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

SCIENTOLOGY LEVEL 3 STANDARD
ACADEMY CHECKSHEET
(HPA) Hubbard Professional Auditor

THIS COURSE CONTAINS KNOWLEDGE VITAL TO SUCCESSFUL LIVING.

PREREQUISITE: 	Provisional Class 2. (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 Three technology.

It covers the technology dealing with “upsets” (ARC Breaks).

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 Professional  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 Professional 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	_________
		HCO PL 19 Apr 65	Ethics Training & Processing Regulations	_________

B. 	BOOKS - To be read by end of course.
		1.	Fundamentals of Thought	_________
			CLAY DEMO - The Parts of Man (Chapter 7)	_________
		2.	Scientology 8 - 8008
			Chapter on Affinity, Reality & Communication	_________

C. 	CHARTS
		BPL 25 Jun 70R 	Expanded Lower Grades
			Chart of Abilities Gained
			Level III 	_________
		Chart of Human Evaluation	_________

		Additions:
		1. 		
		2.		_________

D. 	SCALES
	*	HCOB 18 Sep 67	Scales	_________

E. 	GENERAL COURSE DATA
		HCO PL 10 May 70	Single Declare	_________

		Additions: 
		1. 		_________
		2.		_________

F. 	PRACTICAL
	*	HCOB 16 Aug 71 	Training Drills Modernized	_________
		HCOB 1 Oct 65 	Mutter TR	_________
		HCOB 10 Dec 65	E-Meter Drill Coaching	_________

G.		TRs
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	_________

H. 	E-METER DATA
	* 	HCOB 23 Nov 61 	Meter Reading	_________
	* 	HCOB 25 May 62 	E-Meter - Instant Reads	_________
	* 	HCOB 21 Jul 62 	Urgent Instant Reads	_________
	*	HCOB 25 Sep 63	Adequate TA Action	_________
	*	HCOB 18 Apr 68	Needle Actions above Grade IV	_________
	* 	HCOB 18 Mar 74 	E-Meter Sensitivity Errors	_________
	*	HCO PL 21 Sep 65	E-Meter Drills	_________
	* 	HCOB 16 Nov 65 	E-Meter Sensitivity Setting	_________
	*	BOOK:  E-Meter Essentials	_________

I.		METER DRILLS
		Book of E-Meter Drills
1.	_________	9.	_________	17.	_________
2.	_________	10.	_________	18.	_________
3.	_________	11.	_________	19.	_________
4.	_________	12.	_________	20.	_________
5.	_________	13.	_________	21.	_________
6.	_________	14.	_________	22.	_________
7.	_________	15.	_________
8.	_________	16.	_________

J.		STYLES
		HCOB 26 Nov 63	A New Triangle, Basic Auditing,
			Technique and Case Analysis	_________
	*	HCOB 6 Nov 64	Styles of Auditing	_________
	*	HCOB 16 Jun 70	C/S Series 6
			What the C/S is doing	_________
		Additions: 
		1. 		_________
		2.		_________

K.		AUDITOR MUST NOTS
	*	HCOB 3 Aug 65	Auditor Goofs Blowdown Interruption	_________
	*	HCOB 7 May 69	GAEs	_________

L. 	FN DATA
	* 	HCOB 21 Sep 66	ARC Break Needle	_________
	* 	HCOB 20 Feb 70 	Floating Needles and End Phenomena	_________
	* 	HCOB 21 Mar 74 	End Phenomena	_________

		Additions: 
		1. 		_________
		2.		_________

M.	RUDIMENTS
	*	HCOB 15 Aug 69	Flying Rudiments	_________
	*	BTB 15 Apr 69	PTP Rud	_________
	*	HCOB 17 Feb 74 	C/S Series 91
			Mutual Out Ruds	_________
	*	BTB 11 Apr 74	Handling ARC Breaks	_________
		Demonstrate in clay the actions of flying each of the ruds and what 
		happens in the bank.		_________

