC have been split off of administration, and there are other things going on. Latch on to ‘em, get wheeling, but let’s start making theta clears in this HGC and just make nothing else but theta clears. I have given you a pattern here that was thoroughly tested out in the 21st American ACC, and you can make theta clears—there’s no great difficulty to it. Thank you very much.

	                  						L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:ng.rd.lh
Copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	

P.A.B. No. 155
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 March 1959

PROCESSES USED IN 21ST ACC

Compiled from the Research Material and Taped Lectures of L. Ron Hubbard

I want to take up here with great rapidity the processes from bottom to top that we have so far found and that have been effective, and some additional data in running them.

And first is the process Dynamic Straightwire. The way to do a survey on Dynamic Straightwire is this: you ask the person to describe the dynamics from one to eight. We don’t care about them being sequitur—change them round if you wish.

Now, you ask a person to describe each one of these dynamics. You are watching an E-Meter for a change in pattern. Therefore you must carefully isolate the pattern, before you can tell whether or not the pattern has changed on the E-Meter needle reading. But, more important than that, you are looking for a dynamic the preclear makes mistakes about while he is trying to describe it, a dynamic he cannot describe, or a dynamic he won’t even approach and is very leary of, and his statement is confirmed by the E-Meter reading. In other words, you’ve got the statement of the preclear in this particular analysis being stacked up against the E-Meter reading all the way through in an analysis or diagnosis for Dynamic Straightwire.

All right. We go all the way through, asking for a terminal on these dynamics and we finally get a repeat. We will ask him for terminals on these dynamics, and we will get the same dynamic to read again. Now the basic rule which sorts this out is: Any dynamic which doesn’t clear by two-way comm has to be run. Simple as that. Any dynamic which doesn’t clear by two-way comm has to be run.

So, if you have two or three dynamics jammed up, you can hope that two of them will clear up, leaving you with the remaining dynamic.

But this is not the complete criteria of what you run. There is another stable datum. Don’t run a terminal that is totally unreal to the preclear. Another stable datum, which comes on top of it, is: never run a terminal that is sensible. Never. If a terminal belongs on the dynamic, you can almost say you’ll get nowhere running it. So you’re looking for terminals that the preclear gives you for a dynamic which don’t belong on the dynamic at all.

Now, if that terminal is real to the preclear, you will get a tremendous change in the case. If that terminal is totally unreal to the preclear and if it does belong on the dynamic, why, you’re not going to get any change on the case, so why run it? Might as well run some other process.

So, we have several conditions by which the diagnosis on Dynamic Straightwire works. I’ve done enough of these now and run enough of them, isolated enough of them and gotten conditions of change on enough of them, to realize that every time you changed a case you had (1) a person who couldn’t describe the dynamic accurately, or who made mistakes while trying to describe it, (2) a person who gave you a non sequitur or erroneous terminal for that dynamic—the terminal was fairly real to the preclear, although it didn’t belong there—and (3) you ran that, and it opened up track like mad.

What have you got here? You have a terrific identification. You are trying to undo identification that is lying right on the top. Well, this tells you, then, that it is neither a long process nor an invariable process. Given enough skill, you could undoubtedly find one of these on every case—given enough skill. But it is limited by auditor skill. Furthermore, it gives auditors a chance to “chop up” preclears and it gives auditors a chance to write some script, so this one has liability. And auditors have been writing script like mad. We had one particular case where the preclear couldn’t say any terminal on the seventh dynamic, so promptly the auditor jumps in and takes the nearest related thing to the seventh dynamic, the thetan, he could get. This was A Head, and he ran A Head, and the preclear had nothing to do with it, and they wondered why the case didn’t advance.

Now, you have auditors who are letting the preclear choose. In other words, there are auditors who actually believe that a preclear is permitted power of choice in an auditing session. And this is the biggest bug I have found existing at this instant on this ACC. That one’s a blinker. They are probably not telling you this, that they think a preclear has power of choice. They don’t know this: that it has to be nutty if you are going to run it—if it makes sense, why run it? They are looking for a wrongness in the preclear and they believe that the preclear knows all about his own case and could straighten it out all by himself. And that the auditor is an unnecessary adjunct. Now there are several people on this ACC who believe this and this is a great compliment to their faith in human nature, but it’s certainly of no value in an auditor. The preclear has no power of choice at all. The one the preclear would never choose is the one you run.

An example: We had a preclear here who gave three terminals on the fifth dynamic. One of these was a mountain. So the preclear was given the power of choice as to which one to run and, of course, came up with a cat. So they sat there running cats. Well, a cat happens to be right for the fifth dynamic, so why straighten it out? The process is aimed at straightening out something. Obviously, the mountain was wrong. The preclear was totally stuck on the idea that there was a mountain in on this.

We found a mountain on the eighth dynamic in another case that hasn’t been running. This case had been running metal on the sixth dynamic. So what? Metal belongs on the sixth dynamic—why run it? Get the idea? But this auditor had found a mountain on the eighth dynamic and ignored it. Of course, everybody knows God is a mountain—that’s obvious ....

Now, this was the one to hit. And where you find these people out of session it is because nobody has trailed down a nutty dynamic. When they’re out of session on Dynamic Straightwire, they’re not interested in it at all, they are just not running an identification. They’re running something reasonable, and at once the biggest liability of auditors is that they are reasonable and that they write script and write in reasonable reasons for it all. And they’re trying to audit unreasonability out of people-and these two things just don’t go together at all.

The next process up the line is Selected Person Overts. Select a terminal who is real to the preclear and, as you undercut the process, it comes closer and closer to present time. The person chosen has to be closer and closer to present time the more you try to go downscale on the process. But the person must be real, that’s a criteria in there. And the next thing about it is, you must flatten off several of these people. And the basic reason for this is to prepare an individual to own up to some responsibility for his own actions. Unless he can assume some responsibility for his own actions, he won’t do anything in an auditing session, so this is the one that cures.

The auditing command for Selected Person Overts is “Recall a time you did something to (the selected person’s name).” But that is undercut by the auditing command “Think of something you did to     “ or “Think of something you have done to     .” Now, the reason you say “Think” is because these people are very chary of owning up to anything or accepting any responsibility out in broad daylight in front of God and everybody, so you run “Think” and you’ve got a lot of people who are having a rougher time who won’t own up to their own lives and who can’t take responsibility for them on the third dynamic, but can take responsibility for them on the first dynamic. And this is the dynamic selection. So “Think” undercuts “Recall. “

The next one—General Overts—is much less effective when it has not already been undercut by Selected Person Overts. The individual just goes on and on with sweetness and light. The auditing command for General Overts is “Recall a time when you did something to somebody.” Now there are other phrases and so forth which could be used for this sort of process, but here we are interested mainly in people. We are not very interested in MEST and the remaining four dynamics. They’d splatter all over the place. That’s why it’s “to somebody.” If you said “something,” you would get the remaining four, so there is an alternate command in here if you wanted to run the other four dynamics. You would say, “Recall a time when you did something to something.”

Now, the next one up the line from this is Not-Is Straightwire: “Recall a time when you implied something was unimportant.” And this, we find, is best run on an alternate basis with the next auditing command, “Recall a time when somebody else thought something was important.” These two commands are alternated, one after the other, and you get these cases that are in a jam.

This is the direct cure of notisness; and where you have a case that is running a bad not-is, a process can evidently be invalidated or not-ised when the individual is out of session, or overnight. This is what Not-Is Straightwire cures. These are the people on whom a process works once, and never works again. These people are not-ising so badly that they can’t duplicate—and not-is, of course, is a mechanism to prevent duplication. So you cure, not duplicate. And the cure for it is Not-Is Straightwire.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 FEBRUARY 1959

HGC CURRENT PROCEDURE

SELECTED PERSONS OVERTS STRAIGHTWIRE

If you want an undercut on Selected Persons Overts Straightwire, run people close to present time and if you want to undercut it further, downscale its command to: “Think of something you have done to ....” The preclear does not have to talk to run this process. He can just think of something.

Additional note: ARC Break Straightwire cannot be run on a case that is motivator hungry. Overt acts must be owned up to thoroughly on the lower processes before you can get ARC Break Straightwire to run properly. Bad auditing is much easier to do with ARC Break Straightwire than the other two processes. Bad auditing is the limitation of ARC Break Straightwire. It gives the auditor much more chance to make mistakes than either Selected Persons Overts or Not-Is Straightwire.

The two biggest single auditor crimes are:

1. 	Rough and choppy auditing.

2. 	Overestimating the level of case.

When either of these two crimes is committed you get reduced profile readings. If a profile reduces, the answer is in either one or two above.

The remedy for rough auditing is muzzled auditing. This gives the auditor wins, thus improving his judgement and gives the preclear wins.

Muzzled auditing is best run on:

1. 	Selected Person Overts Straightwire

2. 	General Overts Straightwire

3. 	Not-Is Straightwire.

ARC Break Straightwire belongs between General Overts Straightwire and Not-Is Straightwire in the scale of things, but is generally omitted because it requires smooth auditing; however, it produces the best results if case reality is up to it.

GRADUAL SCALE OF PROCESSES

The lowest is:

1. 	Selected Person Overts Straightwire: “Recall a time you did something to

2. 	General Overts Straightwire: “Recall a time you did something to somebody.”

3. 	ARC Break Straightwire: “Recall an ARC Break.” “When?”

4. 	Not-Is Straightwire: “Recall a time you implied something was unimportant” alternated with “Recall a time somebody thought something was important. “

5. 	Factual Havingness:

	“Look around here and find something you would permit to vanish.”

	“Look around here and find something you would continue.”

	“Look around here and find something you have.”

The results to be achieved by the above scale compare favourably to the CCHs and are faster.

When part of the profile gain lags on the OCA or APA, the person is found to have a dropped havingness, thus Factual Havingness (Third Rail—run 8-2-1) can be combined with the above, using the third command, VANISH, first. In any event, the fifth process in the above order is “Third Rail” (run 8-2-1 ) of Factual Havingness.

I would like to see this run extensively by HGCs. I would like to see this gradient scale run in full after every engram is flat, and before starting a new engram.

This will keep auditors from being fooled by dub-in. Dub-in can occur in a different lifetime, even when it was not present in the lifetime just run. Dub-in is a continuous characteristic of a person in a single lifetime and may not be present in the ensuing lifetime.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:-.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 FEBRUARY 1959

TECHNICAL BULLETIN

SELECTED PERSONS OVERT WITHHOLD STRAIGHTWIRE

It is not only unreasonable but impossible to run engrams or higher processes than Selected Persons Overt Withhold on people who have low reality and low responsibility. Selected Persons Overt Withhold raises both reality and responsibility and some of the cases around will only start to respond after four to five weeks of Selected Persons Overt Withhold Straightwire. But the main point is that they do—repeat, do respond.

We have got it made in Selected Persons Overt Withhold Straightwire. Let’s not lose it.

Selected Persons Overt Withhold Straightwire

Select a person (terminal) that is real to the preclear.

Run	“Recall something you have done to	“ (that terminal) and

“Recall something you have withheld from (that terminal)” alternately.

(one question after the other)

Wherever the person has a misidentification or a fixated terminal on any dynamic, that terminal should be selected out and flattened by Selected Persons Overt Withhold Straightwire. We will be rid of these unresponsible cases.

Do not graduate into General Overts until Selected Person Overt Withhold Straightwire is flat. When is Selected Persons Overt Withhold Straightwire flat? It is flat when the preclear has come up tone through shame, blame, regret, and a recognition of his own failures and preferably 4.0 on the tone scale as per “Science of Survival”.

Minimize the two-way communication, clean up present time problems with the same process, using the terminals involved in the present time problem, and if in doubt MUZZLE the auditor.
						L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:mc.msp,rd

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London, W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 JULY 1959

GENERAL INFORMATION

PURPOSE OF THIS WORK:

To modify the data and material taught and demonstrated in the HCA/HPA Theory and Practice course and to bring uniformity of stable data to students and instructors.

There are six basic process types. One or more processes of each type is included in the Theory and Practice course. Listed here are the six basic types, the characteristic, purpose and stable datum of each. These are the general data for each basic type. Specific data are given with the processes themselves.

TYPE 1. 	STARTING AND ENDING SESSIONS.

Characteristic: 	Two-way communication. Two-way communication is how it is done.

Purpose:	To compose preclear into and release him from the auditing session.

Stable Datum: 	Agreement. Each thing done in starting and ending sessions is the establishment of an agreement.

TYPE 2. 	CONTROL PROCESSES.

Characteristic: 	Control by action. Preclear’s physical actions are controlled in order to do the processes.

Purpose:	To place preclear’s body and actions under the auditor’s control to
	invite control of them by the preclear.

Stable Datum:	Never let the preclear get out of doing what he is told.

TYPE 3. 	DUPLICATION.

Characteristic: 	Mimicry by action. Physical actions are duplicated.

Purpose:	To establish communication.

Stable Datum: 	Each command in its own unit of time separate from every other command.

TYPE 4. 	SUBJECTIVE.

Characteristic: 	Thinkingness. The preclear must think something to do the process.

Purpose:	To recover automaticities of thought and as-is unwanted thinkingness.

Stable Datum:	Body control comes before control of thinkingness.

TYPE 5. 	OBJECTIVE.

Characteristic: 	Spotting and finding. Preclear must spot or find something exterior to himself to carry out the auditing command.

Purpose:	To orient preclear in present time, drop out past and improve
	havingness.

Stable Datum:	Attention of preclear must be under auditor’s control.

TYPE 6.	 STRAIGHT WIRE.

Characteristic: 	Remembering and forgetting. Preclear must do these things to carry out auditing command or question.

Purpose:	To re-control remembering and forgetting and relate past to present.

Stable Datum: 	Specific things, not generalities.

DEFINITIONS OF THETAN, MIND AND BODY—the three parts of Man

THETAN:	The awareness of awareness unit which has all potentialities but no
	mass, no wavelength and no location.

MIND:	The accumulation of recorded knowns and unknowns and their
	interaction.

BODY:	An identifying form or non-identifiable form to facilitate the control
	of, the communication of and with and the havingness for the thetan
	in his existence in the MEST universe.

A thetan himself without the body is capable of performing all the functions he assigns to the body.

* * *

THE CCH PROCESSES—TONE 40 AUDITING

Definition of Tone 40 auditing: Positive, knowing, predictable control toward the preclear’s willingness to be at cause concerning his body and his attention.

CCH 1—A TYPE 2—CONTROL PROCESS

NAME:	Give me that hand, Tone 40.

COMMANDS: 	“Give me that hand.” Physical action of taking hand when not given and then replacing it in 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 (“Give me those hands”) or “Don’t give me that hand”, each one flattened in turn, never switching to a different hand or command before flattening the one already started.

POSITION: 	Auditor and preclear seated in chairs without arms, close together. 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	Never stop process until a flat place is reached. To process with good Tone 40
STRESS:	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 (enough to be real to preclear, not enough to bruise his hand over a long run), replacing hand (with auditor’s left hand still holding preclear’s wrist) in preclear’s lap. Making every command 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 his own will before auditor does it. Stress Tone 40 precision—this process puts order into preclear’s case, thus precision must be stressed.

HISTORY:	Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in the 17th ACC, Washington, D.C.; 1957.

CCH 2—A TYPE 2—CONTROL PROCESS

NAME:	Tone 40 8-C.

COMMANDS:	“With that body’s eyes look at that wall.” “Thank you.” “Walk that body over to that wall.” “Thank you.” “With that right hand touch that wall.” “Thank you.” “Turn that body 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	Absolute auditor precision. No drops from Tone 40. No flubs. Total present
STRESS:	time auditing. Auditor turns preclear counter-clockwise 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.

CCH 3—A TYPE 3—DUPLICATION PROCESS

NAME:	Hand Space Mimicry.

COMMANDS: 	Auditor raises two hands, palms facing preclear and says, “Put your hands against mine, follow them and contribute to the motion.” He then makes a simple motion with right hand, then left. “Did you contribute to the motion?” “Thank you.” “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. “Put your hands facing mine, about a half inch away, follow them and contribute to the motion.” “Did you contribute to the motion?” “Thank you.” “Put your hands in your lap.” 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 knees.

PURPOSE:	To develop reality on the auditor using the reality scale (solid comm line). To get preclear into communication by control + duplication.

TRAINING	That auditor be gentle and accurate in his motions, giving preclear Wins. Tobe
STRESS:	free in two-way comm. That the essential part of the auditing command is the motion, not the verbal patter. When it is necessary to physically assist preclear to do commands, use one-hand commands, putting preclear’s hand through the command with auditor’s free hand holding preclear’s hand by the wrist. Accept preclear’s answer to the question, “Did you contribute to the motion?”—his answers are accepted, whatever they may be. Auditor always places his hands up before telling preclear to do so. Auditor tells preclear to put his hands in his lap and keeps his own up until preclear does so, allowing preclear to break the solid comm line.

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 I?” and “Find the Auditor” part of Rudiments.

CCH 4—A TYPE 3—DUPLICATION PROCESS

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, “Are you satisfied that you duplicated my motion?” If preclear is and auditor is also fairly satisfied, auditor takes book back, acknowledges, “Thank you”, and goes to next command. If preclear says he is and auditor fairly sure he isn’t, auditor takes book back 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 comm 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 giving preclear wins. Stress auditor’s necessity to duplicate his own
STRESS:	motions. Circular motions are more complex than straight lines. The basic rule on complexity in duplication processes is: Make the motions as complex as is necessary to get the preclear’s interest and attention and no more.

HISTORY:	Developed by L. Ron Hubbard for the 16th ACC in Washington, D.C., 1957. Based on duplication developed by LRH in London, 1952.

METHOD OF RUNNING CCH 1, 2, 3, 4.

CCH 1 is run first and run to a flat spot. Then CCH 2 is run. If CCH 2 produces change, it is flattened and followed by CCH 1. Then CCH 2 and if it again produces change it is followed by CCH 1. This rule is followed throughout—when either CCH 2, CCH 3, CCH 4 produces change the process is flattened and followed by CCH 1. This series of four processes is left when they can be run, one after the other (1, 2, 3, 4) in the same session without producing change.

The four CCH processes are to be run on the following cases:

INSANE:	That is, a person who is extremely and obsessively unwilling to control his body, his attention and his thoughts.

UNCONSCIOUS:Any person who is unaware, to a great degree.

HOSTILE:	Person who has appeared for processing but who demonstrates a complete unwillingness to accept order and to carry out an auditing command.

CCH 1 “DON’T GIVE ME THAT HAND” version, is a specific process for a case who is dramatizing a heavy compulsive withhold condition.

* * *

ARC STRAIGHT WIRE—A TYPE 6—STRAIGHT WIRE PROCESS

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. (When used as a training drill.) This is audited on another and is audited until the preclear 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.

NOTE:	It should be thoroughly understood that this is a valuable process and an excellent step in preparation for running the heavier recall processes.

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 reduces 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.

 	If this process is “policed” the auditor asks the preclear “when” before giving the acknowledgement, as often as is necessary to maintain control of the preclear—or as often as is necessary for the auditor to maintain his own confidence that the preclear is under control and doing the process. This process can be run “muzzled” and should be, where muzzling is indicated.

ASSESSMENT An inventory and evaluation of a preclear, his body and his case to DEFINITION: 	establish processing level and procedure.
	
1. 	Determine processing level.

2. 	Determine process to be used.

3. 	Always undercut reality level of the case when assessing processing level.

4. 	Establish reality level of case by two-way communication using understanding and affinity as guides. Understanding: What can the preclear say and talk about that is easily understandable to the auditor? What can the auditor say and talk about that is easily understandable by the preclear? Affinity: What does the preclear like or dislike? What does he detest or ignore? What is he anxious or otherwise mis-emotional about?

5. 	Never overlook an obvious physical defect or communication difficulty when making an assessment of any kind.

6. 	Be alert to preclear’s comm lags and what produces them.

7. 	Observe the preclear’s response to control.

8. 	Find out what the preclear assigns cause to—what he blames what he feels he can do nothing about.

TERMINAL ASSESSMENT—for OVERT-WITHHOLD PROCESS

In the HCA/HPA course this is done by two-way communication. The student should learn it by observance of the instructor. Terminal Assessment is made to locate the terminals in the case which, when run, will produce an increase in the responsibility and reality level of the preclear.

A VERY BRIEF COVERAGE OF DYNAMIC AND KNOW TO MYSTERY SCOUTING

1. 	Discover the terminals the preclear states to represent each part of the expanded Know to Mystery Scale. Any terminal which is obviously aberrated and won’t clear by two-way comm should be run.

2. 	Discover what terminals the preclear has identified with the wrong Dynamic. Any terminal wrongly placed that won’t blow by two-way comm should be run.

NOTE: Two-way comm here does not mean invalidative or evaluative questions or comments by auditor.

SELECTED PERSONS SCOUT

This is the assessment most used. It is applied to the persons in the preclear’s present life. There are several loaded questions which can be used and there are several observations to be made by the auditor.

QUESTIONS: 	“Who is to blame for the condition you are in?”
	“Who do you know or have known that you’d really hate to be?”
	“Who really had it in for you?”
           	“Who do you know or have known that you dislike thinking about?”

To be observed by auditor:

Comm lag: Willingness or unwillingness to communicate about a specific person. Physical and emotional effect produced by discussion of specific person: agitation, voice change, blushing, dopiness, etc.

NOTE: Auditor must realize that preclear has no power of choice in the selection of terminals. The terminal is chosen by the auditor.

In a case where the preclear does not answer up to questions or shows no useful (to the assessment) effects from questions, simply select the person who is realest to the preclear and proceed with the process. Continue running the persons in preclear’s present life on basis of who is realest until preclear is able to answer up to assessment questions. Realest person at start may turn out to be the auditor. If so, run it.

OVERT-WITHHOLD SELECTED PERSONS STRAIGHT WIRE

- A TYPE 6—STRAIGHT WIRE PROCESS

COMMANDS:	“Think of something you have done to	.” “Thank you.”
	“Think of something you have withheld from	.” “Thank you.” Or “Recall something you have done to	          .” “Thank you.” 
	“Recall something you have withheld from           .” “Thank you.”

The use of the “think of’ command rather than the “recall” allows the preclear to plow through where his track is jammed and incidents are not easily separated, to the point where he can recall. In either case commands are run alternately, one for one.

POSITION: 	Auditor and preclear seated facing each other at a comfortable distance.

PURPOSE:	To put the preclear at knowing cause toward the people in his current life so that those people can no longer restimulate the preclear in livingness.