		Additions: 
		1. 		_________
		2.		_________

N.		TWO WAY COMMUNICATION
		TAPES:
	*	1.11.54   2 Way Comm                     8ACC-23	_________
	
	*	PAB 21 Jan 54 	(PAB 44)  Two Way Comm	_________
	*	HCOB 21 Apr 70	Two Way Comm C/Ses	_________
	*	HCOB 3 Jul 70	C/S Series 14
			C/Sing 2 Way Comm	_________
	*	HCOB 17 Mar 74	TWC Checksheets
			TWC, Using Wrong Questions	_________
	*	HCOB 16 Feb 72	C/S Series 74
			Talking the TA Down Modified	_________
	*	BTB 14 Mar 71	Talking the TA Down	_________
	*	BTB 10 Jul 70	2 Way Comm a Class 3 Action	_________
	*	DEMO:  Full EP of a perfect standard 2 Way Comm Session	_________
	*	DEMO:  What will happen in a 2 Way Comm session when the 
		              question does not read.	_________
	*	DEMO:  Q&A in a 2 Way Comm Session.	_________
	*	DEMO:  All the points that might be out if a 2 Way Comm 
		              session does not end on an FN and VGIs.	_________
		DRILL:  (BTB 15 Oct 74 Auditor Expertise Drills Series 2 
		              Basic Session Actions)
		ED 31 	2 Way Comm Unbullbaited	_________
		ED 32 	2 Way Comm Bullbaited	_________

		Additions: 
		1. 		_________
		2.		_________

O.		REHABS
	*	HCOB 18 Jun 65	Clear and OT Behaviour	_________
	*	HCOB 30 Jun 65	Release Rehabilitation of Former 
			Releases and Thetan Exteriors	_________
	*	HCOB 21 Jul 65	Release Rehab	_________
	*	HCO PL 10 Feb 66	Tech Recovery	_________
	* 	HCOB 11 Feb 66 	Free Needles & How to get them on a PC	_________
	*	HCOB 18 Nov 66	Rehabs of Self Analysis	_________
	*	HCOB 6 Dec 68	Release Rehab of	_________
	*	HCOB 20 Sep 66	Minus Scale Releases - ARC Straightwire	_________
		CLAY DEMO:  A Rehab and what happens in the bank.	_________
		DRILL:  (BTB 15 Oct 74 Auditor Expertise Drills Series 2 
		              Basic Session Actions)
		ED 35 	Rehab by Count Unbullbaited	_________
		ED 36 	Rehab by Count Bullbaited	_________
		ED 37 	Release Rehab Unbullbaited	_________
		ED 38 	Release Rehab Bullbaited	_________

		Additions: 
		1. 		_________
		2.		_________

P.		AUDITING BY LIST AND REPAIR LISTS
	*	HCOB 28 May 70	Correction Lists Use Of	_________	*	HCOB 14 Mar 71	FN Everything	_________	*	HCOB 3 Jul 71	Auditing by Lists Revised	_________	*	HCOB 19 Mar 71	List L1C	_________	
		DRILL:  (BTB 15 Oct 74 Auditor Expertise Drills Series 2 
		              Basic Session Actions)
		ED 47 	On the L1C M3 Unbullbaited	_________
		ED 48 	On the L1C M3 Bullbaited	_________
		ED 49 	On the L1C M5 Unbullbaited	_________
		ED 50 	On the L1C M5 Bullbaited	_________

		Additions: 
		1. 		_________
		2.		_________

Q. 	LEVEL III TAPES
	*	28 May 63	Handling ARC Breaks	_________	*	24 Jul 63	ARC Breaks and the Comm Cycle	_________	*	7 Aug 63	Routine 2H Fundamentals	_________
		CLAY DEMO:
	 	1. 	An ARC Break.		_________
	 	2. 	What happens when you locate and indicate the correct BPC.	_________

		Additions: 
		1. 		_________
		2.		_________
	
R.		THEORY OF ARC BREAKS
	* 	HCOB 3 May 62	ARC Breaks & MWHs	_________
	* 	HCOB 27 May 63	Cause of Arc Breaks	_________
	* 	HCOB 13 Dec 61 	Varying, Sec Check Questions	_________
	* 	HCOB 25 Jun 63	Routine 2H ARC Breaks by Assessment	_________
	* 	HCOB 11 Aug 63	ARC Break Assessment	_________
	 	HCOB 14 Aug 63	Lecture Graphs	_________
	* 	HCOB 19 Aug 63	How to do ARC Break Assessment	_________	*	HCOB 8 Oct 63	How to get TA, Analyzing Auditing 	_________
	* 	HCOB 7 Sep 64	PTPs, Overts & ARC Breaks	_________
	* 	HCOB 29 Mar 65	All levels ARC Breaks	_________
	* 	HCOB 4 Apr 65	ARC Breaks & MWHs	_________
	* 	HCOB 6 Aug 68	R3H	_________

		Additions: 
		1. 		_________
		2.		_________

S. 	LEVEL III 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 E Grade 3 Processes	_________
		USE: BTB 9 Oct 71 R 	Issue V Rev. 12 Mar 74 
			Level III Process Drills

		R2-50 CHANGING MINDS
	* 	BOOK: 	Creation of Human Ability  R2-50	_________
		DRILL: 	The Process Unbullbaited	_________
			The Process Bullbaited	_________

		R2-63 ACCEPT - REJECT
	* 	BOOK: 	Creation of Human Ability  R2-63	_________
		DRILL: 	The Process Unbullbaited	_________
			The Process Bullbaited	_________

		R2-65 ALTERATION
	* 	BOOK: 	Creation of Human Ability  R2-65	_________
		DRILL: 	The Process Unbullbaited	_________
			The Process Bullbaited	_________

		R2-68 INCOMPREHENSIBILITY
	* 	BOOK: 	Creation of Human Ability  R2-68	_________
		DRILL: 	The Process Unbullbaited	_________
			The Process Bullbaited	_________

		HAS IV
	* 	HCOB 19 Jan 61 	Additional HAS Processes	_________
		DRILL: 	The Process Unbullbaited	_________
			The Process Bullbaited	_________

		CHANGE - NO CHANGE & FAILED CHANGE
	* 	HCOB 30 Apr 61 	Change Brackets & Commands	_________
		DRILL: 	The Process Unbullbaited	_________
			The Process Bullbaited	_________

		LISTING AND NULLING
		TAPES:  
		9 Aug 62 SHSPEC 181	Goals Listing	_________
	* 	HCOB 16 Oct 62 	Routine 3GA Listing	_________
	* 	HCOB 1 Aug 68	Laws of Listing and Nulling	_________
	* 	HCOB 22 Aug 66	Floating Needles Listing Processes	_________
		BTB 20 Aug 70	Two Complete Differences
			Assessment - Listing and Nulling	_________
	* 	HCOB 27 May 70	Unreading Questions and Items	_________
	* 	HCOB 28 Feb 71	Metering Reading Items	_________
		CLAY DEMOS:
	*	1.	The difference between Listing & Nulling and Assessment.	_________
	*	2.	What happens in the Bank when you give the pc an incorrect item.	_________
	*	3.	Each of the Laws of Listing & Nulling and what would happen to 
			the pc if these Laws were violated.	_________
		DRILL: (BTB 15 Oct 74 Auditor Expertise Drills Series 2 
		Basic Session Actions)
		ED 39 	Listing & Nulling Unbullbaited	_________
		ED 40 	Listing & Nulling Bullbaited	_________
	* 	HCOB 15 Dec 68R	L4BR	_________
		DRILL: (BTB 15 Oct 74 Auditor Expertise Drills Series 2 
		Basic Session Actions)
		ED 47 	On the L4BR M3 Unbullbaited	_________
		ED 48 	On the L4BR M3 Bullbaited	_________
		ED 49 	On the L4BR M5 Unbullbaited	_________
		ED 50 	On the L4BR M5 Bullbaited	_________