TRAINING	Any terminal run with this process is flat when that terminal can no longer
STRESS:	restimulate the preclear’s reactive bank. When the preclear can find no new incidents to recall and must repeat old incidents to continue process, a given terminal can be considered flat. Make sure he is repeating incidents and not recalling similar incidents before ending the run on that terminal. Also, the first few repeats may be just the preclear’s way of filling in a comm lag. Student should observe and understand phenomena occurring with this process. Where assessment has been properly made, the preclear will manifest various mis-emotions ranging from below 0.0 on the tone scale up to 2.0 and emotions up to 4.0. The NOT-ISNESS on the case will show up as attempts to not-is the auditor, process or anything preclear’s attention touches. The preclear, at first, will not correctly assign the reasons for his mis-emotions and discomforts and will blame them on the auditor, etc. This is an example of COROLLARY No. 3 of AXIOM 58 in action. This process is run “muzzled” by the student in training. Muzzled auditing is done as follows: At the beginning of session, instructor makes an assessment of the preclear’s case and chooses the terminal to be run. He gets the preclear’s agreement to run the process and does a very brief clearing of the command with the preclear. Then, the student auditor says, “Start of session,” and gives the first command. When preclear has answered the auditor acknowledges and goes on to the next command. If the preclear originates anything, either as a statement, comment or question the auditor nods his head as an acknowledgement. If the preclear asks to have the command repeated, the auditor nods his head and repeats it. This is continued until end of session or until process is flat on that terminal. If student has any question or thinks terminal is flat, he puts his hand behind his chair and wig-wags to get instructor’s attention. He does not leave his chair. Near end of session instructor gives the team notice that the session will end in two minutes. At the end of that time, when preclear has answered the last command and has been acknowledged, the student auditor says, “End of session.” This is all there is to muzzled auditing done by students. The student auditor uses only TR 0, TR2, TR3 (duplicative command) and handles originations with a nod of his head, only. No rudiments or two-way comm beyond “Start of session” and “End of session”. Student should understand that when he runs this process (and some others) on preclears in the field, he should use muzzled auditing whenever he finds himself with any tendency to over-communicate or with any preclear who ARC breaks easily. Student should also understand that Overt-Withhold Selected Persons, Third Rail, ARC Break Straight Wire and Not-is Straight Wire can all restimulate so much automatic NOT-ISNESS that the preclear will at times apparently lose his bank, his memory, and even the auditing command and its meaning. The only action indicated when this occurs is to persist with the process.

HISTORY:	Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in the 21st ACC, in Washington, D.C., in 1959, as a means of ensuring wider and more predictable case gains by more auditors, even unskilled ones.

FACTUAL HAVINGNESS—A TYPE 5—OBJECTIVE PROCESS

COMMANDS: 	“Look around here and find something you have.” “Thank you.” “ Look around here and find something you would continue. “ “Thank you.” “Look around here and find something you would permit to vanish.” “Thank you.” Commands are each flattened in turn before going on to next command. Process can be begun on any of the three commands, but the above order should be followed. If process is begun on “vanish” the next command to be run is “have”.

POSITION: 	Auditor and preclear seated facing each other at a comfortable distance and with preclear facing majority of auditing room.

PURPOSE:	To remedy havingness objectively. To bring about the preclear’s ability to have, or not have, his present time environment and to permit him to alter his considerations of what he has, what he would continue and what he would permit to vanish.

TRAINING	To be run smoothly without invalidative questions. One of the most
 STRESS:	effective processes known when thinkingness can be controlled somewhat. The student should thoroughly understand that when a preclear is set on wasting, the vanish command will at first occupy the majority of auditing time spent on this process. Student should understand that the three commands can be each flattened in order any number of times and that running one of the commands is quite apt to unflatten the other two. Process should be continued until this no longer occurs.

THIRD RAIL is a special form of FACTUAL HAVINGNESS

COMMANDS 	are the same as in Factual Havingness. However the commands are & POSITION: 	run in a special ratio of:
           	8 commands of “vanish”
	2 commands of “continue” and 1 command of “have”.

PURPOSE:	To remedy extreme conditions of NOT-ISNESS. To remedy obsessive waste. To permit use of the process without bogging preclear in any one of the commands.

TRAINING	Student should realize that there is very seldom any reason for altering this
STRESS:	ratio and should never Q and A with the preclear’s complaints about doing the “continue” or “vanish” commands. Student should understand that Third Rail should be run where auditor is uncertain where to begin with Factual Havingness.

HISTORY:	Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., in 1958, as the best form of objective havingness. Originally developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in 1955 as “Terrible Trio”. Third Rail developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London for the 5th London ACC.

RUDIMENTS—A TYPE 1 PROCESS—OPENING AND CLOSING SESSIONS

COMMANDS: 	None as such. Rudiments is the establishment of the agreements basic to an auditing session, and the termination of them, at end of session. Students must understand what the rudiments are and be able to use them with any preclear who is capable of agreeing to them, by two-way communication. They are:

1. 	Auditor

2. 	Preclear

3. 	Auditing room

4. 	Start of session

5. 	Preclear’s goal for session.

Auditor, by two-way comm, gets preclear’s agreement to each of these, allowing preclear to state his own goals. The above order is not necessarily the order in which they are established. There should be enough two-way comm to get the preclear’s agreement and no more. The auditor should determine for himself, but not tell the preclear, what he (the auditor) intends to do with the session. At the end of session auditor makes sure the preclear is released from agreements. Auditor does not argue with the preclear about the preclear’s goals.

NOTE:	If a preclear cannot communicate about the rudiments or be brought to agree with them fairly easily, CCH 1, 2, 3, 4 should be run with only “Start of session” spoken by the auditor as total rudiments. Rudiments are not used otherwise with any preclear who needs to be run on CCH 1, 2, 3, 4. Alternatively, for more accessible cases, do “muzzled” auditing as described above.

MOCK UP A PICTURE FOR WHICH YOU CAN BE TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE

—A TYPE 4—SUBJECTIVE PROCESS

COMMAND:	“Mock up a picture for which you can be totally responsible.” “Thank you.”

POSITION:	Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE:	To put preclear at cause with regard to mental image pictures to the degree that engrams are under his control.

TRAINING	That preclear not be run on this process before he is willing to carry
STRESS:	out a subjective process command exactly as given. Earlier processes should be well flattened before this is attempted. Otherwise the preclear will be given loses. The command means exactly what it says and the preclear’s thinkingness must be well enough under control for him to view the command that way. This process should not be run for ever without an occasional flattening of NOT-IS Straight Wire.

HISTORY:	Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., in 1958.

RE-EXPERIENCE AND EXPERIENCE PROCESS

—A TYPE 4—SUBJECTIVE PROCESS

COMMANDS:	“What part of your life would you be willing to re-experience?” “Thank you.” “What part of the future would you be willing to experience?” “Thank you.” Commands run alternately, one for one.

POSITION:	Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE:	To bring about the preclear’s ability to re-experience his past without enduring consequence and to confront the future without restimulation.

TRAINING	That student understand that the process is run until flat and that
STRESS:	student be aware of what “flat” is. When the preclear can easily get out of any incident he gets into and when he can re-experience those things without enduring consequence. Where engrams are encountered with the process the auditor should attempt to find out the year of its occurrence by two-way comm and flash answers and should record the dates found. The auditor must not go into general two-way comm with the preclear about the incidents preclear contacts. Never end the process while preclear is sticking in an incident.

HISTORY:	Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., in 1959.

PRESENT TIME PROBLEMS—PART OF RUDIMENTS—TYPE I PROCESSES

COMMANDS:	Auditor, by two-way comm, discovers the preclear’s present time problem and discusses it with him. If it blows on this basis, fine. If not, we move out of Type 1 Processes. To handle the present time problem other than by two-way comm, discuss it with the preclear and get the names of the terminals involved. Ask the preclear which of these is realest. Run the one he names with Selected Persons Overt-Withhold Straight Wire. Discuss the problem. Find which of the remaining terminals is most real to the preclear. Run it with S.P.O.W.S.W. Discuss the problem and so on until the problem is run out, which is when the preclear does not need to do anything about it.

POSITION:	Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE:	To remove the surface difficulty that is the present time problem so that the auditing session can progress.

TRAINING	Student should know definition of a problem and should know very
STRESS:	well what happens to auditing sessions where present time problem is unflat. A problem is “The conflict arising from two opposing intentions”. A present time problem is one that exists in present time, in a real universe. It is any set of circumstances that so engages the attention of the preclear that he feels he should be doing something about it instead of being audited. Auditor uses questions based on definition of present time problem to find present time problems. Never leave a present time problem half run. Preclears with whom the rudiments cannot be readily established should not be run on present time problems but should be run on CCH 1, 2, 3, 4.

HISTORY:	Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in 1952.

ARC BREAK STRAIGHT WIRE—A TYPE 6 PROCESS

COMMAND: 	“Recall an ARC break.” “When?” “Thank you.”

POSITION: 	Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE:	To as-is ARC breaks. To bring about the preclear’s ability to confront and as-is ARC breaks. To straighten out the preclear’s time track which has become collapsed by ARC breaks in restimulation. To key out and take out of restimulation the “Rock” chain.

TRAINING	To not acknowledge the preclear’s execution of the command until
STRESS:	the time of the ARC break has been established and to acknowledge with good TR 2 when the time is established. To accept preclear’s reality as to “when”. If he says, “It occurred the year I graduated from high school,” accept it and go on to next command. Assist him with two-way comm when he has difficulty locating time. Flash answers may also be used for this. Do not leave process until preclear can easily get out of incidents he gets into on the process. Process is flat when recalling ARC breaks no longer produces undue amounts of mis-emotion. Student should understand that the process has the limitation of being somewhat hard to clear command with person unfamiliar with the term “ARC”.

HISTORY:	Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., in 1958.

NOTE:	In handling ARC breaks with the auditor, the auditor should use Selected Persons Overt-Withhold with the auditor as the terminal when the break is severe. Otherwise, use TR 5N.

NOT-IS STRAIGHT WIRE—A TYPE 6—STRAIGHT WIRE PROCESS

COMMANDS:	“Recall a time you implied something was unimportant.” “Thank you.” “Recall a time somebody else thought something was important.” “Thank you.” Commands run alternately, one for one.

POSITION:	Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE:	To bring NOT-ISNESS (Axiom 11) under preclear’s knowing control and to reduce the NOT-ISNESS in the preclear’s bank. To improve recall and increase reality. To generally increase preclear’s willingness to confront his past. To as-is the times when preclear not-ised others. To bring about the ability to evaluate importances.

TRAINING	To be certain preclear can recall overt acts to some fair degree before
STRESS:	attempting this process. To make certain the preclear is not running the process on the effect side (i.e. recalling times he thought things were important and times others implied things were unimportant). To persist when preclear’s restimulated NOT-ISNESS threatens to destroy the session. To run the process to a flat spot where the preclear easily gets out of the incidents he gets into and can recall incidents without immediately restimulating NOT-ISNESS, which is manifested by a sudden worsening of his recalls.

HISTORY:	Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., in 1959.

SCALE OF PROCESSES TAUGHT IN HCA/HPA

This is a scale of processes as they fit with the CONFRONTINGNESS SCALE, from the bottom up.

1. 	CCH 1, 2, 3, 4.
2. 	Rudiments.
3. 	PT Problems by Overt-Withhold Straight Wire.
4. 	ARC Straight Wire.
5. 	Selected Persons Overt-Withhold Straight Wire.
6. 	Factual Havingness )
		These two processes can be interchanged.
7. 	Third Rail	)
8. 	ARC Break Straight Wire.
9. 	NOT-IS Straight Wire.
10. 	Past and Future Experience.
11. 	Mock up a picture for which you can be totally responsible.

								L. RON HUBBARD 
LRH:-jh.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 JANUARY 1959

Full distribution
NOT-IS STRAIGHT WIRE

Those persons on whom a process works once and those who have either dub-in or occlusion, process easily, if dramatically, on Not-Is Straight Wire. (See Axioms 11D, 18 and 22.)

Pcs divide into three general classes:

1. 	Those who have 3D pictures and good time sense.
2. 	Those who are occluded with black, colored or invisible fields and poor time sense.
3. 	Those who dub-in and have no time sense.

The scale of deterioration of a case is as above. First there are 3D copies of the real universe, then there is the action of not-ising these pictures (while they’re still there) and finally, while not-ising, substituting false pictures.

This process is aimed at case types 2 and 3 above. (ARC Break Straight Wire also handles type 2 but not so well as type 3.)

Types 2 and 3 press into invisibility pictures by making them “unimportant”. This is the clue word to unreality, stupidity, occlusion and dub-in. (See the Logics.)

The cycle which occurs is that the person gets overwhelmed with other people’s declared importance. They counter by not-ising the importance of others. The reverse cycle of others reducing the pc’s own importances is not run in Not-Is Straight Wire as it reduces havingness.

The commands of Not-Is Straight Wire are only these and no other:

“Recall a time you implied something was unimportant.” Pc does. “When?” Pc says or auditor assists him by pegging it on an E-Meter.

This is run for about an hour. Then a second command only is run.

“Recall a time when somebody else thought something was important’ Pc does. “When?” Pc says or auditor assists him by locating on E-Meter.

Acknowledgement is used. TR 4 is reduced to a nod.

An hour of one is followed by an hour of the other.

There’s dynamite in this process. It is good, clean and unlimited. But don’t chicken on it and pull out and don’t quit because the pc gets uncomfortable.

Here may be the QED for all occlusion and dub-in cases.

LRH:gn.rd							L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 JULY 1964

Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students

SCIENTOLOGY I to IV

MORE ON O/Ws

The Itsa processes for O/W are almost unlimited.

There is, however, the distinct must not at Level I, as at upper Levels, DON’T RUN A PROCESS THAT MAKES THE PC FEEL ACCUSED.

A pc will feel accused if he is run above his or her level. And remember that temporary sags in level can occur such as during ARC Breaks with the auditor or life.

A process can be accusative because it is worded too strongly. It can be accusative to the pc because the pc feels guilty or defensive anyway.

At Level I proper O/W processes can take up the troubles that are described as peculiar to some pcs without getting too personal about it.

Here are some varied Level I Processes:

“Tell me some things you think you should not have done.”

“Tell me what you’ve done that got you into trouble.”

“What wouldn’t you do over again?”

“What are some things a person shouldn’t say?”

“What gets a person into trouble?”

“What have you done that you regret?”

“What have you said you wish you hadn’t?”

“What have you advised others to do?”

There are many more.

These at Level II all convert to repetitive processes.

At Level III such processes convert to lists.

At Level IV such processes convert to how they weren’t overts or weren’t really done or justifications of one kind or another.

Care should be taken not to heavily run an out-of-ARC type process. This is the command which asks for out-of-Affinity moments, out-of-Reality moments and out of-Communication incidents.

All after charge is based on prior ARC. Therefore for a withhold to exist there must have been communication earlier. ARC incidents are basic on all chains. Out of ARC are later on the chain. One has to get a basic to blow a chain. Otherwise one gets recurring answers. (Pc brings up same incident over and over as you don’t have the basic on the chain.)

You can alternate an ARC command with an out-of-ARC command. “What have you done?” (means one had to reach for and contact) can be alternated with “What haven’t you done?” (means not reached for and not contacted).

But if one runs the out-of-ARC (not reached for and not contacted) process only the pc will soon bog.

On the other hand an ARC process runs on and on with no bad side effects, i.e. “What have you done?”

“What bad thing have you done?” is a mixture of ARC and out-of-ARC. Done reached and contacted. Bad wished one hadn’t.

So solely accusative commands upset the pc not because of social status or insult but because a pc, particularly at lower levels of case, wishes so hard he hadn’t done it that a real bad done is really a withhold and the pc not only withholds it from the auditor but himself as well.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :jw.cden 
Copyright © 1964 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 SEPTEMBER 1959

UNIVERSE PROCESSES

I have just been checking out a process series we will call Universe O/W. It is a killer in sheep’s clothing.

Assessment is done with an E-Meter to discover which of four things has the greatest difference of needle pattern. One does not look for a drop, he looks for the one of the four that is different than the others.

The four are:

Thetan or spirit 
Mind or brain 
Body or male body or female body 
Physical Universe or earth or continent or town or house or dwelling.

One uses different ways of putting these things if he doesn’t get instant difference on calling off Spirit, Mind, Body, Physical Universe. If he does get a different pattern from the rest he proceeds to audit that discovered thing as follows:

“Think of something you might have done to a       .” (The “       “ being the terminal you discovered.)

Alternated with:

“Think of something you might have withheld from a	___” (same terminal).

Because these dive backtrack so fast the question may not be a direct “Recall what you have done to” since that implies certainty.

This problem could be a specific for illnesses of chronic type.

This is an allowable process in HGCs.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :iet.cden 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Washington, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF MAY 20, 1959
(Cancels bulletins of March 31, 1959, and April 17, 1959)

KNOW TO MYSTERY STRAIGHT WIRE FOR EXTREME CASES

The Know to Mystery Scale expanded:

Not Know
Know
Look
Emotion
Effort
Think
Symbols
Eat
Sex
Mystery
Wait
Unconsciousness

To assess a case on the lower rungs of processing, ask pc, against an E-Meter, what terminal could represent each of above, select that terminal (object or person, never a condition) which changes needle action most and run Overt-Withhold Straight Wire on it.

	L. RON HUBBARD 

LRH:mp

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

Remimeo
HCO BULLETIN OF 25 SEPTEMBER 1971RA
REVISED 4 APRIL 1974

TONE SCALE IN FULL

TONE SCALE EXPANDED	KNOW TO MYSTERY SCALE

SERENITY OF BEINGNESS	40.0		 KNOW
POSTULATES	30.0		 NOT KNOW
GAMES	22.0		 KNOW ABOUT
ACTION	20.0		 LOOK
EXHILARATION	8.0		 PLUS EMOTION
AESTHETIC	6.0
ENTHUSIASM	4.0
CHEERFULNESS	3.5
STRONG INTEREST	3.3
CONSERVATISM	3.0
MILD INTEREST	2.9
CONTENTED	2.8
DISINTERESTED	2.6
BOREDOM	2.5
MONOTONY	2.4
ANTAGONISM	2.0		 MINUS EMOTION
HOSTILITY	1.9
PAIN	1.8
ANGER	1.5
HATE	1.4
RESENTMENT	1.3
NO SYMPATHY	1.2
UNEXPRESSED RESENTMENT	1.15
COVERT HOSTILITY	1.1
ANXIETY	1.02
FEAR	1.0
DESPAIR	.98
TERROR	.96
NUMB	.94
SYMPATHY	.9
PROPITIATION (HIGHER TONED—SELECTIVELY GIVES)	.8
GRIEF	.5
MAKING AMENDS (PROPITIATION—CAN’T W/H ANYTHING) 	.375
UNDESERVING	.3
SELF-ABASEMENT	.2
VICTIM	. 1
HOPELESS	.07
APATHY	.05
USELESS	.03
DYING	.0 1
BODY DEATH	0.0
FAILURE	0.0
PITY	-0.1
SHAME (BEING OTHER BODIES)	-0.2
ACCOUNTABLE	-0.7
BLAME (PUNISHING OTHER BODIES)	-1.0
REGRET (RESPONSIBILITY AS BLAME)	-1.3
CONTROLLING BODIES	-1.5		 EFFORT
PROTECTING BODIES	-2.2
OWNING BODIES	-3.0		 THINK
APPROVAL FROM BODIES	-3.5
NEEDING BODIES	4.0		 SYMBOLS
WORSHIPPING BODIES	-5.0		 EAT
SACRIFICE	-6.0		 SEX
HIDING	-8.0		 MYSTERY
BEING OBJECTS	-10.0		 WAIT
BEING NOTHING	-20.0		 UNCONSCIOUS
CAN’T HIDE	30 0
TOTAL FAILURE	-40.0		 UNKNOWABLE

LRH:ams.rd	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1971,1974	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 OCTOBER 1960R
REVISED 8 MAY 1974

(Revision in this type style)
Remimeo

THIRTY-SIX NEW PRESESSIONS

The following material was developed for the 1st Saint Hill ACC. All cases of this ACC were well started toward clear, 25 of them started for the first time. These new presessions were employed. Two of the cases started with two-way comm on failed help only after which some of the presessions following worked.

NOTE: These presessions are subject to revision after my further study. Their numbers will not be changed. I will probably change some of the processes and commands. They are given here exactly as developed and in the order of development, not workability.

NOTE: The assistance of Dick and Jan Halpern, ACC Instructors, is gratefully acknowledged for the discussion and testing of these presessions.

NOTE: Presession I is to be found in HCO Bulletin of 25 August 1960 and is not actually part of this series, not being a havingness confront presession.

PRESESSION II:

Havingness: 	“Look around here and find something you could have.”

Confront: 	“What could you confront?” “What would you rather not confront?”

PRESESSION III:

Havingness: 	“Point out something in this room you could confront.”
	“Point out something in this room you would rather not confront.”

Confront: 	“What unconfrontable thing could you present?”

PRESESSION I V:

Havingness: 	“What part of a beingness around here could you have?”

Confront: 	“What beingness could others not confront?”

PRESESSION V:

Havingness: 	“Point out something in this room you could confront.”
	“Point out something in this room you would rather not confront.”

Confront: 	“Point out a place where you are not being confronted.”

PRESESSION VI:

Havingness: 	“Look around here and point out an effect you could prevent.”

Confront: 	“What would deter another?” “Where would you put it?”

PRESESSION VII:

Havingness: 	“Point out something.”

Confront: 	“Tell me something I am not doing to you.”

PRESESSION VIII:

Havingness: 	“Where is the (room object)?”

Confront: 	“Recall something really real to you.” 
	“Recall a time you liked something.” 
	“Recall a time you communicated with something.”

PRESESSION IX:

Havingness: 	“Look around here and find an object you are not in.”

Confront: 	“Recall somebody who was real to you.” 
	“Recall somebody you really liked.” 
	“Recall somebody you could really communicate with.”

PRESESSION X:

Havingness: 	“Look around here and find something you could have.”

Confront: 	“What beingness could you confront?” 
	“What beingness would you rather not confront?”

PRESESSION XI:

Have:      	“Notice that (indicated object).” (No acknowledgement.) 
	“What aren’t you putting into it?”

Confront: 	“Tell me something you might not be confronting.”

PRESESSION XII:

Have:      	“Look around here and find something you can agree with.”

Confront: 	“What is understandable?” 
	“What is understanding?”

PRESESSION XIII:

Have:      	“Look around here and find something you could have.” 
	“Look around here and find something you could withhold.”

Confront: 	“What have you done?” 
	“What have you withheld?”