		R3H
	* 	HCOB 6 Aug 68	R3H	_________
		DRILL: 	The Process Unbullbaited	_________
			The Process Bullbaited	_________
		HAVINGNESS
		BTB 14 Mar 74R 	Grade III Processes Rev. 1 April 74  
			Havingness	_________
		DRILL: 	The Process Unbullbaited	_________
			The Process Bullbaited	_________

		Additions: 
		1. 		_________
		2.		_________

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

_____________

T. 	AUDITING SECTION

I ATTEST THAT I HAVE AUDITED A MINIMUM OF ONE PERSON TO EXPANDED GRADE III 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 III Release.

STUDENT ATTEST:		DATE:	

X. 	CERTS AND AWARDS

	Provisional Class 3 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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 APRIL 1965

Remimeo	ETHICS
All Tech Div HATS	TRAINING AND PROCESSING
Preclears	REGULATIONS
All Qual Div HATS	TECH DIVISION, QUAL DIVISION
TECHNICAL DISCIPLINE
STUDENTS’ QUESTIONS
(effective on the Posting of the 1965 Org Board)

1. 	The only answers permitted to a student’s demand for verbal technical data or unusual solutions are 
	“The material is in (HCOB, Pol Letter or tape).” 
	“What does your material state?”
	“What word did you miss in the (Bulletin, Pol Ltr or tape)?” 
	and (for requests for unusual auditing solutions)
	“What did you actually do?”

	Any other answer by Technical Secretaries, Ds of T, Instructors or course personnel is a misdemeanour.

2. 	Any instructor teaching or advising any method not contained in HCOBs or on tapes, or slighting existing HCOBs, Policy Letters or tapes may be charged with a crime.

3. 	Any Instructor in any way obscuring the source of technology by wrongly attributing it may be found guilty of a false report.

STAFF AUDITORS’ ACTIONS

4. 	Any staff auditor who runs any process on any org pc that is not given in grade and level HCOBs may be charged by the Tech Sec or D of P with a misdemeanour.

5. 	Any alteration or non-standard rendition of a process is a misdemeanour.

6. 	Any staff auditor running a pc above the pc’s grade instead of for the next grade, or running processes out of sequence in a grade may be charged with a misdemeanour.

7. 	Any staff auditor reporting falsely verbally or in writing, on an auditor’s report may be charged with a crime.

8. 	Any staff auditor turning in an illegible report may be charged with a no report which is a misdemeanour.

9. 	Any staff auditor attesting falsely to TA or falsely reporting the flattening of a process may be charged with a misdemeanour.

10. 	Any staff auditor who receives orders to run an illegal process must report the matter at once to HCO Ethics or Saint Hill, requesting that the person so advising be charged with endangering the staff auditor’s job and repute.

STUDENT REGULATIONS

11. 	Former regulations for students are abolished.
12. 	Students are covered as Scientologists by the HCO Ethics Codes and may request recourse from injustice and have the same privileges as any field Scientologist.

13. 	Tech Secs, Ds of T, Supervisors and Instructors as well as Qualifications Division personnel may request a Court of Ethics from the Department of Inspection and Reports for any student they find it necessary to discipline under the HCO Ethics Codes such discipline being in lieu of a Committee of Evidence. However the student may request a Committee of Evidence instead if he or she feels a wrong is being done.

14. 	Any student knowingly altering technology, applying processes improperly or using technology illegally on HGC pcs on lower unit students or the public while a student may be charged with a misdemeanour.

15. 	A student damaging another by wilful application of incorrect technology may be charged by his Instructors with a Crime and a Court of Ethics action must be requested by his Instructors.