PRESESSION XIV:

Have:	“Notice that (room object). Get the idea of making it connect with
	you. “

Confront:	(First ask: “Is there anything around here that is absolutely still?” If the answer is yes, continue. If no, use another presession.) “Look around here and find something you could stop,” (to change of needle pattern or tone arm) then: “Look around here and find something you could start,” (to change of needle pattern or tone arm) then, when neither command unsettles needle pattern or tone arm any more, use 5 or 6 commands of “Look around here and find something you could change.” Then return to “stop”.

PRESESSION XV:

Have:      	“Look around here and find something you could withhold.”
	
Confront: 	“What would you rather not duplicate?”

PRESESSION XVI:

Have:      	“Point out something around here that is like something else.”

Confront: 	“What is something?” “What makes sense?”

PRESESSION XVII:

Have:      	“Where isn’t that (indicated object)?”

Confront: 	“What unkind thought have you withheld?”

PRESESSION XVIII:

Have:      	“What else is that (indicated object)?”

Confront: 	“What would make everything the same?”

PRESESSION XIX:

Have:      	“What is the emotion of that (indicated object)?”

Confront: 	“What intention failed?”

PRESESSION XX:

Have:      	“What is that (indicated object) not duplicating?”

Confront: 	“What two thoughts aren’t the same?”

PRESESSION XXI:

Have:      	“What scene could that (indicated object) be part of?”

Confront: 	“What past beingness would best suit you?” 
	“What past thing would best suit you?”

PRESESSION XXII:

Have:      	“Duplicate something.”

Confront: 	“What would be a betrayal?”

PRESESSION XXIII:

Have:      	“What is the condition of that (indicated object)?”

Confront: 	“Describe a bad case.”

PRESESSION XXI V:

Have:      	“What is the condition of that person?”

Confront: 	“What is a bad object?”

PRESESSION XXV:

Have:      	“What aren’t you putting into that body?”

Confront: 	“What beingness would it be all right to confront?”

PRESESSION XXVI:

Have:      	“What bad activity is that (indicated object) not part of?”

Confront: 	“How would you not duplicate a bad person?” 
	“How would you not duplicate a bad thing?”

PRESESSION XXVII:

Have:      	“Where would that wall have to be located so you wouldn’t have to restrain it?”

Confront: 	“Describe an unpleasant environment.”

PRESESSION XX VIII:

Have: 	(a) “What around here would you permit to be duplicated?” or, 
	(b) “What is the safest thing in this room?”

Confront: 	“Describe a removal.”

PRESESSION XXIX:

Have:      	“Who would that (indicated object) be a good example to?”

Confront: 	“What would that person be a good example to?”

PRESESSION XXX:

Have:      	“What would you have to do to that (indicated object) in order to have it?”

Confront: 	“Spot a change in your life.”

PRESESSION XXXI:

Have:      	(Auditor holds two small objects, one in each hand. Exposes them alternately to pc, with as little motion of arms and hands as possible.) “Look at this.” (No acknowledgement.) “What around here isn’t this duplicating?”

PRESESSION XXXII:

Have:	“How could you deter a ......?”
	“What have you not given a ......?”

Confront: 	“What could you own?” 
	“What have you denied owning?”

	(To clean up Scientology auditing or instruction run on ‘‘auditor’’, “pc”, “instructors’’, “student”, as indicated.

	‘‘What would a.....own?”
	“What would a .....not own?’’)

PRESESSION XXXIII: (This is used as a “post-session” to clear up an intensive at the end.)

Have:	Whatever havingness runs best on pc, as havingness command.

Confront: 	“What have you done in this room?” 
	“What have you withheld in this room?”

	(To clean up all auditing, use “an auditing room”.)

PRESESSION XXXIV:

Have:      	Whatever pc runs best, as havingness command.

Confront: 	“Who have you overwhelmed?” 
	“Who have you not overwhelmed?”

PRESESSION XXXV:

Have:      	“Notice that (indicated room object).” “How could you get it to help you?”

 Confront: 	“Whom have you failed to help?”

	(This will fish up a case who is out the bottom with ARC Breaks. Corrects alter-isness.)

PRESESSION XXXVI:

Have:      	“Notice that (room object).” “How could you fail to help it?”

Confront: 	“Think of a victim.”

Replace Havingness of Presession XXV with:

Have:      	“Notice that body.” 
	“What aren’t you putting into it?”

3 Versions of—Regimen 6 O/W Commands:

	1.	“Get the idea of doing something to ......”*
		“Get the idea of withholding something from ......”*

	2.	“What have you done to ........	?”*
		“What have you withheld from .......?”*

	3.	“Get the idea of having done something to ........”*
		“Get the idea of having withheld something from ......”*

	*Assessed 6th Dynamic terminal.
	(Number 3 runs regret.)

								L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:js.esc.ntm.jh 
Copyright © 1960, 1974 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 AUGUST 1960

HCO Secs 
Assn Secs 	VITAL INFORMATION

Having developed now a process package which makes Mest Clears, Theta Clears and OTs without further special uses on many cases, I hasten to send you the data and ask that you yourself at once get audited on it and audit those persons who are surest and best around you in order to obtain a “control of areas” with the increased ability.

Nothing in this process discards the main line of theory of Dianetics and Scientology but since results can be obtained so swiftly with it, it must be asked that persons uneducated in Scientology must not be run too far on it, as they will obtain high levels of action without any understanding which would be an overt against them. In short, do not complete this process on any pc beyond the level of Mest Clear unless the pc has been sent for a course. This will save considerable upset and instability in the long run. It is a technical fact having nothing to do with economics of Central Orgs.

The only overt we can do is to fail to disseminate correct data. We can refuse to process without any overt occurring. But we cannot fail to disseminate without an overt. Study it out and you’ll see it’s true.

I will not give you much theory on this at this writing beyond a statement that all apparent dynamics on people are inverted from their sixth dynamic and that the theory of confusion and the stable datum is paramount here.

In the process we remove the confusion and permit the pc to release the various terminals and ideas.

Later assessment and the running of terminals is probably needful.

The basic process was looked for first in 1951. There was a lecture on it called “Motion and Emotion” and a talk about the “governor” of a pc’s speed of advance. Since then I have had to search very hard and it has taken eight years to match up processes to hit at this.

I have now done this.

The rundown is as follows, every session:

          	Presession
          	Model Session
          	Help
          	Alternate Confront
          	Havingness

The thing on which Help is run is MOTION. The commands are these:

“What motion have you helped?” 
“What motion have you not helped?”

Do not run “What motion could you help” or any invent process. Help, being a responsibility process, gives us the only practical way to get the pc to face a non-terminal like Motion.

This is Mest Clear Route, Theta Clear Route, OT Route.

If the pc runs to flat meter, assess for a terminal, run that terminal flat, then run more Motion as above exactly. The assessment is the most difficult part. If the assessment is right one gets a fast run, if wrong, it takes ages.

But start now on Motion.

We’re off the launching pad. Glad you’re with us.

								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 14 APRIL 1960
Assn Secs 
HCO Secs 
PE Director Hat 
Franchise Holders

NEW PE DATA

SUPERVISING PE CO-AUDIT

The best way to run a PE course was given in the London 1959 HPA/BScn tapes and the 6th London ACC tapes.

This consisted of supervising the PE as though you were the only auditor present, all the co-auditing auditors to be used only as your mouthpiece. The “Instructor” audits each case through the co-auditor.

All pcs present can be put on one meter at the instructor’s desk by means of leads and a multiple switch. This is of considerable use and is authorized for all Central Orgs, PE Foundations.

ASSESSMENT

An assessment is a necessity on each case. At the course’s start, assess rapidly with a meter and then when the majority are running on terminals go back and do a longer assessment on the hard one. Keep a record of your assessment. But don’t spend all your time favouring hard cases. It makes other cases tend to toughen to get your attention.

If a case isn’t getting meter fluctuation on the meter at the instructor’s desk, check into it. A running case gets a changing needle and a changing tone arm.

Keeping a record of tone arm position and needle state for each case helps you keep track. It’s done by making a three column roster, the same one you used for assessment.

PROCESSES

You have three processes you may now use.

1.	O/W on a selected terminal “What have you done to	?” “What have you withheld from 	?” A good assessment for this is: “What person do you have problems about?” Run that person.

2. 	Comm process on a body part. “From where could you communicate to a	?” on an E-Meter, assess for a body part that falls not what the pc says.      The part that falls will be real to the pc. An obviously ill part may not be real. When the chosen part is flat or reasonably so, assess for a new body part. Body parts are safer to run on co-audit than indefinite terminals. But “friend” or “car” can still be used. Use the paper trick on all co-audit comm processes.

3. 	Responsibility process “What part of your life have you been responsible for?” This requires no assessment but it is rather rougher than the first two above.

PROCUREMENT

Your best procurement comes from word of mouth and happy cases.

If you supervise well and make sure the co-audit pc gets gains, you will have good word of mouth.

Free co-audit weeks given for one reason or another (such as highest scores of PE course quiz) is good procurement.

Well advertised free PE and a good comm course are the best procurements. A good info package mailed to everyone on your list and all callers is a necessity.

Being on time, handling bodies in an orderly way are good procurement.

HAS CERTIFICATES

HAS certificate requirements have changed.

A passing grade on an examination of materials covered is all it takes at this time.

Later we may require that they pass a comm course too. But not now.

So examine your past students on essentials they’ve been taught and as they pass send their names and addresses to your central organization and the student will receive a nice HAS certificate.

Your student having a certificate will help procurement.

SUMMARY

PE co-audit is running well where auditors are doing it by the book, running badly where the handling of processes, students and paper work is sloppy. Good total 8-C = good course. Courses where regular charges are made and collected get better graphs.

Here and there a PE co-audit set up is running poorly because the auditor instructor does not have info packages and does not even try to handle bodies walking in.

Most everywhere PE co-audit is doing well. I am very proud of the way most auditors are trying and winning. Thank You.

By the way, the Scientology population of earth has exactly doubled in the last ten months!

                                        					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 4 FEBRUARY 1960
Fran Hldrs
HCO Secs
Assn Secs
THEORY OF RESPONSIBILITY PROCESSING

In order to make up one’s mind to be responsible for things it is necessary to get over the idea that one is being forced into responsibility.

The power of choice is still senior to responsibility. What one does against his will operates as an overt act against oneself. But where one’s will to do has deteriorated to unwillingness to do anything, lack of will is itself an aberration.

Variations in the reactions of pcs to responsibility processes stem from the pc’s belief that his power of choice is being or has been overthrown. Where an auditor has a pc balking against a responsibility process, the pc has conceived that the auditor is forcing responsibility on the pc and very little good comes of the session.

There is nothing wrong, basically, with doingness. But where one is doing something he is unwilling to do, aberration results. One does, in such a case, while unwilling to do. The result is doingness without responsibility.

In the decline of any state into slavery as in Greece, or into economic strangulation of the individual as in our modern western society, doingness is more and more enforced and willingness to do is less and less in evidence. At length people are doing without being responsible. From this results bad workmanship, crime, indigence and its necessities for welfarism. At length there are so many people who are unwilling to do that the few left have to take full burden of the society upon their backs. Where high unwillingness to do exists, democracy is then impossible, for it but votes for the biggest handout.

Where high unwillingness to do exists then we have a constant restimulation of all the things one is really unwilling to do such as overt acts. Forcing people who do not want to work to yet work restimulates the mechanism of overt acts with, thereby, higher and higher crime ratio, more and more strikes and less and less understanding of what it is all about.

The individual who has done something bad that he was not willing to do then identifies anything he does with any unwillingness to do—when of course he has done this many times. Therefore all doingness becomes bad. Dancing becomes bad. Playing games becomes bad. Even eating and procreation become bad. And all because unwillingness to do something bad has evolved and identified into unwillingness to do.

The person who has done something bad restrains himself by withholding doingness in that direction. When at length he conceives he has done many many bad things, he becomes a total withhold. As you process him you encounter the recurring phenomenon of his realization that he has not been as bad as he thought he was. And that’s the wonderful part of it. People are never as bad as they think they are—and certainly other people are never as bad as one thinks they have been.

The basic wonder is that people police themselves. Out of a concept of good they conceive themselves to be bad, and after that seek every way they can to protect others from self. A person does this by reducing his own ability. He does it by reducing his own activity. He does this by reducing his own knowingness.

Where you see a thetan who sleeps too much and does too little, where you see a person who conceives bad doingness on every hand, you see a person who is safeguarding others from the badness of himself or herself.

Now there is another extreme. A person who must do because of economic or other whips, and yet because of his own concept of his own badness dares not do, is liable to become criminal. Such a person’s only answer to doingness is to do without taking any responsibility and this, when you examine the dynamics, falls easily into a pattern of dramatized overt acts. Here you have a body that is not being controlled, where most knowledge is obscured and where responsibility for others or even self is lacking. It is an easy step from criminality to insanity, if indeed there is any step at all. Such people cannot be policed since being policed admits of some obedience. Lacking control there is no ability to obey, and so they wind up simply hating police and that is that.

Only when economic grips are so tight or political pressure is so great as it is in Russia do we get high criminality and neurotic or psychotic indexes. Whenever doing is accompanied by no will to do, irresponsibility for one’s own acts can result.

Basically, then, when one is processing a pc, one is seeking to rehabilitate a willingness to do. In order to accomplish this one must rehabilitate the ability to withhold on the pc’s own determinism (not by punishment) further bad actions. Only then will the pc be willing to recover from anything wrong with the pc—since anything wrong with the pc is self-imposed in order to prevent wrongdoing at some past time.

All types of responsibility processes have this as their goal: to rehabilitate the willingness to do and the ability to withhold on one’s own determinism.

Restraint in doing something one knows he should do is a secondary deterrent but comes with other offshoots of responsibility into the cognition area.

Thus we have a formula of attack on any given area where the pc cannot do, is having trouble or cannot take responsibility: (a) Locate the area. (b) Find a terminal to represent it. (c) Find what the pc has done to that terminal that he thinks he should have withheld. (d) Reduce all such incidents.

In short all we have to do to rehabilitate any case is find an area where the terminal is still real to the preclear and then get rid of what he has done and withheld, and we come up with an improved responsibility.

Of all the responsibility processes, the oldest one I developed is still the best one by test and that is:

“What have you done to a (terminal)?” 
“What have you withheld from a (terminal)?”

The processing results depend in large part on the accuracy of assessment, on the willingness of the auditor to process the pc and upon running the process as flat as it will go before finding another terminal.

Assessment accuracy depends upon skilled use of the E-Meter. Dynamic Straight Wire is best, and a weather eye upon the tone arm to see what terminal varies it, once one has the dynamic and from that has selected a terminal.

The willingness of the auditor to process the pc depends upon the confidence of the auditor to obtain results—and this is established by deletion of things the auditor has done to pcs and withheld from pcs in general and this pc in particular. Thus co-audit teams would be right always if they took each other as the terminals to be run first, get these pretty flat (and keep them flat during processing with “What have you done to me?” “What have you withheld from me?”), then as the next thing to do run the sex of the auditor off the pc, then clean up Dianetics or Scientology (or use this as step two). And only then go into “case”. That would be a pretty fine co-audit team after they have survived the first explosions and gotten them gone.

Then in searching out areas to run as a case, care should be taken not to over-run a terminal or under-run one. A pc running out of answers can get very restless.

Responsibility can be rehabilitated on any case and when it has been you have a clear and that’s all there is to it.

								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 11 FEBRUARY 1960
Fran Hldrs
HCO Secs
Assn Secs
D of Ps
D of Ts
Staff Auditors
CREATE AND CONFRONT

The cycle of action (create, survive, destroy) and the communication formula (cause, distance, effect) with Axiom 10 (the highest purpose etc, creation of an effect) become identified in the mind with one another.

The preclear who is having a difficult time is on an inversion of the cycle of action (counter-create, counter-survive, counter-destroy).

Any preclear is somewhere on this cycle. The preclear who only gets death pictures or bad pictures is somewhere late on the cycle of action or late on an inversion cycle.

This preclear believes that every cause brings about a destruction.

Thus he falls out of communication, since any and all received communication will destroy him, he thinks.

All this is covered in the First Melbourne ACC Tapes and will probably not be covered to such a degree again. The Melbourne ACC Tapes are consecutive with the Philadelphia lecture series (fall 1952), and are a little out of the way of our present theory, but have a special place in know-how.

Out of this we now have an understanding of what a limited process is. Any process which makes the preclear create is a limited process and should be avoided. Such processes as “Tell a Lie” are creative processes.

The preclear has creation tangled up with cause and cause tangled up with the overt-motivator sequence. The thing that straightens all this out is any version of responsibility run with the pc at cause. Earlier the best we had to straighten this out was confront. Responsibility is confront and is very senior to confront as a process.

When a pc over-creates he accumulates the unconfronted debris. All you have to do to restimulate debris (stiffen up the bank) is to run the pc on some version of create process.

Havingness is a confront process and straightens out the create factor.

Havingness is the lowest version of responsibility; Confront is the next lowest; Overt-Withhold is the next; and at our present top for practical purposes is just plain responsibility. Actually all these are responsibility processes.

Create is bad only when one does not take responsibility for the creation.

The key process of all processes at this writing is being responsible for having been irresponsible.

There is a great deal of anatomy to responsibility. A great many answers lie waiting on its track. When one maligns another, he has not taken responsibility for the acts of that other person and so is separate from that other person.

One of the highest points of knowingness which is not at this time known is whether we are all one or if we are actually separate beings. Enough responsibility run achieves a subjective answer to this.

While several offshoots of this present technology are under test at this time it can be said with certainty now that the best version of responsibility for most cases is:

“What have you done to a (terminal)?” 
“What have you withheld from a (terminal)?”

It will be seen at once that what could you do to and what could you withhold from a terminal is a create process, and is therefore slightly limited and leaves debris. Thus it can be said with finality overt/withhold rather than cause/withhold is the best process.

In the presence of ARC breaks, havingness is a must on any responsibility process and is always a good preventive for flops. Don’t forget havingness. We know now that it is the lowest rung of responsibility. This becomes evident when we examine the withhold aspects of havingness.

Plain ordinary “What could you be responsible for” is of course a very fine process and oddly enough often goes lower (for a short run) than overt/withhold. Responsibility isn’t just a high level process. It works where it works.

It is interesting that while running pure raw responsibility in its non-create form (what have you been responsible for) we see anew the old know-to-mystery scale revealed.

Factual Havingness can be run in its trio form with good results:

       	“Look around here and find something you could have”
       	“Look around here and find something you would permit to continue”
       	“Look around here and find something you would let vanish”

The old restrictions and know-how of running this still apply.

“Look around here and find something you could have” is of course a wonderful process. And whenever you run an hour and a half of any other version of responsibility you had better run half an hour of “Look around here and find something you could have” and be on the safe side.

SUMMARY

The data in this bulletin is far from merely theoretical. To some auditors it will come as an emergency super frantic hysterical rush item for they should shift over any version of responsibility they are running to the above versions.

Don’t run any other version of overt/withhold than that given above. You can run responsibility as itself on any incident or terminal if the pc can take it. Run a half hour of havingness for every hour and a half of any responsibility subjective process.

NOTE

Instead of the CCHs for that low low level case, why not get it going with havingness as above and then find any terminal that ticks on a meter and run O/W on that terminal. Then run more havingness. Then find another terminal that ticks and run O/W on that. Then run more havingness. And so on and on with the same pattern until you get the case shifted on the cycle of action and functional.

LRH:js.cden 	L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Scientology: Clear Procedure
Issue One

December 1957

L. Ron Hubbard

GOAL:

To obtain the state of clear in individuals.

DEFINITION OF A CLEAR:

A thetan who can knowingly be at cause over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time, subjective and objective.

This is a working definition. Self-determinism and knowledge that he himself can be at cause point are then primary targets.

Minimum Requisite for Auditor in Using These Techniques:

A Validated Hubbard Professional Auditor Certificate.

INTRODUCTION

I have been at work for seven years to produce a series of techniques which any well trained auditor can use to clear people. We now have them.

I am truly sorry that this took seven years. Actually, it took more than twenty-five.

Under other “systems of research” it could not have been done. It was financed at first by my writings and expeditions. Some 15,000,000 words of fact and fiction articles ranging from political articles to westerns were consumed in a large part by this research-but it was free to act if not free from sweat.

No bullying dictator wanted it for his mass slaveries as happened to poor misguided Pavlov. No big corporation wanted it for a better Madison Avenue approach to advertising—another kind of slavery. No big RESEARCH FOUNDATION like Ford was there to interject their “America First” philosophy. These had not paid for it; therefore they didn’t own it. The work stayed free. Thus it prospered. It did not wither in support of some aberrated “cause.” It bloomed.

But the violence of protecting this work while continuing it took a toll nevertheless. Special interests believed it must be evil if they did not own it. Between 1950 and 1956, 2,000,000 traceable dollars were spent to halt this work. Newspaper articles, radio ads (as in Seattle from the University of Washington), bribed “patrons,” financed “patients” all cost money. You hear the repercussions of this campaign even today.

Money could not stop this work by then. It was too late. If anything had been wrong with our organizations, my character, our intentions or abilities the whole advance would have crumbled. But we had no Achilles’ heels. We carried on. All that has survived of this attack by the two APAs, the AMA and several universities is a clutter of rumors concerning your sanity and mine—and rumors no longer financed will some day die.

And so the work has emerged free of taint and misguided slants. It is itself. It does what it says it does. It contains no adroit curves to make one open to better believing some “ism.” That makes it singular today in a world gone mad with nationalism. Buddhism, when it came to the millions, was no longer free of slant and prejudice. Taoism itself became a national jingoism far from any work of Lao-Tze. Even Christianity had its “pitch.” And if these great works became curved, with all the personal force of their creators, how is it that our little triumph here can still be found in a clear state?

Well, no diamonds and palaces have been accepted from rajahs, no gratuitous printing of results has been the gift of warlords, no testament had to be written 300 years after the fact.

For this we can thank Johann Gutenberg, and the invention of magnetic tape.

Therefore, although we have no such stature as the Great Philosophies, I charge you with this—look to source writings, not to interpretations. Look to the original work, not offshoots.

If I have fought for a quarter of a century, most of it alone, to keep this work from serving to uphold the enslavers of Man, to keep it free from some destructive “pitch” or slant, then you certainly can carry that motif a little further.

I’ll not always be here on guard. The stars twinkle in the Milky Way and the wind sighs for songs across the empty fields of a planet a Galaxy away.

You won’t always be here.

But before you go, whisper this to your sons and their sons—”The work was free. Keep it so.”

SUMMARY

STEP ONE: Establish participation in session of pc. Do not here or anywhere else neglect this factor. Maintain always ARC. Pc must to some degree be at cause with regard to session if only by wanting it or some result of it, or to escape some elsewhere consequence. This step is CCH 0 but it is run only to establish the thetan to some degree at cause with regard to the whole session. This must be improved throughout the intensive. Applies even to dead pcs.

STEP TWO: Establish obedience of some part of the auditing room to the pc. Here he must begin at some level of knowingness. He must KNOW that he himself, when ordered to do so, can gain some compliance on the part of the auditing room. This includes his own body. Thus we get “You seat that body in that chair. Thank you.” “You make that body continue to lie in that bed. Thank you.” We also get CCH 1. And we get a very important but neglected process run with two objects wherein the pc himself is ordered to keep one then the other from going away (alternately), hold it still, make it more solid, all with two objects. Stress is on YOU do it.

STEP THREE: Establish control of pc’s body by pc. Here we have CCH 2, but we also have an even more important series of processes, S-C-S in all their ramifications on the body. Here is pc at cause with regard to body. It is expected that lots of S-C-S will be run on pcs.

STEP FOUR: Make pc even more conscious of auditor and place him somewhat at cause with ARC. The mechanical steps of this are CCH 3 and CCH 4 but these steps are only valid if they heighten ARC and make the pc decide HE did it.

STEP FIVE: Establish pc as cause over Mest by establishing pc’s ideas as cause over Mest. Here, running these, we again emphasize YOU DO IT. The basic process of this is CONNECTEDNESS with the PC doing the connecting. Control Trio, Trio, Look around here and tell me what part of the environment you would be willing to be responsible for. You look, You connect, You make ....... Alter the old commands to put pc at cause point in doing these.

STEP SIX: Establish pc’s control over Mest subjective. Creative Processes, Recall Unwanted and Lost Objects. Then and Now Solids. First step on this in some cases is conquering black ‘‘field’’ and invisible “field.” This is done by a repair of havingness over black masses and then invisible masses, run even if pc goes unconscious. When field is cleared up, start on a gradient scale of mock-ups and get pc able to mock things up. Then run “Keep it from going away” until flat on mock-ups. Then run “Hold it still” on mock-ups. Then run “Make it more solid” on mock-ups. All this until pc really has fine, solid mock-ups. Typical command, “Mock up a      and keep it from going away. Thank you.” RULE: A PC’S FACSIMILES ARE NOT STORED, THEY ARE MADE IN THE INSTANT AND UNMADE BY THE PC, therefore remedy of mock-ups AND THEIR PERSISTENCE is actually a direct route to clear and winds up with no obsessive mock-up making (which we call a bank). A valuable side process here: “Decide to make a mock-up. Decide that will ruin the game. Decide not to do it.” Also this one, “Decide to make a mock-up everyone can see. Decide that would ruin the game. Decide not to do it.” A TOTAL REMEDY OF MOCK-UPS WOULD MAKE A BOOK ONE CLEAR.

STEP SEVEN: Establish pc’s control over his “bank.” “Mock up a facsimile and (keep it from going away, and when that is flat, hold it still, and when that is flat, make it a little more solid).” Run this alternately with “Mock up that wall (keep it from going away, hold it still, make it a little more solid).” Run the “Keep it from going away” on a facsimile one command, then the wall one command, until flat, then shift to “Hold it still” same way, then shift to “Make it more solid,” same way.

STEP EIGHT: Make some Time.

AUDITING TRUTHS:

ARC breaks must all be repaired thoroughly. ARC Must Be Maintained.

There is no real liability to a pc in this universe except one: becoming total subject of Mest.

Life versus Life, no liability. Life via Mest versus Life, some liability. Life versus Mest, total liability.

A pc must be kept at Cause as much as possible.

An Intensive in Brief for Practical Use

Begin by carefully easing the pc into session with CCH 0 but don’t talk too much or permit him to talk too much as you will as-is his havingness.

Establish control of a room object with “You make that chair sit on the floor.”

Get wheeling with S-C-S and run it up to Stop-C-S.

Run Connectedness inside the auditing room and then outside with “You make that      connect with you.” or “You look around here and tell me something you could have.” Or, “You look around here and tell me something you could be responsible for.”

Run an engram or do Then and Now Solids and put pc at cause with regard to facsimiles.

If you have any time left, do it all over again.

DEFINITIONS, GOALS

There are three possible goals in processing a preclear. The first of these is Mest Clear. The second is Theta Clear. The third is Operating Thetan.

By Mest Clear is meant a BOOK ONE CLEAR. Here we defined clear in terms of facsimiles. This is a rather simple mechanical definition. It said in effect that so far as human beings were concerned our preclear finally arrived at a point where he had full color-visio-sonic, had no psychoses or neuroses and could recall what had happened to him in this lifetime. This is almost a baby-talk sort of clear. It pays no heed at all to identification with a body and it has nothing to do with ability. Today, by running Creative Processes (four years old!) we can turn on visible facsimiles and weed out the bottom spots of operations and what not. This is actually a rather easy goal. Somehow I’ve never given a real tight procedure for achieving it even though the essence of the processes has been around for a very long time. COMPLETING STEP SIX OF CLEAR PROCEDURE IN FULL GIVES US A MEST CLEAR.

By Theta Clear is meant a Clear obtained by Clear Procedure as is being delineated in this regimen. The main trouble is, amusingly, trying to reach Mest Clear without running into Theta Clear. I personally don’t believe now that it can be done without actually shoving the pc back in his head every time he pops out. Thus the goal of this procedure is actually THETA CLEAR. This is what we mean then when we say “clear.” We mean a Theta Clear.

By Operating Thetan we mean Theta Clear PLUS ability to operate functionally against or with Mest and other life forms. For the first time we have here the matter of ABILITY. An Operating Thetan is not an absolute term. Theta Clear is a more absolute term than Operating Thetan. An Operating Thetan is a Theta Clear (not a mystical mystic out on an inversion) who can also do something.

Thus we have two goals which contain no ambition to accomplish anything and one goal which contains much ambition. Now here is another puzzle in definitions. Which is highest, the Theta Clear or the Operating Thetan? Well, the answer to that is not what we used to think. As DOINGNESS is not really at the top we find that we will probably make an Operating Thetan before we achieve Theta Clear for a Theta Clear would probably not be much interested in operating. Therefore, we see the actual goal we are trying to reach, no matter in which limited sense, is Operating Thetan.

Operating Thetan is then a highly variable goal. A thetan who can move in and out of a body is actually operating somewhat but he is not really a Theta Clear since a Theta Clear, in its highest sense, means no further dependency upon bodies.

The goals of the auditor, therefore, do not rack up one, two, three, Mest Clear, Theta Clear, Operating Thetan. They actually stack up on a very gradient scale between thetan inoperative and a thetan who can operate. The auditor is therefore seeking to reach with the pc a state wherein the pc can function. At no time does the auditor suddenly arrive with a pc in a startling new shiny state all of a sudden that can be called a certain thing. In that pcs often expect this suddenly bursting “into the light” the auditor is subject to disappointment when he has actually achieved an enormous gain for the pc. In other words, pcs gain on a smooth gradient scale and do not suddenly become something.

There is only one point on the road up where something does happen and that is exteriorization. When the pc exteriorizes for the first time he feels there must be a cause for rejoicing and has the idea he has gotten somewhere. Well, in fact you could achieve the same result by hitting him over the head with a club. He would exteriorize. The point is not exteriorizing the pc but cutting down his dependency upon a body. A pc who exteriorizes and is not carried right on with the same process that sprang him out of his head until it is flat will go back into his head in an hour or a week and will be harder to dig out the next time.

In other words, this point of exteriorization does happen and does mean to the pc that he is himself. But it shouldn’t mean very much to an auditor beyond his noticing that this phase has been entered in the case. For in truth thetans don’t stay out of their bodies very long if they are not in good shape. Thus exteriorization means less than ability to act, to live, to be and do. The attention of the auditor should be upon the increasing ability of the pc to handle life, not upon the distance the pc gets from his body. Is that clear? Well, it tells us that arriving at a state of Clear is easy if that means stable outside and that any state of betterment on the road to Operating Thetan is an honest achievement.

Thus an auditor should at all times go toward the state of Operating Thetan and should not be mixed up in the oddities of exteriorization for a day.

HGC Clear Procedure goes straight toward exteriorization and achieves it. But it also goes straight toward increasing ability to handle life. The latter is the auditor’s best goal. The auditing goal should go in the same direction as this new definition for Operating Thetan.

An Operating Thetan can be at cause knowingly and at will over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time, subjectively and objectively.

This Action Definition of Operating Thetan is the true goal of the auditor and if followed with complete understanding will achieve the best possible results.

In this discussion of goals and definitions, I am telling you cleanly that the goals of Mest Clear and Theta Clear are not worth following from the auditor’s standpoint. You can let pcs think what they will about them. The only goal worthy of the auditor’s time WHATEVER THE STATE OF CASE OF THE PC is Operating Thetan. To achieve one on any subject it is only necessary to place the pc to some degree at willing and knowing cause point with regard to that subject. All the steps of HGC Clear Procedure are leveled at Operating Thetan. But you need not tell your pc that. You can use the words RELEASE, MEST CLEAR, THETA CLEAR or any other if you like. Just remember there is only one payoff goal and that is Operating Thetan.

MEST CLEAR: Can see facsimiles with sonic present lifetime, has no psychoses or neuroses. Upper part of APA (in UK OCA) graph. Above 13 5 IQ.

THETA CLEAR: Can exist knowingly independent of bodies.

RELEASE: Average a third of a graph higher than first test, above 115 IQ.

OPERATING THETAN: Can be at Cause knowingly and at will over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time, subjectively and objectively.

STEP ONE

Participation in Session by the Pc

We have long known that ARC was important. Just how important it is was established by some tests I made in London in 1956 wherein every time the pc showed any restlessness or other signs of loss of havingness, instead of remedying havingness I carefully searched out any fancied break of ARC and patched it up. The “loss of havingness” vanished. In other words, loss of ARC is even more important than loss of havingness since a repair of ARC restores havingness. Lack of havingness is only one symptom of a lack of communication.

There are two ways an auditor, according to long practice, can err. One of these is to permit two-way communication to a point where the pc’s havingness is injured. The other is to chop communication to such a degree that havingness is injured. There is a point past which communication is bad and short of which lack of communication is bad. Here we have auditor judgment at play. Because the pc will fidget or go downscale in tone when his havingness drops, an auditor can SEE when the pc’s havingness is being lowered. Because a pc will go anaten or start to grind into the process an auditor can tell whether or not the pc feels his communication has been chopped. When either happens the auditor should take action—in the first instance by shutting off the pc’s outflow and getting to work and in the second instance by making the pc talk out any fancied communication severance.

Participation in session by the pc is not something the auditor sees to at the beginning of the session and then forgets for the rest of the intensive. This step is continued throughout the intensive and is given as much attention as any process being run at the time. The auditor’s attention is always therefore upon two things—first the continued participation in session and second the action of the process.

Grouped under this head we would also have ways and means of getting the pc into session in the first place. An unconscious pc used to be an apparent roadblock. A downtone, antagonistic, you-can’t-help-me pc was also a rough one. These two things are countered by always carefully starting a session and following through on standard CCH 0.

It is as important to open a session with a baby or an unconscious person as it is with any other preclear. It doesn’t matter whether the pc is answering up or not. It is only necessary to assume that the pc would answer if he could answer and that the mechanics of voice and gesture are simply absent from the answer. Therefore one always carefully starts every session, paying attention to what is happening, where it is happening, who is there, help, goals and problems. Obviously anaten or inability to control the body are the present time problem of the unconscious person or the child. One can actually audit this with a plain question and simply assume after a bit it has been answered, then give the acknowledgment and ask another question just as though the pc were in full vocal action. Auditors still fall for the belief, very current, that “unconscious” people are unable to think or be aware in any way. A thetan is seldom unconscious regardless of what the body is doing or not doing.

PRESENT TIME PROBLEM is a highly vital point of PRECLEAR PARTICIPATION. If a preclear is being nagged too thoroughly by a PT problem auditing can actually send him downhill if done without addressing the problem. A whole intensive, even seventy-five hours can be wasted if the auditor does not clear the PT PROBLEM.

The preclear generally doesn’t know he has one which is nagging him, for the rough PT problems go into the apathy band and below into forgetfulness rather rapidly. Therefore the auditor should ferret out the PT problem with an E-Meter. Adroit use of an E-Meter does not include evaluating for the preclear but it certainly does include ferreting out PT problems. The E-Meter is also used for valences and sometimes psychophysical difficulties. (Auditor: Use the word “psychophysical” rather than psychosomatic and stay out of a medical field.)

THE RUNNING OF A PT PROBLEM today is the most. PT problem, valences, psychophysical ailments, all run beautifully with “Mock up something worse than (terminal)” or “Invent something worse than (terminal).” To run this it is necessary to isolate the TERMINAL most intimately connected with the PT problem (or the valence or psychophysical difficulty). One then CLEARS THE COMMAND (and you always better do that with any command) and lets go.

The whole idea of WORSE THAN is the whole of the dwindling spiral. People who are “trying to get better” and “be more perfect” and “think the right thought” lose all control of “getting worse,” “being imperfect” and “thinking the wrong thought.” All these WORSE THANS are then left on automatic and we arrive at something less than optimum. In fact we arrive with the dwindling spiral. We also arrive with the “point of no return.” We also arrive with the declining ability to heal or get well. And we also arrive with old age.

After running “worse than” on the PT problem, we proceed with other parts of CCH 0. Clearing help will be found quite beneficial. But to get a pc to participate who is downright ugly about it, running help is usually only a partial solution. When these only ones get going they really snarl on the subject of getting audited. Here CCH 1 is of benefit. No questions asked. But this, of course, defeats the purpose of STEP ONE.

PARTICIPATION OF THE PC in the session is necessary in order to place the pc somewhat at the cause point in the actual fact of auditing. This fits the definition. You can always change a body or recover it from some illness by auditing without much helping the pc himself. Therefore, the pc, while under auditor control, is still somewhat at cause, what with comm bridges and clearing commands, etc., but he is made to feel no bad effects from being AT EFFECT if ample ARC is used. In other words, the pc can’t be entirely at cause in a session or he would be self-auditing, which isn’t good, but he can be salvaged from being a total effect by good ARC. When the ARC drops out that DOES leave the pc at more or less total effect, a thing you have probably noticed.

The things to be done in CCH 0 should be done thoroughly at intensive’s beginning and should be glanced at whenever a new session starts and should get a bow when a new command is used. But all CCH 0 is is a collection of mechanical aids to assist the pc’s participation in the session and to assist the auditor in ARC. Although CCH 0 must be used always, it is not a total substitute for ARC.

The sum of CCH 0 is find the auditor, find the auditing room, find the pc, knock out any existing PT problem, establish goals, clear help, get agreement on session length and get up to the first real auditing command. CCH 0 isn’t necessarily run in that order and this isn’t necessarily all of CCH 0, but if any of these are seriously scamped, the session will somewhere get into trouble.

When the participation of the pc ceases in a session, he must be gotten back into session by any means and then participation is re-established. A pc is never permitted to end a session on his own choice. He seeks to end them when his participation drops out of sight.

The trick question “What did I do wrong?” re-establishes ARC.

The problem of handling a pc who is not cooperative, who does not wish to participate, is a highly special problem. In the first place it is the pc’s engrams that do not want to continue, in the second place it is the engrams which are doing the talking. One ordinarily tackles this case with a formal opening of session, brief but positive, and then sails in with CCH 0, just as though the person were unconscious, which, of course, the person is.

Participation by an unconscious person, while covered above, requires the additional refinement of technique. ONE MUST ALWAYS FIND SOMETHING THE PRECLEAR CAN DO AND THEN BETTER THAT ABILITY. An unconscious person is usually lying in bed. If not the command must be varied to fit the environment. But the best command is something like “You make that body lie in that bed.” A slightly upper grade process to a person sitting in a chair is “You seat that body in that chair.” In such cases a grip on the pc’s hand and the use of a slight squeeze each time the auditor acknowledges considerably speeds the process.

There is another special case—or maybe it isn’t so special. There are many people who cannot tackle a present time problem with a process. If the auditor sought out a PT problem and then ran “something worse than a related terminal” or a “problem of comparable or incomparable magnitude” he would find the pc digging in hard, unable to handle the process. Thus some judgment must be used in such cases. Don’t run a PT problem on somebody in very bad shape casewise.

There is an awful lot to know about starting sessions. The bad-off case and the case in very good condition alike require special handling. For the case just mentioned who cannot handle a PT problem with a process, there is always locational (TR TEN). TR TEN will run a PT problem or anything else if slowly. Thus many a person with a PT problem can only participate in a session to the extent of TR TEN, “YOU notice that object (wall, floor, chair, etc.).” By introducing in the auditor’s and pc’s bodies as a couple of the items being spotted along with everything else we eventually wind up with “find the auditor, find the auditing room, find the pc.” And we get there without a PT problem being in full bloom.

In running “You notice that object” there are some things that MUST be observed. Most important of these is this one: ANY PROCESS WHICH TURNS ON A SOMATIC MUST BE CONTINUED UNTIL IT NO LONGER TURNS ON SOMATICS. This is true particularly of TR TEN, 8-C and TRIO. The case hangs right there until the process is flat, whether in one day, one year or six. Another thing which must be stressed is the inclusion of the auditor’s and pc’s bodies. Because some pcs WHEN EXTERIORIZED snap back in when they see the body is no reason to avoid it in TR TEN. Another thing is to make the pc use his eyes to view the objects and if he doesn’t turn his eyes toward them, then it is up to the auditor to use manual direction of the head and even pry the eyes open. No balks are ever permitted in auditing. If TR TEN is being run at a problem, every now and then the auditor pauses and discusses the problem again with the pc in order to keep it in restimulation until TR TEN can run it out.

The high case is a worse problem than auditors commonly believe. In the first place a high case can “blow” a situation out of the bank with considerable ease and if the auditor insists on sledge-hammering it out with a process, then pc participation blows rather than a facsimile.

High case participation can also be misunderstood in that there are a lot of cases that think they are high which aren’t. Here’s how you tell a real high case from a bogus (“I can do everything”) case. A thetan in good shape can be cause. When he looks at something in the bank it becomes the effect. A bogus high case can think anything he wants without anything having an effect on the bank. You want to watch this point because here is the definition of OT thoroughly at work. Pc at Cause. A case that has pictures and everything and is impatient to get on with it BUT DOES NOT MARKEDLY ALTER THE BANK WITH THINKING ALONE is not a high case but an old “wide open case” of Dianetic days.

Two-way communication AS A PROCESS is the key to all this. If you put a pc on an E-Meter and locate a present time charge, you can, if the pc can somewhat handle his bank, get him to two-way comm the incident flat very quickly—in five or ten minutes at the most. This is all the process used. It would take an actual E-Meter run to give you a full reality on this.

Here we are looking at the basic differences amongst cases. That difference lies in the ability to knowingly CAUSE. Bodies are the same, they all react alike. Banks differ only vaguely and only in content and significance. Engrams are engrams and they all behave alike. There is only ONE DIFFERENCE amongst pcs. We called this BASIC PERSONALITY in BOOK ONE. We can be a lot more simple about it now that I have my teeth into the subject a few more feet. The difference is DEGREE OF KNOWING CAUSABILITY. What do we mean by CAUSE? The basic, old Scientology definition is still at work. CAUSE-DISTANCE-EFFECT. Joe knowingly shoots Bill. Joe is at Cause. Bill is at Effect. Mary gives John a present. Mary is at Cause, John is at Effect. Bill says Boo to Joe. Bill is at Cause, Joe is at Effect. But when we introduce KNOWING CAUSE and CAUSE AT WILL into this CAUSE-DISTANCE-EFFECT idea we see we have something else added. The person at Cause is there because he knows he is there and because he is willingly there. The person at Cause is not at Cause because he does not dare be at Effect. He must be able to be at Effect. If he is afraid to be at Effect, then he is Unwilling Cause and is at Cause only because he is very afraid of being at Effect. Education can show a person he can be at effect without liability. Then he can be at Cause without HAVING TO BE BECAUSE HE DOESN’T DARE BE AT EFFECT. Auditing in its whole operation is teaching the pc this. Pc slides from terrified effect to tolerated effect to knowing cause with regard to any incident he contacts IF HE IS AUDITED PROPERLY. The pc who has to get rid of all his engrams because he has to get rid of them because it’s all too horrible winds up, with good auditing, into a tolerance of the pictures since he has learned he can tolerate them and so can swing around to Cause.

So we have this great difference in pcs. DEGREE OF KNOWING CAUSABILITY is the extent that he is willing to be at Cause and the extent he is willing to know he is at Cause plus the ability to cause things.

You will see this on an E-Meter in PT problem handling. Bill has a PT problem. It drops a dial when first contacted. The auditor, using his UNDERSTANDING of Scientology, two-way comms on it. The incident discharges and no longer registers after a few minutes. Mary has a PT problem. It drops steeply on the E-Meter. The auditor tries to two-way comm on it. The charge remains the same or Mary begins to disperse. She doesn’t hold to the subject. The auditor at length finds that two-way comm only serves to run down her havingness. The charge remains on the meter dial. What is the difference between Bill and Mary? Bill can be at knowing cause, Mary is either obsessive cause or heavy effect. Bill can blow facsimiles. Mary cannot. On Mary the auditor is very wise to enter upon TR TEN.

One version of TR TEN is called Short Spotting. “You notice that (nearby object).” So long as the pc can see with his eyes the object or feel the auditor’s hand on it, the process works. It is spotting right up close. If run with mediumly near and far objects (such as the room wall) it is very effective in getting a case going. It has given some cases their first reality on auditing. BUT the rule still holds here about somatics. When a somatic is turned on with a process, turn it off with that process. See Auditor’s Code 13. This is entirely true of Short Spotting. In that it almost always turns on somatics, when you start it, you have to flatten it and that’s often lengthy.

Remember this about pc participation. A low case can’t handle the bank, therefore you keep high ARC and kid-glove him through a session. A very high case doesn’t need dynamite, therefore you retain his participation by going as rapidly as you can. A medium, average case needs ARC, something of dynamite, something of kid gloves, something of two-way comm.

And IN ALL GOOD AUDITING, CASES IMPROVE. Just because you start a pc low doesn’t mean he’ll always stay low. Check the case often. See if his CAUSABILITY is rising. If it isn’t, he isn’t improving and you better go easier or heavier. PROBABLY when a case doesn’t improve you didn’t handle a PT problem. THAT IS THE ONLY THING WHICH CAN KEEP A CASE FROM GAINING. So check every session for one.