16. 	A student falsely enrolling may be charged by the org with a crime.

17. 	Blowing a course is handled under Suppressive Acts If so charged the student may have recourse if applied for before 60 days to the Department of Inspection and Reports Ethics Section.

PRECLEAR REGULATIONS

18. 	Preclears are covered by HCO Ethics Codes.

19. 	A preclear may have recourse when feeling unjustly wronged by applying to the Ethics Section of the Department of Inspection and Reports of the org.

20. 	A preclear refusing to answer an auditing question may be charged by the staff auditor with a “no report” and taken before a Court of Ethics at once.

21. 	An HGC or staff preclear must report flagrant breaches of the Auditor’s Code to the Ethics Section of the Org, but if the report is false beyond reasonable doubt the preclear may be charged with a Suppressive Act.

22. 	A student preclear or HGC preclear blowing an org without reporting to the Tech Sec, D of P or the Ethics Section first and who will not permit any auditor to handle the matter at the org where the auditing occurred must be fully investigated at any cost by HCO in the pc’s own area. The auditing session must be fully investigated by the Ethics Section and if any Auditor’s Code breaks are found to have occurred in that auditing the auditor may be brought before a Court of Ethics. The entire matter and its final results must be reported to the Office of LRH at Saint Hill.

23. 	Charges against HGC or student preclears may also be made by the Tech Sec, the Oualifications Sec, Ds of T, Ds of P, Instructors and staff auditors.

QUALIFICATIONS DIVISION

24. 	Any person undergoing Review is subject to the same actions as in the HGC or Academy and any personnel of the Qualifications Division may charge students and pcs under the Ethics Codes and bring them before a Court of Ethics.

25. 	Persons charged by Qualifications Division personnel may request recourse if wronged.
26. 	The Qualifications Division may request a Court of Ethics on Technical Division personnel, preclears and students for false reports, false attestations and no reports as well as other Ethics matters. And the Technical Division personnel may on their part request a Court of Ethics on Qualifications Division personnel, students or preclears.

This policy letter does not change any HCO Codes of Ethics but only augments them for the purposes of assisting peaceful and effective training and processing with the exact technology issued.

L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:wmc.cden	
Copyright © 1965
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 10 MAY 1970
Remimeo
ALL TECH
AND QUAL URGENT
IMPORTANT
SINGLE DECLARE
Multiple Declare
Cancelled

(This cancels HCO PL 6 Aug 1966, Declare,
Multiple, which permitted a pc to be run from
Grade 0 to IV and declare them all at once.)

Policy: Only one grade of auditing may be declared or attested to at one time.

Many pcs have been found not to have attained the End Phenomena of each lower grade as per both the 1966 and 1968 Classification Charts.

Unless a pc directly attests the end phenomena to an Examiner the Grade cannot be awarded and the pc may not proceed.

The examiner is permitted to ask the end phenomena question for that grade. If the pc cannot attest he has attained it, he must be returned to session to have the process completed, additional processes of that grade run.

The Triple Grade and its havingness is run.

There are many other processes for each grade which help attain that End Phenomena.

The condition has arisen where the lower grades have become slighted in orgs and the pc is not being set up well for a stable gain.

For instance Grade III can be repeated a dozen times.

The CCHs and others listed on the “Process Taught” Training Column of the 1966 and 1968 Classifications Chart have become neglected YET ARE ALL VALID FOR THAT GR4DE AND SHOULD ALL BE RUN, FOR A GRADE.

The Abilities Attained Column, Processing section of the 1966 and 1968 Classification Chart give the question that must be answered positively before the pc is let have the Grade or to have further grades.

The huge version of the Classification Chart should be republished in a huge format modified in text only as it extends upwards into OT grades.

These Classification Charts, particularly the Column under Training “Processes Taught” and under Processing “Abilities Attained” are valid. “Processes Taught” should also appear as “Processes Used” under the Processing side. Other Class VI Processes may also be used to attain these abilities.

IT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE SEVERAL F/Ns PER GRADE.