There are probably thousands of ways to gain the participation of the pc, there are probably thousands of ways to open a session. There are probably an infinite number of tricky things you can do. However, this breadth of choice should not obscure the following:

1. 	A pc who is not participating in the session is not at Cause.

2. 	An auditor who isn’t able to maintain ARC, who isn’t able to “freeze” a process for a short time, even a Tone 40.0 process, and re-establish ARC, will not get results.

3. 	The end-all of processing is the attainment of a goal, the goal of OT. One always processes the problems and difficulties of the pc, he does not process the process. Processes only assist in processing the pc. They will not do anything by themselves. Processes are a road map to the goal of OT, they are nothing in themselves. The target is the condition, the disabilities of the pc. How one achieves the eradication of these difficulties is secondary to the fact of their eradication. Scientology is a route attained after several thousand years of no attainment by Man and the route is important and valuable and must be traveled correctly, but the concern is the pc, not the route.

4. 	A new auditor can be adrift with his tools. He is uncertain as to what he is attacking. He should have reality on engrams, locks, key-ins, secondaries, the time track, the key buttons of Scientology such as Communication, Control and Havingness. Given an understanding of all these and the theory of Scientology itself he can almost pilot his way through a case with two-way comm. But two-way comm will not work if one doesn’t understand all the above. So two-way comm is not conversation. The pc has had a few trillion years of that and it hasn’t made him well, so two-way comm is a highly specialized thing, done with full understanding of the thetan, bank and body. Good two-way comm means participation by the pc.

5. 	Scientology is a precise commodity, something like engineering. A pc is a precise thing, part animal, part pictures and part God. We want the ability to handle things and the God, and the less unthinking responses in the pc the better off he will be. Therefore a PC WHO ISN’T COGNITING regularly is being processed beyond his ability to do and it is necessary to drop back downscale to find something he CAN DO.

6. 	The golden rule of processing is to find something the preclear CAN do and then to improve his ability to do it. At once you will have participation. The highest ability one pc had was to get drunk: a resolution of his case was entered upon by having him invent ways to get drunk.

7. 	The attention span of children and psychos is not necessarily a factor since it is only the phenomena of dispersal against mental blocks, keying in of incidents. The auditor can pay attention to it or not as he likes. Short, regular sessions on people with limited attention span get more gain per week than a steady grind since the participation is maintained.

8. 	The auditor remains at Cause in all sessions without forbidding the pc to be at Cause. See the rules in Dianetics: The Original Thesis.

STEP TWO

Placing the Preclear at Cause

Establish obedience of some part of the auditing room to the pc. Here he must begin at some level of knowingness. He must know that he himself, when ordered to do so, can gain some compliance on the part of the auditing room. This includes his own body.

The basic rule of auditing is to start with something the preclear can do and then get him to do it better. This is the basic difference between a high level and a low level process. This is also the difference between a process which is real to the preclear and a process which is unreal to the preclear. A preclear “can do” a process without doing it at all. Actually the body and bank are obeying the auditor. Now here we had in Dianetics one of the more interesting phenomena of an auditor being able to make a preclear physically well without the preclear once finding out about it. This was a source of great grief and upset to auditors. They could not see how this could possibly be. The man priorly could not walk, apparently, and after auditing he could walk, and yet he did not attribute to Dianetics or to the auditor any of this renewed ability.

The auditor could monitor the preclear’s bank and body, shift around the engrams, as-is them and do various things with them without the preclear finding out about it. All of this was so far above the preclear’s ability to do that it was totally unreal to him.

We also get the phenomenon of an individual doing a great many spotting processes and feeling better but not being able to understand what this has to do with sanity or insanity. In the first place, the individual could not himself spot. The auditor more or less did the spotting for him. The preclear then never connected it in any way with his own capabilities.

A test an auditor should make to ascertain the sense of this is as follows: “Look around here and tell me something you could do.” The preclear will get many odd and peculiar sensations as he fishes around and finally decides that he could do some minor thing. This is not really a good process but it is a good test process for an auditor. This preclear who has been walking and talking and working and going around the world and apparently behaving in a fairly sane and rational fashion actually could do none of these things. He was supported entirely by his “machinery,” by the social responsibilities which were demonstrated toward him, by his education, by the basic agreement of what goes on in the world. He was walking around in a dream and life felt to him much like a dream. Now the auditor starts to audit him on the basis that this individual is capable. Well now the individual himself is the thetan and whereas the bank might have been capable (and would have broken down some day), the thetan himself was not. He was going along for the ride.

We often see this phenomenon in the third dynamic. It could be said that a government is the aggregate irresponsibility of a people. They are not taking responsibility for the course of justice or protection of the state from foreign aggression, and they shove all this responsibility over on to a government and they themselves are quite irresponsible for it. After a while the government doesn’t look to the people at all to furnish any responsibility. The government takes all the initiative, and we eventually wind up with some sort of a dictatorship. The people then no longer count; they are slaves; they are totally irresponsible.

In a similar wise, a thetan can be totally irresponsible for everything that goes on in relationship to his workaday world, and we see people dramatizing this on every hand. Wherever a thetan refuses to take responsibility and is participating in action, he is being “unreal.” This is the unreality of a situation. Let us say you were part of a crowd which was surging downtown to Third Street and you yourself wanted to go uptown to Tenth Street. The crowd swept you along toward Third Street and after a while things would become pretty unreal. That is because you were being carried in a direction opposite to your basic intent. Thus your own intention is overwhelmed. This intention overwhelmed becomes what we know as unreality.

It is very easy for an auditor to overwhelm the preclear’s intention. The preclear is actually going to Tenth Street, the auditor is trying to push him to Third Street. We get the most remarkable subdivision of this in Survive and Succumb. The auditor is going on the basis that the preclear wants to Survive and the preclear is going on the basis that he wants to Succumb. The auditor is then thrusting him in an opposite direction. Hence it is really necessary to clear Goals in an auditing session. There must be some goal which the preclear considers obtainable. The goal of just being able to sit there for the next two or three hours is a goal. You would be surprised to find that in some preclears this is a tremendously high goal. But even a preclear’s goals can be unreal to him. They are the social goals. Actually, the preclear privately thinks he’d like to get rid of every man, woman and child on Earth and the goal he gives you is to save everyone.

Now the question actually confronts us—what can the preclear really do? Of course, in a case of tremendous doubt, you could run the above process—”Look around here and find something you could do.” But there are certain things that an auditor can take for granted which undercut any other thing. The body is sitting in the chair. The preclear can be brought up to a realization that he can make the body sit in the chair. And thus we get the first really worthwhile process on a preclear who is conscious, and that process is “You seat that body in that chair. Thank you.” And in the case of somebody who is Lying in bed, even unconscious, we get this basic process: “You make that body continue to lie in that bed. Thank you.”

All we are asking anybody to do when we ask for these two processes is to take responsibility for what is actually occurring in the first place. We raise his responsibility level in other words, and thus raise his doingness level. A preclear who does not come through eventually with a cognition that he can make the body sit in the chair of course isn’t worth bothering with, in that his doingness level is even below this. This preclear ought to be lying in a bed. He must consider himself completely helpless and completely ill. Thus if we ran “You seat that body in that chair. Thank you,” for several hours without any realization on the part of the preclear that he could do this and without turning on any somatics or without getting any effect at all, we would consider that we had overshot this. Actually it shouldn’t take several hours to find this out. We would go back to the basic position of Dianetic auditing. This preclear probably thinks of himself as being dead or probably thinks of himself as being very ill or thinks of himself as being totally unconscious. Thus we would run him as an unconscious person. Putting him down on a couch we would run “You make that body continue to lie in that bed. Thank you.”

Also, on a much higher level we get CCH 1.

“You give me that hand” is actually the old cat process where we got the cat to reach for the auditor, plus an obedience process. The preclear after a while should decide that he can do this. Sometimes we run CCH 1, then CCH 2, CCH 3, and then CCH 4 and going back discover that CCH 1 is now unflat and the preclear is unable to perform this action which he previously could perform. Now what has happened here is we have broadened the scope of the preclear’s responsibility. His bank at first was perfectly capable of giving that hand but once we have invited further responsibility and gotten him to find the auditor as in CCH 3 and CCH 4, we discover that the preclear himself is now trying to do it and in trying to do it is having difficulties but he wins through with this difficulty and eventually comes out much better.

Unless these particular goals and theories behind these processes are understood they very often do not work at all in the CCH bands. Thus CCH 1 to 4, while tremendously successful when run by a very excellent auditor understanding his job, may not be successful in the hands of somebody who is simply going through some mechanical motions.

Basically we are trying to get the preclear to do something and know that he himself can do it. Thus we are improving his ability. On this fundamental we can go forward and establish many processes, all of which are fundamental doingness or obedience processes. We can do such a process as “You make that chair sit on the floor.” This process at first seems a little incredible to the preclear, but after a while he gets the idea that he can do it, then this unflattens and he gets the idea that it’s gravity that’s doing it and therefore he can’t do it, and he goes through various cognitions of one sort or another simply about having a chair, which is already sitting there, sit there. Unless we can cross this particular stage of a case and get the preclear up to an idea that he does have some sort of an ability of some kind, we might as well do nothing else about the case at all. Therefore this Step Two is quite important and actually is the basic entrance into auditing.

STEP THREE

Establish Control of Pc’s Body by Pc

Although we could continue onward with the CCHs simply rotating them from CCH 1 through to 4 and back to 1 and to 4, and back to 1 and to 4 again and again and again and win, there is a faster way of going about this which has been known to us for a very long time. This way starts really with 8-C.

It does not matter particularly which brand of 8-C is run. We have had now three or four varieties of 8-C. The first one was rather permissive and indirect and did not demand very much compliance and possibly had its own place in the firmament since use of it has resolved a very, very great many cases. The first command of this is “Do you see that wall?” Then “Walk over to it.” Then “Touch it.” And that was all there was to the process. Later 8-Cs, particularly Tone 40 8-Cs, were highly precise, very directive and had a great deal of control stress to them. It does not matter particularly which 8-C is used so long as the auditor feels that it is biting. If the particular 8-C he is using isn’t biting, maybe he needs a more permissive one, maybe he needs a more exacting control one.

There are a great many factors surrounding the control of the pc’s body by a pc. Most pcs feel their body if tampered with in any way would fly out of control and flip-flop all over the floor, would suddenly freeze or would get ill, and they have anxieties about their bodies and the control of their bodies which must be solved, otherwise we don’t get very far. Control of bodies can actually be assisted by old-time flip-flopping.

Flip-flopping was a process by which the preclear’s excess motion was taken off. The creative processes of earlier times did not require of the preclear any great cognition of what was going on. Thus flip-flopping could be used at a very early stage of case. We would say, “Mock up a man and make him flip-flop” and then make him insist that the body flip-flop even further and even more wildly until he himself knew that he was making the body flip-flop. We would do this with a woman’s body and would eventually take the motion off the case that was inhibiting the preclear from controlling the body. This is actually a motionectomy. It is really a case of the auditor controlling the bank and body of the preclear. When we did not do this we found that in running 8-C and in doing some other processes the preclear all of a sudden would convulse and start to fly apart. These fly-aparts were simply the flip-flop manifestation of bodies.

It is extremely interesting that a preclear exteriorizing from his own body which is out of control, flip-flopping, writhing, convulsing and going into epileptiform seizures was at a distance from a flip-flopping body. One day while in his own body he causes some other body to go out of control, he shoots somebody or hits somebody, and has this person go into a flip-flop. He himself gets restimulated and he feels that his body in the future is liable to go out of control at any time. If you draw a little picture of this you will see that a thetan exteriorized from his own body and a thetan in his body knocking about some other body is, to the thetan, the same point of view. In other words, if you make somebody’s body flip-flop, your own body may flip-flop. It looks the same to a thetan.

Some guarantee or security of body control is therefore necessary.

There is a very fine set of processes which have been used for more than a year at this writing and which produced excellent results. These we call the S-C-S processes.

After running 8-C (and if it turned on somatics remember to flatten the process entirely, even though it takes 50 hours, before going on to another process), we go into these control processes grouped under S-C-S. There have been several varieties of process, all entirely in the control bracket but with different severities of control. The commands of S-C-S processes are almost all the same except that some are made more severe than others.

The first of these processes is the Start process. This is very simple. We have a preclear out in the middle of the room standing up while we stand up alongside of him touching him, and we explain to him (and we explain this every command) that when we say “Start” we want him to start his body in that direction, and we point out some direction.

Then we take our hands off of him and we say “Start.” We do not say Stop, Halt, or anything else, but after he has moved forward we then say, “Did you start your body?” And he says he guesses he did or he did, and we then—and only then— acknowledge. We do this many times until the process apparently has no charge on it or is flat. We then go into the next of this series, which is Change.

To run Change the auditor marks four points out on the floor. These points can be imaginary or they can be actually chalk-marked on the floor. One of these points we label “A,” one “B,” one “C,” and one “D.” We explain the meanings of these symbols to the preclear and we give him this auditing command: “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 the points A, B, C and D, the auditor drills the preclear on Change until that particular process seems to be flat.

The auditor then goes to Stop. The auditor takes the preclear by the arm and explains (explains every time) that when he says “Stop,” he wants the preclear to stop the body. The actual wording of the auditor is “Now I want you to get the body moving in that direction and when I say Stop, I want you to stop the body. Do you understand?” When the preclear says that he does, the auditor lets go of him, lets him move down the room a distance (never the same distance twice) and says “Stop.” When the preclear has stopped the auditor says “Did you stop the body?” And the preclear says “yes,” or “maybe” and the auditor then acknowledges. The auditor does this many times until the preclear understands that he himself can stop the body or he has regained an ability, or the process appears to be flat and has no charge on it.

These three steps done in that order are then repeated. And it will be discovered that once Stop has been flattened, Start is now unflattened and can be flattened all over again by running it anew. Similarly, Change will be found to be unflat and again Stop will be found to be unflat. Thus, one runs Start and one runs Change and then one runs Stop, in that order, over and over and over again until all three appear to be flat.

A variation of this particular process has been called Stop Supreme. Stop Supreme is a heavy emphasis on Stop and it will be found that after the three processes of Start, Change and Stop are flat, one can move rather easily into Stop Supreme and concentrate heavily upon it. In other words, one runs Start, Change and Stop, Start, Change and Stop, Start, Change and Stop until they are relatively flat. He should not then suppose that the whole of S-C-S is flat since he still has Stop Supreme in all of its variations.

The idea behind Stop Supreme is that Stop, or motionlessness, is probably the most thetan ability a thetan has. Thus the rehabilitation of this particular ability is worth while and does produce considerable results. But don’t be surprised if the preclear falls apart in the process of doing it.

The commands of Stop Supreme are roughly these. Every time one runs one of these S-C-S processes he, of course, explains the thing in full at the beginning of every command. He does not let any explanation hang over from the last time the command was executed. It will be found that the preclear cannot hold in his mind these explanations. Therefore, it has to be all explained anew every time. Thus we say to the preclear in Stop Supreme, “Now I want you to get your body moving down the room when I so indicate and when I say Stop, I want you to stop your body absolutely still.” Then the auditor gives the preclear a slight shove and the preclear moves the body down the room, and the auditor says “Stop,” and the preclear tries to stop his body absolutely still in that instant. It will be found that faster and faster responses are achieved by the preclear and he can actually stop the body in more and more peculiar positions. The auditor then says, “Did you stop your body absolutely still?” The preclear answers this and then the auditor acknowledges. There are even more severe versions of this, but they are left to the imagination of the auditor.

These S-C-S processes produced the greatest control changes that have been produced with any control process. They were consistently used with great success by a great many auditors. This is not really true of CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4. CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4 depend in a very large measure not only upon the excellence of the auditor but upon how the auditor himself is feeling while he is running them. And we can get an auditor who is not feeling up to par that day not doing well with CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4. This difficulty was never encountered with the S-C-S processes and therefore the S-C-S processes are to be recommended.

An apparent drop of havingness is occasionally experienced by the preclear as he does these processes. This is because of compulsive exteriorization. If a preclear is about to fly out of his head he’ll fly out of his head on S-C-S. If he does fly out of his head on S-C-S, or any other process, you, of course, continue the process. You do not suddenly change and do some other process. Once upon a time we felt at liberty to change because of the severity of the change, but we have learned in long experience that one never changes the process just because somebody compulsively exteriorizes. S-C-S is probably more susceptible to compulsive exteriorization than any other single process, and as it is run preclears fly into their heads and out of them at a great rate and eventually get to a state quite ordinarily where they can move into the head or out of the head at will.

The reason the preclear is holding on to the body is (1) fear of loss of control and (2) havingness. If the havingness of the preclear is low, he is apt to close in tight to the body because this gives him more havingness and if the preclear fears that the body is going to go out of control he will also move in closer to the body. Thus we get interiorization as no more complicated than fear of loss of control and drops in havingness.

When a loss of havingness is experienced, a preclear will agitate or go anaten and tend to be upset in general. Actually, any loss of havingness in an auditing session can be repaired by an excellent auditor by repair of the ARC of the session. One uses the trick “What did I do wrong?” and two-way comm in general to patch up state of affairs. Loss of havingness is first manifested on loss of havingness of the session or loss of goals rather than on actual loss of mass.

In running S-C-S, however, the preclear flying in and out of his head will experience various changes of havingness which are quite upsetting. The very best handling of this situation is to restore the ARC of the session in every way possible. It is actually not allowed to stop S-C-S and go into Trio.

Concentration upon the body is one of the frailties of S-C-S and we have long since discovered that those preclears who had difficulty in exteriorization would very often re-interiorize the moment they glanced at the body. Well, keeping a body there and looking at it are apparently two different things entirely. Thus if a preclear can’t put his attention upon the body without bad things happening, we should run a process which prevents the preclear from being upset simply because he is concentrating upon his body, and S-C-S certainly does this and does it well.

Don’t be surprised in running S-C-S if the preclear suddenly flies to pieces, goes into flip-flopping, has to be picked up off the floor and put over on the couch and left aghast, but do be very surprised at yourself if you fail to get the preclear back up on his feet and into session again at once. This is no time for you to be changing processes simply because a preclear collapses. Now if this did happen, that the preclear went entirely out of session while running S-C-S and you could not get him in any way to do any more of the S-C-S and get it flat, then you had better start the entire intensive all over again and go right back to the beginning and carry on from the beginning and bring him right straight on through to S-C-S. You would do this rapidly, of course, but you would nevertheless have no other choice. It would not be good enough to change processes simply because the preclear found himself incapable of running this body control process of S-C-S.

It has been noticed that S-C-S can be run very sloppily by some auditors who do not have very much experience with it. The only way to err is in the direction of imprecision and bad ARC. It is perfectly easy to be very precise with high ARC. ARC does not mean non-confronting.

One of the elementary processes which can be used after S-C-S and which is a very fine process and will have to be done at some time, is the Keep it from going away— Hold it still—Make it more solid series on two objects.

To do this particular process one takes two disrelated objects, that is to say he doesn’t take two ashtrays or two bottles. He could take one object made out of wood, one made out of glass, both of them with different purposes. But these are usually picked up as non-significant objects and the auditor asks the preclear to place the two of them to the right and to the left of the preclear and asks the preclear to pick up one of them and keep it from going away and put it back in exactly the same place, pick up the other one and keep it from going away, put it back in exactly the same place, and keeps up this drill between these two objects. Actually, preclears who are having a very hard time require more than two objects, even as many as six or seven. In this event the auditor places the preclear at a table and scatters several objects around and picks them up at random. The duplicative feature of the process can be toughened up as the process is continued, but on some preclears it will be found to be very arduous to start out basically with two. When the preclear can successfully keep the two objects from going away, knowing very well that he kept them from going away—which the auditor asks him every time, “Did you keep it from going away?”—the hold-it-still phase is run in exactly the same way, and when this seems to be flat on the two objects we get into “Make it more solid.” One of the principal dividing lines between a psychotic state and a sane state is the ability to make things solid. It will be found that people who are having a very bad time indeed have the whole world in a very thin look-straight through-it state. Only when they themselves can be at Cause in keeping things from going away and making things hold still and making things more solid will it be found that they have a solidity in the environment.

There would be another process which we could run at this particular stage and that is old-time Book and Bottle, which is also one of the deadlier exteriorization processes.

Old-time Book and Bottle was run in this wise. The auditor placed a book on one table or chair and a bottle on the other table or chair and he directed the individual to first one and then the other, always with a very duplicative command. Probably the first version of Book and Bottle was the best. It should be understood that Book and Bottle is an absolute necessity and must be run at some time or another upon a Scientology auditor, but it is not necessarily something which must be run on somebody who is simply trying to attain a state of Clear. Thus a mention of it is introduced at this time.

STEP FOUR

Find the Auditor

Make pc even more conscious of auditor and place him somewhat at Cause with ARC.

There are probably a thousand inventive ways that this could be done but it is time when one has been butchering the pc this long for the pc to regain some of his self-respect with regard to the auditing session. One could do this with almost any auditing command which made the pc look at the auditor. Such a question as “Is there anything I am doing that you could do?” carried forward to its logical conclusion would find the pc regaining some of his Cause with regard to the session. Simple locational spotting, however, is probably the best process here. One directs the pc’s attention with “You notice that (object)” all about the room and at first only occasionally includes the pc’s body and the auditor’s body in the spotting. Then the auditor, using the same process, concentrates less and less upon the room and more and more upon the auditor and the pc. It will be found that the pc will eventually find the auditor with his attention so directed.

It will be seen then that S-C-S directed the pc’s attention very strongly to the auditing of his own body and it will be seen that we have not yet started to get the pc’s attention out into the environment.

But here we have two very pat processes which are CCH 3 and CCH 4. These are extremely simple processes but require a considerable amount of care in their use. Any validated auditor knows how to run these two processes. CCH 3 is Hand Space Mimicry and CCH 4 is Book Mimicry. Both of these processes simply invite the pc to find the auditor more thoroughly.

The earliest process along the line was “Look at me, Who am I?”, and it has very far from been disallowed, so that in lack of anything else simply this process could be picked up and used at this stage. Now here we get the preclear to identify or to say who the auditor is and you will find that many preclears go through a considerable number of convulsions in trying to establish who the auditor is.

There is no particularly recommended step for this. It depends in a large measure on what state the pc is in when he arrives at this point. But it is necessary for the pc to become somewhat causative with regard to the session at this stage, whether by spotting, CCH 3 and CCH 4, or by old-time “Look at me, Who am I?” They all more or less accomplish the same thing. CCH 3 and 4 accomplish the location of the auditor very mechanically according to the Reality Scale. Spotting has the additional advantage of taking a pc’s attention very thoroughly under control, and “Look at me, Who am I?” invites the pc to use his identification and thinking capacities. If an auditor wanted to be totally sure, he would use all of them.

STEP FIVE

Pc Versus Mest

Establish pc as cause over Mest by establishing pc’s ideas as cause over Mest.

There are several varieties of spotting processes. The most basic of these is the most basic process to association and this is Connectedness. This process is run directively with the following command: “You get the idea of making that (object) connect with you. Did you? Thank you.”

The reason Connectedness works is because it is the basic process on association. The most aberrative thing on any case is association with Mest. This does not mean that the individual is not creating the Mest, it does not mean that he has no relationship with Mest, but it does mean that Theta and Mest interconnected too strongly are the components of a trap. Theta is mixed up with Mest, Mest is mixed up with Theta. They are two different things actually, and it is not true that all thought derives from Mest, nor is it true that all Mest derives from thought. A thetan can create Mest by simply creating Mest, not by telling it to be created, but simply by putting it there. This is the isness of Mest. Now when he connects his thoughts with the actual mass he gets into trouble and we get association, we get compulsive thinking, we get identification and the old A = A = A of Dianetic days.

Thus you will see at once that Connectedness in any form is a very excellent process to run. But note carefully that we have him get the idea of making the object connect with him. We never command the preclear to get the other idea of connecting with the object. This is a no-games condition. This is what is wrong with the preclear.

Now there are a large variety of processes which stem out of this process of basic association. These are Control Trio, Trio and Responsibility. But all of these things are basically connectedness processes.

The only thing that ever went wrong with connectedness processes was the unreality factor. The auditor would tell the preclear to get the idea of making that wall connect with him, when as a matter of fact the preclear couldn’t have gotten much of any kind of an idea of making anything connect with him.

Thus it is mandatory for an auditor to start out a preclear on some level of reality and some two-way comm should precede this connectedness process, such as “Do you think there is anything anywhere that you could get to connect with you?” Once this is cleared up, it will be found that only those things very close in could be real to the preclear on this line of connectedness. Thus the auditor is given no great power of choice in this matter in the first runnings of the process. He will have to run things which are relatively close in to the preclear, then proceed to things which are middle distance and then things which are further from the preclear.

A great deal of good common sense is needed here, and a great deal of two-way comm is necessary to get some idea of whether or not the preclear thought it was real.

Thus the earliest commands of Connectedness should probably be the preclear’s nose and the auditor’s hand; the arm of the preclear’s chair and the button on the auditor’s shirt; the button on the preclear’s shirt and his own left hand, et cetera. Further, the auditor is only asking him to get the idea of making the thing connect with him, not to make the thing connect with him, otherwise he will have the preclear being yanked all over the room.

Control Trio, Trio and Responsibility are actually only complications on top of Connectedness, but they themselves have their own particular peculiar virtues, and a preclear who can actually run straight, old-time Trio, “Look around here and find something you could have,” can get a very long way on that process all by itself.

Control Trio is actually a three-stage process on a heavy spotting control. It runs in this fashion. “Get the idea that you can have that (object).” And when this is relatively flat, “Get the idea of making that (object) remain where it is,” (or continue where it is) and “Get the idea of making that (object) disappear.” This is actually a very fine process and undercuts (runs on a lower case than) Trio itself.

Old-time Trio is extremely good, however, and is not to be underrated in any way. You can run a whole three-week intensive on this if the preclear can do it. The commands are: “Look around here and find something you could have.” And when that is somewhat flat, “Look around here and find something you would permit to remain,” and then “Look around here and find something you would permit to disappear.” These are run in relationship to each other. In other words, all three of them are run in the same session. Sometimes a preclear will run the third command two hundred and fifty times before he can get either of the other two commands with any reality at all.

Responsibility is another process just like Trio and actually has its three commands, too. “Look around here and find something you could be responsible for.” “Look around here and find something you don’t have to be responsible for.” “Look around here and find something you would permit somebody else to be responsible for.”

The emphasis here is “You look,” “You connect,” “You make” in any of these processes, and the “You” should be entered into the old commands to make the thing as causative as possible.

Although we cover this rather briefly, this is probably the most effective section of Clear Procedure. The whole trick is to get the preclear to actually do it. It does no good for a preclear to run these processes with no reality. It does no good for a preclear to run these processes with no ARC between himself and the auditor. But it does a lot of good to get these processes run.

Basically TR TEN, “You notice that (object),” is a fundamental process on connectedness. It will be discovered that unless the preclear is actually able to look at a few things he will not be able to get an idea about them, too. Furthermore, it will be discovered that there is a process called Short Spotting, wherein the auditor has the preclear spot things that are very close to him. The only thing wrong with Short Spotting is that the auditor must give the preclear things to spot which the preclear can actually see with his eyes. If the preclear cannot see these things with his eyes there is not much use in having him spot them as it will run down his havingness and add to an uncertainty.

Havingness of an objective variety, namely Trio, is one of the greatest processes ever invented. Do not lose sight of this fact. The process can do things that no other process can do. There may be some factors kicking around in Havingness which are not entirely understood and which are not entirely connected with Connectedness. However, it has been found that Connectedness will put a preclear in a condition where he can eventually run Havingness. Therefore, Connectedness undercuts and possibly even overpasses Havingness in general.

This process of Connectedness can also be run outside. It can be run on people. It can be run on a certain type of object. It can be used to familiarize a pilot with his airplane and a driver with his car. It can be used to increase ARC between the preclear and the world around him by letting him run it in a heavily populated area or upon a busy street and using bodies. Here we have one of the more interesting processes to run in terms of cognition, because it undoes so much basic association. If your preclear is not cogniting while running Connectedness you can be very sure of the fact that somewhere along the line you have not given him a reality and you should flatten it off gracefully and start the intensive all over again.

STEP SIX

Creative Processing

Read and understand Scientology 8-8008 and “Electropsychometric Auditing,” and use an E-Meter throughout the auditing.

The first step on this in some cases is conquering black “field” and invisible “field.” This is done by a repair of havingness over black masses and then invisible masses, run even if the pc goes unconscious. This means that you continue to audit him even if he goes unconscious and you use the same command and pay no attention to his unconsciousness. You continue just as though he were wide awake. When field is cleared up, start on a gradient scale of mock-ups and get pc able to mock things up. Then run “Keep it from going away” until flat on mock-ups. Then run “Hold it still” on mock-ups. Then run “Make it more solid” on mock-ups. All this until pc really has fine, solid mock-ups. Typical command, “Mock up a      and keep it from going away. Thank you.” RULE: A PC’S FACSIMILES ARE NOT STORED, THEY ARE MADE IN THE INSTANT AND UNMADE BY THE PC, therefore remedy of mock-ups AND THEIR PERSISTENCE, is actually a direct route to clear and winds up with no obsessive mock-up making (which we call a bank). A valuable side process here: “Decide to make a mock-up. Decide that will ruin the game. Decide not to do it.” Also this one: “Decide to make a mock-up everyone can see. Decide that would ruin the game. Decide not to do it.” A TOTAL REMEDY OF MOCK-UPS WOULD MAKE A BOOK ONE CLEAR.

STEP SEVEN

(Optional)

Establish the preclear’s control over his “bank.” “Mock up a facsimile and (keep it from going away, and when that is flat, hold it still, and when that is flat, make it a little more solid).” Run this alternately with “Mock up that wall (keep it from going away, hold it still, make it a little more solid).” Run the “Keep it from going away” on a facsimile one command, then the wall one command, until flat, then shift to “Hold it still” same way, then shift to “Make it more solid,” same way.

STEP EIGHT

Make Some Time

See Dianetics ‘55!, Chapter XV.

AN INTENSIVE IN BRIEF FOR PRACTICAL USE

GOAL: Operating Thetan.

DEFINITION: An Operating Thetan is one who can be knowingly at cause over Life, Matter, Energy, Space and Time.

CCH 0 in brief, find the auditor, find pc, find auditing room, clear help and goals. BUT IN THE MAIN HANDLE THE PT PROBLEM IF IT EXISTS. IF IT DOESN’T EXIST do CCH 0 briefly and quickly and get on with the session.

It will be noted that giving pc’s attention to auditing room or environment can turn on a somatic after three or four commands. After one command of “Have you got an auditing room?” this becomes a process called LOCATIONAL. If Locational turns on a somatic it must be run until somatic is flat. Therefore, the auditor has no business attempting Locational or getting the pc involved unless he intends to do something about it.

Present Time Problem

The preclear is put on an E-Meter before PT problem is discussed. When the E-Meter has been adjusted (one-third of a dial surge when pc squeezes cans), the auditor asks if the pc has a present time problem. After a little discussion of this, the needle may surge. If it does, the auditor locates the PT problem’s most intimate terminal and runs (with the pc still holding the cans) “Invent something worse than (indicated terminal)” until the problem flattens out on the dial. The auditor can ask for and run another PT problem or even three or four, but always flattening down the surge of the needle. IF THE PC IS 50% below the center line of the APA, it is not safe to run “Invent.” Instead, without scouting around “Invent,” but knowing the graph in the first place, simply two-way comm the problem and run Locational until the problem flattens out on the needle. The auditor does not begin with “Invent” and then change his mind and run Locational. It is an “either-or.” The auditor starts with “Invent” or he starts with Locational and whichever he does he does not change. IF LOCATIONAL TURNS ON A SOMATIC IT MUST BE RUN UNTIL LOCATIONAL NO LONGER TURNS ON SOMATICS.

Once the PT problem is flat the auditor puts away the E-Meter.

S-C-S Steps

S-C-S begins with 8-C of any kind. If 8-C turns on a somatic, the auditor runs it until it no longer turns on somatics. 8-C is run formal or Tone 40.

Start is then run as per 1956.

Change is then run as per 1956.

Stop is then run as per 1956.

If each of these is flattened in turn, it does not mean that S-C-S is flat. It means only that Start is probably unflattened. Thus one again runs Start after Stop, runs Change after Start, Stop after Change until none of the three unflatten the others.

More 8-C can be run. There is no error in liberally running 8-C, which is, after all, a more complicated Locational of a Short Spotting sort.

Spotting Steps

Spotting itself is a broad process. Locational is only one of many spotting processes. Spotting spots in the past, in space, in the present, Short Spotting (Locational done up close) are all effective.

SPOTTING DEPENDS FOR ITS WORKABILITY ON THE DISLIKE OF A THETAN OF BEING LOCATED. IT RUNS BEST, of course, WITH THE THETAN AT CAUSE DOING THE SPOTTING.

Connectedness is the basic process on ASSOCIATION of Theta with Mest. All forms and kinds of association, including being caught in traps, are prone to become identifications as in Dianetics. Connectedness puts the thetan at cause in making the Mest (or people when run outside) connect with him. The command is “Get the idea of making (indicated object) connect with you.” The auditor points. The worse off a person is, the less reality he has on far objects.

Havingness is a complicated Connectedness. Also a permissive one. Thus Trio is above Connectedness and may be used when Connectedness is flat. 

[The above is the complete text of Scientology: Clear Procedure-Issue One which has been available as a small paperback booklet and is referred to as a book or booklet in various issues.]

B O A R D  T E C H N I C A L  B U L L E T I N

9 OCTOBER 1971R ISSUE IV
REVISED 12 MARCH 1974
CANCELS & REVISES
Remimeo	HCO BULLETIN OF 9 OCTOBER 1971
Level II	ISSUE IV
Checksheets
Auditor Drills Series 4R

DRILLS FOR AUDITORS
LEVEL 2 PROCESS 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 TR200- are level two drills. Unbullbaited drills and with odd numbers, and bullbaited end in even numbers. Where an odd number seems to be skipped, this indicates only the bullbaited drill is done.

Most of the drills are done within the basic format of the bullbaited and unbullbaited drills, as in the front of this peck; those that do not have their own training stress, position, etc. These are totally drilled out, as you reach them in the pack.

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, end can apply it flawlessly, even with distractions.

If a student has trouble on a drill locate whether the student has a misunderstood or has a skipped gradient and handle either or both with standard study tech. This can lead back to outnesses on basics such as TRs, Codes Or Scales; wnatever it is find out why and handle.

ALWAYS COACH ON A GRADIENT. And build them up to get them tough!

When the student is very familiar with a drill the speed should be increased.

NOTE: If coach upset because of restimulation, fruit words should be inserted in the place of the process key words for bullbelted drills onlv.

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 suditing 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 an 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 To 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. Coach watches Drill & points out any outnesses noted giving a that’s it & restart. Outnesses should be handled one at a time until none exist.

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! Attestation by student is per Superliterate Fast Flow policies.

FORMAT TO BE USED FOR BULLBAITED DRILLS:

NAME: Auditing Bullbaited.

COMMANDS: As for each separate auditing action.

PURPOSE: To train the student to be able to coordinate nnd 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/gullbaiter who gives answers as pc, not about his own case.

TRAINING STRESS: The drill is the same as for auditing on e doll except that the pc coach bullbaits the student auditor, using “fruit” answers during the session in an attempt to throw the student off session. On any list the cosch 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 reeds.

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.

An example is, on a Listing end Nulling procedure sn out of sessionness is observed, the auditor queries and follows through with an L4B at once. (An L4B is a repair list.)
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 suditor to carry it out, and handle the situation before the coach calls a new situation.

Stress is on training the student auditor to have his 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 t 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.” ARE.)

When the student auditor has done these steps to his satisfaction he attests as per Fast Flow policies for Superliterates. 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.

TR 200-1 R2-22 VIEWPOINT STRAIGHTWIRE - UNBULLBAITED
TR 200-2 R2-25 VIEWPOINT STRAIGHWIRE - BULLBAITED
Ref. Creation of Human Ability - R2-25

STEPS:

1. 	R-Factor to pc: “We are going to run a process called “R2-25 Viewpoint Straightwire”.

2. 	Clear all words & commands each one as you get to it. Tell pc you are going to run the first flow.

3. 	Say to your pc “This is the process.”

4. 	Give the 1st command of Flow One: “Give me some things which it would be comfortable for you to look at.”

5. 	Run it repetitively to EP. (F/N, COG & VGIs.)

6. 	Now give pc R-Factor you sre going to run the second command of Flow One. Clear the command.

7. 	Give the 2nd Command of Flow: “Give me some emotions it would be all right for you to look at.” Run as in Step 5.

8. 	Give R-Factor to pc you are going to run the 3rd Command of Flow 1. Clear the command.

9. 	Give the 3rd Commend of Flow One: “Give me some efforts it would be all right for you to look at.” Run as in Step 5.

10. 	The Auditor must make sure the pc is absolutely certain he is comfortable in viewing such objects. The process fails when the Auditor is incapable of pressing the preclear until this certainty is attained.

11. 	Give your pc the R-Factor you will now run Flow 2 clear the first command of Flow 2 - (Commands given below).

12. 	Say, “This is the process”, and run as in Step 5.

13. 	Follow the same steps for flow two as in steps 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10.
	F2 COMMANDS:

	“Give me some things which it would be comfortable for another to look at.” to F/N, Cog, VGIs.

	“Give me some emotions it would be all right for another to look at.” to F/N, Cog, VGIs.

	“Give me some efforts it would be all right for another to look at.” to F/N, Cog, VGIs.
14. 	Give R-Factor to pc you will now run Flow Three. Clear the first command of Flow Three. (Commands given below.

15. 	Follow the same steps for Flow Three as given in Steps 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10

	F3 COMMANDS:

	“Give me some things which it would be comfortable for others to look at,” to F/N, Cog VGIs.

	“Give me some emotions it would be all right for others to look at.” to F/N, Cog, VGIs.

	“Give me some efforts it would be all right for others to look at,” to F/N, Cog, VGIs.

DRILL FOR R2-25 VIEWPOINT ARC STRAIGHWIRE:

16. 	Give pc R-Factor that you are now going to run a process called “Viewpoint ARC Straightwire”.

17. 	Follow Steps 2 through 15 using the commends of Viewpoint ARC S/W as given below:

	R2-25 VIEWPOINT ARC STRAIGHTWIRE:

F-1 	“Who would it be all right to have like you?” Repetitively to F/N, COG, VGIs.

	“Who would it be all right to have agree with you?” Repetitively to F/N, COG, VGIs.

	“Who would it be all right to have communicate with you?” Repetitively to F/N, COG, VGIs.

F-2 	“Who would it be all right for you to like?” Repetitively to F/N, COG, VGIs.

	“Who would it be all right for you to agree with?” Repetitively to F/N, COG, VGIs.

	“Who would it be all right for you to communicate with?” Repetitively to F/N, COG, VGIs.

F-3 	“Who would it be all right for others to have like them?” Repetitively to F/Nt COG, VGIs.

	“Who would it be all right for others to have agree with them?” Repetitively to F/N, COG, VGIs.
	“Who would it be all right for others to have communicate with them?” Repetitively to F/N, COG, VGIs.

TR200-3 ADDITIONAL HAS PROCESSES - HAS VIII UNBULLBAITED
TR200-4 ADDITIONAL HAS PROCESSES - HAS VIII BULLBAITED
Ref. HCOB 19 Jan 61 ADDITIONAL HAS PROCESSES

STEPS:

1. 	Give R-Factor to “pa” you are going to run 8 process called “HAS VIII”.

2. 	Clear all words and clear each command as you get to it.

3. 	Clear the Flow One Commend & say “This is the process.” (Commands below.)
4. 	Run the process alternately to F/N, Cog & VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog.

	F1 COMMANDS:

	“Get the idea of people making you friendly,”
	“Get the idea of people making you unfriendly.”

5. 	R-Factor to pc you are now going to run Flow Two of HAS VIII.

6. 	Clear the F2 commands & run as in Steps 4 & 5. F2 COMMANDS:

	“Get the idea of making people friendly.”
	“Get the idea of making people unfriendly.”

7. 	R-Factor to pc you are now going to run Flow 5 of HAS VIII.

8. 	Clear the Flow Three commands & run as in Steps 4 & 5, F3 COMMANDS:

	“Get the idea of people making other people friendly.”
	“Get the idea of people making other people unfriendly,”

TR 200-5 MELBOURNE 3 UNBULLBAITED
TR 200-6 MELBOURNE 3 BULLBAITED
Refs. 	HCOB 4 Dec 59 ALLOWED PROCESSES 1ST MELBOURNE ACC 
	HCOB 6 Mar 59 HOW TO DO A DIAGNOSIS IN DYN SW PAB 155

STEPS:

1. 	Give pc R-Factor you are going to run a process called “Melbourne 3”.

2. 	First you will be doing e Dynamle Assessment, Tell pc, “First I’m going to ask you some questions.”

3. 	Clear all words; include “Describe” & “Terminal”. Be sure to catch any reads or Tone Arm action while you are clearing the words, especially on the Dynamics.

4. 	Now you will do an assessment by Tone Arm action per E-Meter Drill 23.

5. 	Ask pc to describe his First Dynamic to you. Note Tone Arm behavior.

6. 	You are looking for an area that the pc can’t describe or makes mistakes one is not sensible about or that he won’t approach.
7. 	Repeat the above with each of the Dynamics, as per Step 5 & 6.

8. 	When pc has finished describing the Dynsmics to you - take up the Dynamic with the most Tone Arm action gotten either on clearing the Dynsmics or on pc itsa and say to the pc, “Tell me some terminals on the Dynamic.”

9. 	Watch your meter for reads. (Coach can simulate reads.)

10. 	You are looking for terminal(s) that doesn’t belong on the Dynamic he is talking about at all. For example: A mountain on the 7th Dyn.

11. 	If the Dynamic the pc is talking about F/Ns on this 2 way comm, don’t take it any further.

12. 	When you have your items, give pc R-Factor you are now going to run the process called Melbourne Three. NOTE: Never run a sensible item. (See PAB 155.)
13. 	Clear all words & clear each flow as you get to it,

14. 	Clear the Flow One command (given below) & say to your pc, “This is the process”.

15. 	Run the commands alternately to F/N, Cog & VGIs indicating the F/N after Cog.

16. 	Repeat Steps 13, 14 & 15 for Flows 2 & 3.

	COMMANDS:

F-1 	“What part of a (Terminal) could you confront?”
	“What part of a (Terminal) would you rather not confront?”
	Alternately to F/Ns COG, VGIs.

F-2 	“What part of a (Terminal) could another confront?”
	“What part of a (Terminal) would another rather not confront?”
	Alternately to F/N, COG, VGIs.

F-3 	“What part of a (Terminal) could others confront?”
	“What part of a (Terminal) would others rather not confront?” 
	Alternately to F/N, COG, VGIs.

TR 200-7 RFPETITIVE CONFRONT PROCESS UNBULLBAITED
TR 200-8 REPETITIVE CONFRONT PRQCESS BULLBAITED
Ref. HCOB 8 Mar 62 “THE BAD AUDITOR”

STEPS:

1. 	Give R-Factor to your pc that you are going to run a process called “Repetitive Confront Process”.

2. 	Tell your pc that this process has 10 commands.

3. 	Clear all words and clear the commands.

4. 	Say to pc, “This is the process,” and run the commands alternately & repetitively until the pc has F/N, COG, VGIs. 

	COMMANDS:

1. 	“What could you confront?”
2. 	“What would you permit another to reveal?”
3. 	“What might another confront?”
4. 	“What might another permit you to reveal?”
5. 	“What would you rather not confront?”
6.	“What would you rather not have another reveal?”
7. 	“What might another hate to confront?”
8. 	“What might another object to your revealing?”
9. 	“What should be confronted?”
10. 	“What shouldn’t anyone ever have to confront?”

TR 200-9   CONTINUOUS CONFRONT UNBULLBAITED
TR 200-10 CONTINUOUS CONFRONT BULLBAITED
Ref. HCOB 14 July 60 CURRENT R/D CONCEPT HELP

STEPS:

1. 	Tell your pc you are going to run e process called “Continuous Confront”.

2. 	Clear all words & clear each Flow as you come to it. (Commands below.)

3. 	Say to pc, “This is the process and run the Flow to F/N, COG & VGIs, indicating the F/N after COG.

	COMMANDS:

F-1 	“What could you continue to confront?”
	“What would you rather not continue to confront?”
	Alternately to F/N, COG, VaIs.

F-2 	“What could another continue to confront?” 
	“What would another rather not continue to confront?” 
	Alternately to F/N, CCG, VGIs.

F-3 	“What could others continue to confront?” 
	“what would others rather not continue to confront?” 
	Alternately to F/N, COG, VGIs.