It is Policy NOT to downgrade Scientology lower grades just for the sake of speed ant Admin flows.

TRs (0 to 9) are curing some drug addicts. They belong before Dianetics.

Probably the main trouble orgs have had recently has come from tossing aside all lower Grades. Thus the route to Total Freedom became impeded.

The Multiple Declare PL and any other advice from anyone permitting pcs to escape direct attestation of lower grades and Power are NOT VALID AND ARE CANCELLED.

You will note that even the Multiple Declare PL (6 Aug 66) was SH Only and was intended only for rehabilitation of already run grades so Power could be run.

DON’T DOWNGRADE LOWER GRADES.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt,nv.xd
Copyright © 1970
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 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 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 25 SEPTEMBER 1963 
Central Orgs 
Franchise
SCIENTOLOGY I to IV

ADEQUATE TONE ARM ACTION

Now that it has been established fully that a pc’s gain is directly and only proportional to Tone Arm Action, the question of how much Tone Arm Action is adequate must be answered.

These are rough answers based on direct observation of pcs after sessions.

Tone Arm action is measured by DIVISIONS DOWN PER 2l/2 hour session or per hour of auditing.

TA action is not counted by up and down, only down is used. Usually the decimal system is used. But fractions can also be employed. Needle falls are neglected in the computation, only actual motion of the Tone Arm is used.

One can add up or approximate the TOTAL DOWN TONE ARM MOTION. After a session, if an auditor is keeping good reports of TA motion, one adds up all the divisions and fractions of division of Down Motion (not up) and the result is known as TOTAL TA FOR THE SESSION.

A needle gives about a 10th of a Division of motion in one sweep across the dial but, as above, is not used in his computation. Needle action is neglected in the add-up.

Example: As noted in the TA column of an auditor’s report, 4.5, 4.2, 4.8, 4.0, 3.5 gives you .3 + .8 + .5 gives you 1.6 Divisions of TA action for that period of time. When this is done for a full 2.5 hour session the following table gives you a rough idea of what is expected and what will happen to the pc.

	Amount Per Session	Session Rating	PC Reaction

	25 Divs	Excellent	Feels wonderful
	20 Divs	Good	Feels good
	15 Divs	Acceptable	Feels “Better”
	10 Divs	Poor	Slight Change
	  5 Divs	Unacceptable	No Change
	  0 Divs	Harmful	Gets Worse

Anything from 10 Divs to 0 Divs of Down Tone Arm for a 21/2 hour session is something to do something about. One gets very industrious in this range.

For a 25 hour intensive the scale of TA divisions down for the entire intensive would be:

	Amount Per Intensive	Session Rating	PC Reaction

	250 Divs	Excellent	Feels wonderful
	200 Divs	Good	Feels good
	150 Divs	Acceptable	Feels “Better”
	100 Divs	Poor	Slight Change
	  50 Divs	Unacceptable	No Change
	    0 Divs	Harmful	Gets Worse

The preclear’s case state can be completely predicted by the amount of TA action received in a session or an intensive.

The only exception is where the pc in running R4 (old R3) processes can get into a “creak” of by-passed goals or RIs which make him uncomfortable although TA action has been good or even excellent. A case analysis will locate the by-passed charge. On any auditing where charge has been by-passed but TA action was good the pc’s subjective reality on gain will not seem to compare with the TA action gotten in the auditing, but the moment the by-passed charge is located the gain attributable to TA action will be felt.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :jw.rd 
Copyright © 1963 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 APRIL 1968
Remimeo
Qual Divs	
Rev
AOs
OT Study
Materials

NEEDLE REACTIONS ABOVE GRADE IV

In doing Green Forms or Analysis Lists on any Clears (but not in nulling) or doing them on most cases above 5 and some cases below it, there are 2 different E-Meter needle phenomena which have to be given attention:

1. 	As a Clear’s postulates read as a surge, usually fairly long (over 1”