TR 200-11 VIEWPOINT STRAIGHTWIRE UNBULLBAITED
TR 200-12 VIEWPOINT STRAIGHWIRE BULLBAITED
Ref. PHOENIX LECTURES

STEPS:

1. 	Tell your pc, you are going to run a process called “Viewpoint Straightwire”.

2. 	Clear all words and clear all the commands.
3. 	Say to pc, “This is the process.”

4. 	Run the commands 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, repetitively to F/N, Cog & VGIs, indicating the F/N after Cog & VGIs. 

	COMMANDS:

1. 	“Tell me something you wouldn’t mind knowing.”
2. 	“Tell me something you wouldn’t mind looking at.”
3. 	“Tell me an emotion you wouldn’t mind observing.”
4. 	“Tell me some effort you wouldn’t mind observing.”
5. 	“Tell me some thinking which you wouldn’t mind observing.”
6. 	“Tell me some symbols which you wouldn’t mind seeing.”
7. 	“TeIl me some eating which you wouldn’t mind inspecting.”
8. 	“Tell me some sex which you wouldn’t mind looking at.” 

	Run 1-8 repetitively to F/N, COG, VGIs.

TR 200-13 WORRY PROCESS UNBULLBAITED
TR 200-13 WORRY PROCESS BULLBAITED

STEPS:

1. 	Give an R-Factor to your pc you are going to run a process called “Worry Process”.

2. 	Clear all words and clear each Flow as you come to it.

3. 	Say to pc, “This is the process and run each Flow repetitively to F/N, COG & VGIs indicating F/N after Cog. 

	COMMANDS:

F-1 	“Get the Idea of another worrying something.”
	“Get the idea of another not worrying something.”
	“Get the idea of something being worrisome to another.”

F-2 	“Get the idea of worrying something.”
	“Get the idea of not worrying something.”
	“Get the idea of something being worrisome.”

F-3 	“Get the idea of others worrying something,”
	“Get the idea of others not worrying something.”
	“Get the idea of something being worrisome to others.” 

	Peoples animals, things can be used in place of “something” (SPECIFIC ITEMS MUST READ).

4. 	Give pc R-Factor you will now run the second part of the worry process.

5. 	Handle as in Steps 2 and 3. 
	COMMANDS:

F-1 	“Get the ides of another attacking something.”
	“Get the idea of another not attacking something. n

F-2 	“Get the idea of attacking something.”
	“Get the idea of not attacking something.”

F-3 	“Get the idea of others attacking something.”
	“Get the idea of others not attacking something.”

TR 200-15 CRITICISM STRAIGHWIRE UNBULLBAITED
TR 200-16 CRITICISM STRAIGHTWIRE BULLBAITED
Ref. HCOB 13 Oct AD9, A USEFUL PROCESS

STEPS:

1. 	R-Factor we are going to run a process called “Criticism Straightwlre”.

2. 	Clear all words, Clear the commands each flow when you get to it.

3. 	Run each flow alternately to F/N~ Cog & VGIs indicating the F/N efter Cog.
4. 	NOTE: On these Recall Commands when pc has indicated he has carried out the command, ask the pc “What was it?” (unless pc already told you). This keeps the Itsa Line in from pc to Auditor. Ref. HCOB 30 June 62.

	COMMANDS:

F-1 	“Recall another being critical of you.”
	“Recall another withholding criticism of you.”
	Alternately to F/N, COG, VGIs.

F-2 	“Recall being critical.”
	“Recall withholding criticism.”
	Alternately to F/N, COG, VGIs.

F-3 	“Recall another being criticial of others.”
	“Recall another withholding criticism of others.”
	Alternately to F/Ns COG, VGIs.

TR200-17 REVELATION PROCESS X2 UNBULLBAITED
TR200-18 REVELATION PROCESS X2 BULLBAITED
Ref. HCOB 15 Mar 62, SUPPRESSORS

STEPS:

1. 	Give pc R-Factor you are going to run a process celled “Revelation Process X2”.

2. 	Clear all words. Clear commands of each flow as you get to it. (Commands below.)

3. 	Run each flow to F/N, COG & VGIs, indicating the F/N after Cog. 
	
	COMMANDS:

F-1 	“What wouldn’t you want another to present to you?”
	“What has another presented to you?” 
	Alternately to F/N, COG, VGIs.

F-2 	“What wouldn’t another want you to present?” 
	“What have you presented to another?” 
	Alternately to F/N, COG, VGIs.

F-3 	“What wouldn’t another want another to present?” 
	“What has another presented to another?” 
	Alternately to F/N, COG, VGIs.

TR200-19 RECALL A SECRET UNBULLBAITED
TR200-20 RECALL A SECRET BULLBLITED
Ref. PAB 146

STEPS:

1. 	Tell pc you are going to run a process called “Recall a Secret”.

2. 	Clear all words, clear the command “Recall a Secret”. When pc has indicated he has carried out the command ask the pc ‘What was it?” unless pc already told you. This keeps the itss line in from pc to auditor, Ref HCOB 30 June 62,

3. 	Run to F/N, COG & VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog. (Ref: PAB 146)

4. 	Auditor makes up a list of valences, paying great attention to those the preclear considers “unimportant” or is very slow to divulge, The auditor takes this list snd runs repetitive straightwire on all reading items in descending order of reads.

5. 	Run as in Steps 2 & 3 for Flow 1, 2 & 3 given below. 

	COMMANDS:

F-1 	“Think of something (valence) might withhold from you.” 
	Repetitive to F/N, COG, VGIs.

F-2 	“Think of something you might withhold from (valence),” 
	Repetitive to F/N, COG, VGIs.

F-3 	“Think of something (valence) might withheld from others.” 
	Repetitive to F/N, COG, VGIs.

TR200-21 O/W FLOWS PROCESS UNBULLBAITED
TR200-22 O/W FLOWS PROCESS BULLBAITED
Ref. HCOB 25 Jan 72 FLOW PROCESS

STEPS:

1. 	Tell pc you are going to be running a Grade II Process.

2. 	Clear all words and clear each flow as you come to it.

3. 	Say to the pc “This is the process” and run each flow repetitively to F/N, COG & VGIs indicating F/N after Cog.

	COMMANDS:

F-1 	“What had to be outflowed?”
	“What had to be withheld?”
	“What had to be inflowed?”
	“What had to be held off?”

	Run 1-2-5-4-1-2-3-4-etc. to F/N, COG, VGIs.

F-2 	“What had to be outflowed by another?” 
	“What had to be withheld by another?” 
	“What had to be inflowed by another?” 
	“What had to be held off by another?”

	Run 1-2-3-4-1-2-3-4-etc. to F/N, Cog, VGIs.

F-3 	“What had to be outflowed by others?” 
	“What had to be withheld by others?” 
	“What had to be inflowed by others?” 
	“What had to be held off by others?”

	Run 1-2-3-4-1-2-3-4-etc. to F/N, COG, VGIs.

TR200-25 DYNAMIC STRAIGHTWIRE UNBULLBAITED
TR200-24 DYNAMIC STRAIGHTfIRE BULLBAITED
Refs. 	HCOB 6 Mar 59  HOW TO DO A DIAGNOSIS IN DYNAMIC 
			    STRAIGHTW IRE
	HCOB 16 Feb 59 HGC PROCESSES FOR THOSE TRAINED IN ENGRAM 			     RUNNING OR TRAINED IN THESE PROCESSES
	Staff auditors conference of 16 Feb 59.
	PAB 155

STEPS:

1. 	Tell your pc you are going to run a process called “Dynamic Straightwire”.

2. 	You will be doing a dynamic assessment as given in TR200-5, (Or if there were any terminals not run in TR200-5 these can be used here.)

3. 	Follow steps 2-11 as given in TR200-5.

4. 	When you have your item(s) give pc R-Factor you are now going to run the process called “Dynamic Straightwire”.

5. 	Clear all words & clear each Flow as you get to it.

6. 	Say to your pc “This is the process and run the commends alternately to F/N, COG & VGI, indicating the F/N after Cog.

	COMMANDS:

F-1 	“Thlnk of something _____has done to you.”
	“Think of something has withheld from you.” 

F-2 	“Think of something you have done to _____.”
	“Think of something you have withheld from _____.” 

F-3 	“Think of something _____has done to others.”
	“Think of something _____has withheld from others.”

TR 200-25 O/W STRAIGHTWIRE & SELECTED PERSONS S/W 	          	 	      UNBULLBAITED
TR 200-26 O/W STRAIGHTWIRE & SELECTED PERSONS S/W
	      BULLBAITED
Refs. 	HCOB 11 June 59 LOCATION OF TERMINALS 
	HCOB 3 Feb 59 HCO CURRENT PROCEDURE 
	HCOB 24 Feb 59 TECHNICAL HCOB 
	HCOB 3 July 59 GENERAL INFORMATION 
	PAB 155

STEPS:

1. 	Tell your pc you’re going to run a Grade 2 process.

2. 	Follow Steps 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11 of TR 200-5 (Dynamic Assessment).

3. 	Give R-Factor you will fleer some words (clear all words) & the F1 Commands.

4. 	Say to your pc “This is the Process.”

5. 	Give pc the F1 Command:

F-1 	“Think of something _____has done to you.”
	“Think of something _____has withheld from you.”

	Run alternately to F/N COG VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog.
	When pc has indicated he has carried out the command ask the pc “What was it” unless pc already told you. This keeps the itsa line in from pc to auditor. Ref. HCOB 3 June 62.

6. 	Follow steps 3, 4 & 5 for Flows 2 & 3.

	COMMANDS:

F-2 	“Recell something you have done to_____.”
	“Recall something you have withheld from_____.”

	Alternately to F/N COG VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog .

F-3 	“Recall something _____has done to others.”
	“Recall something _____has withheld from others.”

	Alternately to F/N, COG, VGIs indicating F/N after Cog.

TR 200-27 NOT-IS STRAIGHTWIRE UNBULLBAITED
TR 200-28 NOT-IS STRAIGHTWIRE BULLBAITED
Ref. 	HCOB 22 Jan 59 NOT-IS STRAIGHTWIRE
	HCOB 3 Feb 59 HGC CURRENT PROCEDURE
	HCOB 16 Feb 59 HGC PROCESSES FOR THOSE TRAINED
			     IN ENGRAM RUNNING GR TRAINED IN
			     THESE PROCESSES
	Staff Auditors’ Conference of 16 Feb 59.
	HCOB 3 July 59 GENERAL INFORMATION
	PAB 155

STEPS:

1. 	Tell your  pc you are going to run a process called “Not-is Straightwire”.

2. 	Clear all words & clear the first part commands.

3. 	Say to pc “This is the Process”.

4. 	Give pc the commands as below making sure you get “What was it” to his Answer. 

	COMMANDS:

	“Recall a time you implied something was unimportant.”
	“Recall a time somebody else thought something was important.”

	Run alternately to F/N, COG, VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog.

5. 	Give pc R-Factor you are going to run the second part of Not-Is Straightwire.
	(Ref: Staff Auditors’ Conference of 16 Feb 59)

6. 	Follow steps 2, 3 & 4 for the Commands given below.

	COMMANDS:

	“Recall a time when you thought something bad was unimportant.”
	“Recall a time somebody else thought something bad was important.” 

	Run alternately to F/N, COG, VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog.

7. 	Give pc R-Factor you are going to run the third part of Not-Is Straightwire. (Ref. Staff Auditors Conference of 16 Feb 59.)

8. 	Follow steps 2, 3 & 4 for the command:

	“Find something unimportant about this room.” 

	Run repetitively to F/N, COG, VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog.

TR200-29 O/W PROCESSES UNBULLBs.ITED
TR200-30 O/W PROCESSES BULLBAITED 
(Ref. 	HCOB 12 July 64 More on O/Ws )

STEPS:

1. 	Tell pc you are going to run a series of processes called “O/W Processes”.

2. 	Clear all words, clear each command as you get to it.

3. 	Say to your pc, “this is the process” and run each command repetitively to F/N, COG & VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog.

4. 	Follow the above procedure on all the following commands:

F-1 	“Tell me some things you think another should not have done to you.”
F-2	“Tell me some things you think you should not have done.”
F-3 	“Tell me some things others think they should not have done to others.” 
	ALSO
F-1 	“Tell me what another has done to you that got him/her into trouble.”
F-2 	“Tell me what you’ve done thst got you into trouble.”
F-3 	“Tell me what others heve done to others that got them into trouble.” 
	ALSO “What wouldn’t you do over again?” 
	ALSO “What are some things a person shouldn’t say?” 
	ALSO “What gets a person into trouble?” 
	ALSO
F-1 	“What has another done to you that he/she regrets?”
F-2 	“What have you done that you regret?”
F-3 	“What have others done to others that they regret?” 
	ALSO
F-1 	“What has another said to you he wishes he hadn’t?”
F-2 	“Whet have you said you wish you hadn’t?”
F-3 	“What have others said to others they wish they hadn’t?” 
	ALSO
F-1 	“What has another advised you to do?”
F-2 	“What heve you advised another to do?”
F-3 	“What have others advised others to do?”

TR200-31 UNIVERSE O/W S/W UNBULLBAITED
TR200-32 UNIVERSE OpW S/W BULLBAITED
Ref. HCOB 5 Oct 59 UNIVERSE PROCESS

STEPS:

1. 	Tell pc “We are going to run a process called ‘Universe O/W Straightwire’.”

2. 	Clear all words.

3. 	“The 1st step is an assessment. Clear the action of assessment briefly. Clear the words being assessed backwards.

4. 	During the assessment you don’t have to say anything.

5. 	Tell pc “This is the assessment. Assess on the meter: ‘Thetan, Mind, Body, Physical Universe’ to one reading item.

6. 	Tell pc “That completes the assessment.”

7. 	Tell pc “We will now run a process on some of those items.”

8. 	Follow Step 2 and clear-each flow as you come to it. (Command below.)
9. 	Say toyour pc, “This is the process”.

10. 	Using the assessed item run the process (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) etc to F/N, COG, VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog.

11. 	Use the same procedure for all items & flows.

12. 	Repeat Steps 9 & 10 with each reading assessment item in descending order of reads. 

	COMMANDS:

F-1 	“Recall something _____has done to you.”
	“Recall something _____has withheld from you.”

F-2 	“Recall something you have done to _____.”
	“Recall something you have withheld from _____.”

F-3 	“Recall something _____has done to others.”
	“Recall something _____has withheld from others.”

TR200-33 KNOW TO MYSTERY S/W UNBULLBAITED
TR200-34 KNOW TO MYSTERY S/W BULLBAITED
Ref. 	HCOB 17 Apr 59 KNOW TO MYSTERY STRAIGHTWIRE 
			     for extreme cases.
	HCOB 25 Sep 71, Rev 15 Nov 71 TONE SCALE IN FULL
1. 	Tell the pc “we are going to run a process called Know to Mystery Straightwlre”.

2. 	Use the Know to Mystery scale as given on HCOB - Tone Scale in full:

Know
Not Know
Know About
Look
Plus Emotion
Minus Emotion
Effort
Think
Symbols
Eat
Sex
Mystery
Wait
Unconscious
Unknowable

3. 	Clear “terminal,” ensure pc gets concept of a terminal being a person or an object, never a condition.

4. 	Clear “Unknowable”

5. 	Clear “What terminals could represent unknowable.”

6. 	Ask pc the question in No. 5. Note all his answers and the read on each. When pc has given as many as he wants, acknowledge. Do not push for more.

7. 	Clear recall as “remembering”.

8. 	Choose the biggest reading terminal found in step No. 6.

9. 	Clear commands; each Flow as you get to it.

F-1 	“Recall something_____ has done to you.”
	“Recall something _____has withheld from you.”

	Alternately to F/N, COG, VGIs.

F-2 	“Recall something you have done to_____”.
	“Recall something you have withheld from _____.”

	Alternately to F/N, COG, VGIs.

F-3 	“Recall something _____has done to others.”
	“Recall something _____has withheld from others.”

	Alternately to F/N, COG, VGIs.

10. 	Run the process using the terminal in No. 8, repetitively to F/N, COG, VGIs.

11. 	Choose the next biggest reading terminal found in Step No. 6.

12. 	Repeat steps 9 & 10 on it.

13. 	Handle all reading terminals found in No. 6 with steps 9 & 10.
14. 	When all terminals in No. 6 are handled concerning answers given to “Unknowable” take the next Higher level on the scale i.e. (Unconscious) and repeat steps No. 4-13.

15. 	Repeat Step No. 14 until one reaches Know and handles the terminals found.

NOTE: Clear minus emotion as lack or absence of emotion.
	Clear plus emotion as having or being emotional.

TR200-35 REGIMEN 6 O/W UNBULLBAITED
TR200-36 REGIMEN 6 O/W BULLBAITED
Ref. HCOB 6 Oct 60 THIRTY-SIX NEW PRESESSIONS
Additional References on 6th Dyn: 	HCOB 18 Aug 60 VITAL INFORMATION 
	HCOB 20 Oct 60 THEORY 67

STEPS:

1. 	Tell pc you are going to run a process called Regimen 6 O/W.

2. 	Clear all words. Clear each flow as you get to it.

3. 	First you will make a list of 6th Dynamlc terminals (not listing and nulling) by asking - “What terminals could represent the 6th dynamic?” (Clear the words FIRST then clear the command.)
4. 	Give the pc the command and when pc has given all he can think of run the reading terminals in descending order of read as follows.

5. 	Clear each Flow as you get to it.

6. 	Say to your pc, “This is the process”.

7. 	Give the commands:

F-1 	“Get the idea of ( terminal) doing something to you.”
	“Get the idea of (terminal) withholding something from you.” 

	Run alternately to F/N, COGS VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog & VGIs.

F-2 	“Get the idea of doing something to (terminal).”
	“Get the ides of withholding something.” 

	Run alternately to F/N, COG, VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog & VGIs.

F-3 	“Get the idea of others doing something to (terminal).”
	“Get the idea of others withholding something from (terminal),” 

	Run alternately to F/N, COG, VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog & VGIs.

8. 	Tell pc you are now going to run the next part of Regimen 6 O/W.

9. 	Clear words as necessary. Clear each Flow as you get to it.

	COMMANDS:

F-1 	“What has (terminal) done to you?”
	“Whet has (terminal} withheld from you?” 

	Run alternately to F/N, COG, VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog.

F-2 	“What have you done to (terminal)?”
	“What have you withheld from (terminal)?” 

	Run alternately to F/N, COG, VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog.

F-3 	“What have others done to (terminal)?”
	“What have others withheld from (terminal)?” 

	Run alternately to F/N, COG, VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog.

10. 	Tell pc you are now going to run the next part of Regimen 6 O/W.

11. 	Follow Step 9 for the following commands:

F-1 	“Get the idea of (terminal) having done something to you.”
	“Get the idea of (terminal) having withheld something from you.” 

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog.

F-2 	“Get the idea of having done something to (terminal).
	“Get the idea of having withheld something from (terminal).” 

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog.
F-3 	“Get the idea of others having done something to (terminal).”
	“Get the idea of others having withheld something from (terminal).” 

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog.

TR200-37 O/W PROCESS ON PROBLEM PERSONS UNBULLBAITED
TR200-38 O/W PROCESS ON PROBLEM PERSONS BULLBAITED
Ref. HCOB 54 Apr 60 NEW PE DATA

STEPS:

1. 	Tell pc you are going to run a Grade II Process.

2. 	Clear all words.

3. 	Clear the command, “What persons do you have problems about?” (Person is changed to persons to eliminate possibility of pc running this as an L&N type list.)

4. 	Note down all persons & reads.

5. 	Clear words & commands, (given below) each Flow as you get to it.

6. 	Say to your pc, “This is the process.”

7. 	Run the following on each reading item in descending order of rends:

F-1 	“What has _____done to you?”
	“What has _____withheld from you?” 

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog.

F-2 	“What have you done to_____?”
	‘What have you withheld from_____?”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog.
F-3 	“What has _____done to others?”
	“What has _____withheld from others?” 

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog.

8. 	Tell your pc you are now going to run the second part of this process.

9. 	Clear words end command:
	“What part of your life have you been responsible for?” 

	And run repetitive to F/N, COG VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog.

TR200-39 BEST RESPONSIBILITY PROCESS UNBULLBAITED
TR200-40 BEST RESPONSIBILITY PROCESS BULLBAITED
Ref. 	HCOB 4 Feb 60 THEORY OF RESPONSIBILITY PROCESSING
	HCOB 11 Feb 60 CREATE AND CONFRONT

STEPS:
1. 	Tell your pc “We are going to run a Grade II Process.”

2. 	Clear all words. Clear each command es you get to it.
3. 	Do a Dyn Assessment as in TR200-5.

4. 	When pc has given his answers give him an R-Factor that you are going to run a process now.

5. 	Clear the commands each Flow as you get to it.

6. 	Say to your pc, “This is the process,” and give the command.
	
	COMMANDS:
	
7. 	Run
	
F-1 	“What has _____done to you?”
	“What has _____withheld from you?”

	Alternately to F/N, COG, VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog.

8. 	Run

F-2 	“What have you done to _____?” 
	“What have you withheld from _____?” 

	Alternately to F/N, COG, VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog.

9. Run

F-3 	“What has _____done to others?” 
	“What has _____withheld from others?” 

	Alternately to F/N, COG, VGIs; indicating F/N after Cog.

10. 	When a terminal has gone to EP on all 3 Flows, choose the terminal with the next largest read (if more than one listed in step 4. And follow steps 8, 9 & 10, until all reading terminals are handled.

	NOTE: If you have a non-reading item check it for read and run it only if it reads. DO NOT RUN A NON-READING ITEM. If an item has read when the pc said it, it does not need to be tested for read again.

11. 	When you have handled as in steps 5 & 6, choose the next area the pc cannot do (next longest reading item if more than one area was listed in step 2). If you have a non-reading item check it for read. DO NOT RUN A NON-READING ITEM, ( If no more items, ask for any more areas where pc cannot do)

12. 	Exhaust all items found in steps 5 & 6, and follow steps 7, 8, 9 & 10.

TR200-41 WITHHOLD PROCESS UNBULLBAITED
TR200-42 WITHHOLD PROCESS BULLBAITED
Ref. HCOB 14 July 60 CONCEPT HELP

STEPS:

1. 	Give R-Factor to your pc “We are going to run the Withhold Process”.

2. 	Clear words; clear each Flow as you get to it.

3. 	Tell the pc the process will be run repetitively. Run to F/N, COG, VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog.

4. 	Say to pc, “This is the process”.

5. 	Give the command: (One Flow at a time.)

F-1 	“What could you withhold?” 

	And run repetitively to F/N, COGs VGIs; indicating F/N after Cog.
F-2 	“What could another withhold?” 

	And run repetitively to F/N, coat VGIs; indicating F/N after Cog.
F-3 	“What could others withhold?” 

	And run repetitively to F/N, COG, VGIs; indicating F/N after Cog,

TR200-43 LOCATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY UNBULLBAITED
TR200-44 LOCATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BULLBAITED
Ref. SCIENTOLOGY CLEAR PROCEDURE, Issue I

STEPS:

1. 	Give R-Ractor to your pc “We are going to run a process called “Locational Responsibility”.

2. 	Clear all words. Clear each command as you get to it. (Commands below.)

3. 	Say to your pc, “This is the process” & give him the command & run repetitively. 

	COMMANDS

A. 	“Look around here and find something you could be responsible for” 

	to F/N, COG, VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog.

B. 	“Look around here and find something you don’t have to be responsible for.” 

	to F/N, COG, VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog.

C. 	“Look around here and find something you would permit somebody else to be responsible for.” 

	to F/N, COG, VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog.

TR200-45 LEVEL II - TRIPLES UNBULLBAITED
TR200-46 LEVEL II - TRIPLES BULLBAITED
Ref. 	HCOB 8 Aug 71 Issue II which Revised 
	HCOB 24 Jan 69 LOWER LEVEL TRIPLE GRADES

STEPS:

1. 	Give your pc an R-Factor you are going to run a process called, “Level Two Triple” 

2. 	Clear all words. Clear each flow as you get to it. (Commands below.)

3. 	Say to your pc, “This is the process” & give the command: 

	COMMANDS

F-1 	“What has another done to you?”
	“What has another withheld from you?” 

	Run alternately to EP.

F-2 	“What have you done to another?”
	“What have you withheld from another?” 

	Run alternately to EP.

F-3 	“What has another done to another?”
	“What has another withheld from another?” 

	Run alternately to EP.

TR200-47 HAVINGNESS UNBULLBAITED
TR200-48 HAVINGNESS BULLBAITED

STEPS:

1. 	Tell pc you are going to run a Level II Havingness Process.

2. 	Clear words as necessary. Clear each Flow as you come to it. (Commands given below.)

3. 	Say to the pc, “This is the process” & give the command: 

	COMMANDS:

F-1 	“Tell me a flow you could be interested in.” 

	Run repetitively to F/N, COG, VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog.

F-2 	“Tell me a flow another would be interested in?”

	Run repetitively to F/N, COG, VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog.
F-3 	“Tell me a flow another could get others interested in.” 

	Run repetitively to F/N, COG, VGIs, indicating F/N after Cog.

Revised & Reissued as BTB 
by FMO 1234 

I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis 
2nd: Molly Harlow 

Authorized by AVU 

for the 

BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
of the 
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

BDCS:SW:AL:SH:ntm 
Copyright © 1974 
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 

15  NOVEMBER 1976
ISSUE IV
Remimeo
CANCELS BTB 4 JANUARY 1972RB
“0-IV EXPANDED GRADE 
PROCESSES - TRIPLES
PART D GRADE 2 PROCESSES”

( Revisisions in italics )

0-IV EXPANDED GRADE PROCESSES - QUADS 
PART D 
GRADE 2 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.

1.	R2-25  Viewpoint and Viewpoint ARC Straightwire.
	(Ref:  Creation of Human Ability,  R2-25.)

VIEWPOINT:

F1.	“Give me some things which it would be comfortable for you to look at.”
	Repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

	“Give me emotions it would be all right for you to look at.”
	Repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

	“Give me some efforts it would be all right for you to look at.”
	Repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

NOTE: The auditor must make sure that the preclear is absolutely certain he is comfortable in viewing such objects.  The process fails when the auditor is incapable of pressing the preclear until this certainty is attained.

F2.	“Give me some things which it would be comfortable for another to look at.”
	Repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

	“Give me emotions it would be all right for another to look at.”
	Repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________
	“Give me some efforts it would be all right for another to look at.”
	Repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________
	
F3.	“Give me some things which it would be comfortable for others to look at.”
	Repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

	“Give me emotions it would be all right for others to look at.”
	Repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

	“Give me some efforts it would be all right for others to look at.”
	Repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F0.	“Give me some things about yourself which it would be comfortable for 
	you to look at.” Repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

	“Give me emotions of yours it would be all right for you to look at.”
	Repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

	“Give me some efforts of yours it would be all right for you to look at.”
	Repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

	ALSO

F1.	“Who would it be all right to have like you?”
	Repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

	“Who would it be all right to have agree with you?”
	Repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

	“Who would it be all right to have communicate with you?”
	Repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F2.	“Who would it be all right for you to like?”
	Repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

	“Who would it be all right for you to agree with?”
	Repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

	“Who would it be all right for you to have communicate with?”
	Repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F3.	“Who would it be all right for others to have like them?”
	Repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

	“Who would it be all right for others to agree with them?”
	Repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

	“Who would it be all right for others to have communicate with them?”
	Repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F0.	“What would it be all right for you to like about yourself?”
	Repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

	“What would it be all right for you to agree with about yourself?”
	Repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

	“What would it be all right to for to communicate about yourself?”
	Repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________
2.	ADDITIONAL HAS PROCESSES - HAS VIII
	(Ref:  HCOB 19 Jan 61 ADDITIONAL HAS PROCESSES)

F1.	“Get the idea of people making you friendly.”
	“Get the idea of people making you unfriendly.”
	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F2.	“Get the idea of you making people friendly.”
	“Get the idea of you making people unfriendly.”
	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F3.	“Get the idea of people making other people friendly.”
	“Get the idea of people making other people unfriendly.”
	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F0.	“Get the idea of making youself friendly.”
	“Get the idea of making yourself unfriendly.”
	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

3.	MELBOURNE 3
	(Ref:  HCOB 4 Dec 59 ALLOWED PROCESSES 1ST MELBOURNE ACC)

DO A DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT (Ref: HCOB 6 Mar 59,  How to Do a Diagnosis 
in Dynamic Straightwire.)

F1.	“What part of a (terminal) could another confront?”
	“What part of a (terminal) would another rather not confront?”
	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F2.	“What part of a (terminal) could you confront?”
	“What part of a (terminal) would you rather not confront?”
	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F3.	“What part of a (terminal) could others confront?”
	“What part of a (terminal) would others rather not confront?”
	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F0.	“What about yourself could you confront?”
	“What about yourself would you rather not confront?”
	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

4.	REPETITIVE CONFRONT PROCESS
	(Ref:  HCOB 8 Mar 62  THE “BAD” AUDITOR)

1.	“What could you confront?”
2.	“What would you permit another to reveal?”
3.	“What might another confront?”
4.	“What might another permit you to reveal?”
5.	“What would you rather not confront?”
6.	“What would you rather not have another reveal?”
7.	“What might another hate to confront?
8.	“What might another object to your revealing?”
9.	“What should be confronted?”
10.	“What shouldn’t anyone ever have to confront?”

	Run this process alternately repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________
5.	CONTINUOUS CONFRONT
	(Ref:  HCOB 14 July  CONCEPT HELP)
F1.	“What could another continue to confront about you?”
	“What would another rather not confront about you?”
	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F2.	“What could you continue to confront about another?”
	“What would you rather not confront about another?”
	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F3.	“What could others continue to confront about others?”
	“What would others rather not confront about others?”
	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F0.	“What could you continue to confront about youself?”
	“What would you rather not confront about yourself?”
	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

6.	VIEWPOINT STRAIGHTWIRE
	(Ref:  Phoenix Lectures.)

1.	“Tell me something you wouldn’t mind knowing.”
2.	“Tell me something you wouldn’t mind looking at.”
3.	“Tell me an emotion you wouldn’t mind observing.”
4.	“Tell me some effort you wouldn’t mind observing.”
5.	“Tell me some thinking you wouldn’t mind observing.”
6.	“Tell me some symbols you wouldn’t mind seeing.”
7.	“Tell me some eating you wouldn’t mind inspecting.”
8.	“Tell me some sex you wouldn’t mind looking at.”

	Run 1 through 8 repetitively to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

7.	WORRY PROCESS
	(Ref: HCOB 22 Dec 60  O/W A LIMITED THEORY)

F1.	“Get the idea of another worrying something.”

	“Get the idea of another not worrying something.”

	“Get the idea of something being worrisome to another.”

	Run alternately/repetitively to EP. (F/N, Cog, VGIs.)	_________

F2.	“Get the idea of worrying something.”

	“Get the idea of not worrying something.”

	“Get the idea of something being worrisome.”

	Run alternately/repetitively to EP. (F/N, Cog, VGIs.)	_________

F3.	“Get the idea of others worrying something.”

	“Get the idea of others not worrying something.”

	“Get the idea of something being worrisome to others.”

	Run alternately/repetitively to EP. (F/N, Cog, VGIs.)	_________

F0.	“Get the idea of worrying yourself about something.”
	“Get the idea of not worrying yourself about something.”

	“Get the idea of something being worrisome to yourself.”

	Run alternately/repetitively to EP. (F/N, Cog, VGIs.)	_________

NOTE: People, animals, things can be used in place of “something”.
	SPECIFIC ITEMS MUST READ.

	ALSO RUN

F1.	“Get the idea of another attacking you.”

	“Get the idea of another not attacking you.”

	Run alternately/repetitively to EP. (F/N, Cog, VGIs.)	_________

F2.	“Get the idea of attacking.”

	“Get the idea of not attacking.”

	Run alternately/repetitively to EP. (F/N, Cog, VGIs.)	_________

F3.	“Get the idea of others attacking something.”

	“Get the idea of others not attacking something.”

	Run alternately/repetitively to EP. (F/N, Cog, VGIs.)	_________

F0.	“Get the idea you of attacking yourself.”

	“Get the idea of you not attacking yourself.”

8.	CRITICISM STRAIGHTWIRE
	(Ref:  HCOB 13 Oct AD 9  A USEFUL PROCESS)

F1.	“Recall another being critical of you.”

	“Recall another withholding criticism of you.”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F2.	“Recall you being critical of another.”

	“Recall you withholding criticism of another.”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F3.	“Recall others being critical of others.”

	“Recall others withholding criticism of others.”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F0.	“Recall you being critical of yourself.”

	“Recall you withholding criticism of yourself.”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

9.	REVELATION PROCESS X 2
	(Ref:  HCOB 15 Mar AD 12  SUPPRESSORS)

F1.	“What wouldn’t you want another to present to you?”

	“What has another presented to you?”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F2.	“What wouldn’t another want you another to present?”

	“What have you presented to another?”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F3.	“What wouldn’t another want another to present?”

	“What has another presented to another?”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F0.	“What wouldn’t you want to present to yourself?”

	“What have you presented to yourself?”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

10.	RECALL A SECRET
	(Ref:  PAB 146)

	“Recall a secret.”  Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

11.	(Ref:  PAB 146)

	Auditor makes up a list of valences, paying great attention to those the preclear considers “unimportant” or is very slow to divulge.  The auditor takes this list and runs repetitive straightwire on all reading items in descending order of reads as follows:

F1.	“Think of something (valence) might withhold from you.”
	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F2.	“Think of something you might withhold from (valence).”
	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F3.	“Think of something (valence) might withhold from others.”
	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F0.	“Think of something you might withhold from yourself.”
	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

12.	O/W FLOWS PROCESS 8
	(Ref:  HCOB 25 Jan 62  FLOW PROCESS)

F1.	“What has another made you outflow?”
	“What has another made you withhold?”
	“What has another made you inflow?”
	“What has another made you hold off?”

	Run 1-2-3-4-1-2-3-4-etc. to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F2.	“What have you made you outflow?”
	“What have you made you withhold?”
	“What have you made you inflow?”
	“What have you made you hold off?”

	Run 1-2-3-4-1-2-3-4-etc. to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F3.	“What has another made others outflow?”
	“What has another made others withhold?”
	“What has another made others inflow?”
	“What has another made others hold off?”

	Run 1-2-3-4-1-2-3-4-etc. to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F2.	“What have you made yourself outflow?”
	“What have you made yourself withhold?”
	“What have you made yourself inflow?”
	“What have you made yourself hold off?”

	Run 1-2-3-4-1-2-3-4-etc. to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

13.	DYNAMIC STRAIGHTWIRE
	(Ref: HCOB 6 Mar 59  HOW TO DO A DIAGNOSIS IN DYNAMIC 	
		STRAIGHTWIRE
	       HCOB 16 Feb 59	HGC PROCESS FOR THOSE TRAINED IN 
		ENGRAM RUNNING
	       Staff Auditors Conference of 16 Feb 59  PAB 155)

	Run the following on terminals found per HCOB 6 Mar 59, in descending order of reads.

F1.	“Think of something _____ has done to you.”
	“Think of something _____ has withheld from you.”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F2.	“Think of something you has done to _____.”
	“Think of something you have withheld from _____ .”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F3.	“Think of something _____ has done to others.”
	“Think of something _____ has withheld from others.”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F0.	“Think of something you have done to yourself because of _____.”
	“Think of something you have withheld from yourself because of _____ .”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

14.	O/W STRAIGHTWIRE AND SELECTED PERSONS
	OVERT STRAIGHTWIRE
	Combined as commands for Quad are the same for both.

	(Ref:	HCOB 11 Jun 59  LOCATION OF TERMINALS
		HCOB   3 Feb 59  HCO CURRENT PROCEDURE
		HCOB 24 Feb 59  TECHNICAL HCOB
		HCOB   3 Jul  59  GENERAL INFORMATION
		PAB 155)

	Do a Dynamic Assessment and run reading terminals as follows in descending order of reads:

F1.	“Recall something _____ has done to you.”
	“Recall something _____ has withheld from you.”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F2.	“Recall something you has done to _____.”
	“Recall something you have withheld from _____ .”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F3.	“Recall something _____ has done to others.”
	“Recall something _____ has withheld from others.”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F0.	“Recall something you have done to yourself due to _____.”
	“Recall something you have withheld from yourself due to _____ .”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

15.	NOT-IS STRAIGHTWIRE
	(Ref:	HCOB 22 Jan 59  NOT-IS STRAIGHTWIRE
		HCOB   3 Feb 59 HGC CURRENT PROCEDURE
		HCOB 16 Feb 59 HGC PROCESSES FOR THOSE TRAINED
		                             IN ENGRAM RUNNING OR TRAINED IN
		                             THESE PROCESSES
		Staff Auditors Conference of 16 Feb 59
		HCOB   3 Jul 69  GENERAL INFORMATION
		PAB 155)

	“Recall something that you implied was unimportant.”
	“Recall something someone else thought was important.”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

16.	(Ref: Staff Auditors Conference of 16 Feb 59.)

	“Recall a time when you thought something bad was unimportant.”
	“Recall a time when somebody else thought something badwas important.”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

17.	(Ref: Staff Auditors Conference of 16 Feb 59.)

	“Find something unimportant about this room.”

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________
18.	O/W PROCESSES
	(Ref:  HCOB 12 Jul 64  MORE ON O/Ws)

F1.	“Tell me some things you think another should not have done to you.”

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F2.	“Tell me some things you think you should not have done to another.”

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F3.	“Tell me some things you think they should not have done to others.”

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F0.	“Tell me some things you think you should not have done to yourself.”

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

	ALSO

F1.	“Tell me what another has done to you that got him/her into trouble.”

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F2.	“Tell me what you’ve done to another that got him/her into trouble.”

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F3.	“Tell me what others have done to others that got them into trouble.”

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F0.	“Tell me what you’ve done that got you into trouble.”

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

	ALSO

	“What wouldn’t you do over again?”

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

	ALSO

	“What are some things a person shouldn’t say?”

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

	ALSO

	“What gets a person into trouble?”

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

	ALSO

F1.	“What has another done to you that he/she regrets?”
	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F2.	“What have you done to another that you regret?”

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F3.	“What have others done to others that they regret?”

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F0.	“What have you done to yourself that you regret?”

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

	ALSO

F1.	“What has another said to you he wishes he hadn’t?”

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F2.	“What have you said to another you wish you hadn’t?”

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F3.	“What have others said to others they wish they hadn’t?”

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F0.	“What have you said aboput yourself you wish you hadn’t?”

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

	ALSO

F1.	“What has another advised you to do?”

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F2.	“What have you advised another to do?”

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F3.	“What have others advised others to do?”

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F0.	“What have you advised yourself to do?”

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

19.	UNIVERSE O/W STRAIGHTWIRE
	(Ref:  HCOB 5 Oct 59  UNIVERSE PROCESSES)

	Assess:  Thetan, Mind, Body, Physical Universe.  Run the following on the reading items.

F1.	“Recall something _____ has done to you.”
	“Recall something _____ has withheld from you.”
	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F2.	“Recall something you have done to _____ .”
	“Recall something you have withheld from _____.”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F3.	“Recall something _____ has done to others.”
	“Recall something _____ has withheld from others.”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F0.	“Recall something you have done to yourself because of _____ .”
	“Recall something you have withheld from yourself because of _____.”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

20.	KNOW TO MYSTERY STRAIGHTWIRE
	(Ref:  HCOB 17 Apr 59  KNOW TO MYSTERY STRAIGHTWIRE 
		FOR EXTREME CASES
	          HCOB 25 Sep 71  TONE SCALE IN FULL
		Rev: 15 Nov 71
		Re-rev: 4 Apr 74)

	Use the Know to Mystery Scale as given on TONE SCALE IN FULL:

	KNOW
	NOT KNOW
	KNOW ABOUT
	LOOK
	PLUS EMOTION
	MINUS EMOTION
	EFFORT
	THINK
	SYMBOLS
	EAT
	SEX
	MYSTERY
	WAIT
	UNCONCIOUS
	UNKNOWABLE

	Get a list of “what terminals could represent ‘unknowable’?”  This is not Listing and Nulling.

	Run each terminal in order of descending reads as follows:

F1.	“Recall something _____ has done to you.”
	“Recall something _____ has withheld from you.”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F2.	“Recall something you have done to _____ .”
	“Recall something you have withheld from _____.”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F3.	“Recall something _____ has done to others.”
	“Recall something _____ has withheld from others.”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F0.	“Recall something you have done to yourself because of _____ .”
	“Recall something you have withheld from yourself because of _____.”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

	Then do the same as above on each line of the scale moving upwards.

21.	REGIMEN 6 O/W
	(Ref:  HCOB 6 Oct 60  THIRTY SIX NEW PRESESSIONS)

	Make a list of 6th Dynamic terminals (not listing and nulling) by asking - 
“What terminals could represent the 6th Dynamic?”  When pc has given all he can think of run the reading terminals in descending order of read as follows:

F1.	“Get the idea of (terminal) doing something to you.”
	“Get the idea of (terminal) withholding something from  you.”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F2.	“Get the idea of doing something to (terminal).”
	“Get the idea of withholding something from (terminal).”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F3.	“Get the idea of others doing something to (terminal).”
	“Get the idea of others withholding something from (terminal).”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F0.	“Get the idea of doing something to yourself because of (terminal).”
	“Get the idea of withholding something to yourself because of (terminal).”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

	ALSO

F1.	“Get the idea of (terminal) having done something to you.”
	“Get the idea of (terminal) having withheld something from  you.”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F2.	“Get the idea of having done something to (terminal).”
	“Get the idea of having withheld something from (terminal).”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F3.	“Get the idea of others having done something to (terminal).”
	“Get the idea of others having withheld something from (terminal).”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F0.	“Get the idea of having done something fromyourself because of (terminal).”
	“Get the idea of having withheld something from yourself because of (terminal).”
	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

	ALSO

22.	O/W PROCESS ON PROBLEM PERSONS
	(Ref:  HCOB 14 Apr 60  NEW PE DATA)

	Ask “what persons do you have problems about?”  Person is changed to
	persons to eliminate possibility of pc running this as an L & N type list.)

	Run the following on each reading item in descending order of reads:

F1.	“What has _____ done to you.”
	“What has _____ withheld from you.”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F2.	“What have you done to _____ .”
	“What have you withheld from _____.”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F3.	“What has _____ done to others.”
	“What has _____ withheld from others.”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F0.	“What have you done to yourself because of _____ .”
	“What have you withheld from yourself because of _____.”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

	Also the following responsibility process:

	“What part of your life have you been responsible for?”

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

23.	BEST RESPONSIBILITY PROCESS
	(Ref:	HCOB   4 Feb 60  THEORY OF RESPONSIBILITY PROCESSING
		HCOB 11 Feb 60  CREATE AND CONFRONT)

Locate an area where pc cannot do, is having trouble or cannot take responsibilty.  Find charged terminals that represent that area.  Run each reading terminal in descending or of reads as follows:

F1.	“What has _____ done to you.”
	“What has _____ withheld from you.”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F2.	“What have you done to _____ .”
	“What have you withheld from _____.”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F3.	“What has _____ done to others.”
	“What has _____ withheld from others.”
	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F0.	“What have you done to yourself because of _____ .”
	“What have you withheld from yourself because of _____.”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

24.	WITHHOLD PROCESS
	(Ref:  HCOB 14 Jul 60  CONCEPT HELP)

F1.	“What could you withhold from another?”	

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F2.	“What could another withhold from you?”	

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F3.	“What could others withhold from others?”	

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F0.	“What could you withhold from yourself?”	

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

25.	LOCATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
	(Ref:  SCIENTOLOGY CLEAR PROCEDURE, Iss I.)
	
	“You look around here and find something you could be responsible for.”

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

“You look around here and find something you don’t have to be responsible for.”

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

“You look around here and find something you would permit another to be responsible for.”

	Repetitive to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

26.	LEVEL II TRIPLE - HCOB 8.8.71 Iss II TRIPLE GRADES

F1.	“What has another done to you.”
	“What has another withheld from you.”

	To EP	_________

F2.	“What have you done to another.”
	“What have you withheld from another.”

	To EP	_________

F3.	“What has another done to others.”
	“What has another withheld from others.”

	To EP	_________

F0.	“What have you done to yourself .”
	“What have you withheld from yourself .”

	To EP	_________

27.	HAVINGNESS - Ref:  HCOB 8.8.71 Iss II TRIPLE GRADES

F1.	“Tell me a flow another could get you interested in.”

	To EP	_________

F2.	“Tell me a flow you could get another interested in.”

	To EP	_________

F3.	“Tell me a flow another could get others interested in.”

	To EP	_________

F0.	“Tell me a flow you could get yourself interested in.”

	To EP	_________

Mark Ingber
Flag Tech Comps

Revised & 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:MI:lf
Copyright © 1974, 1976
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED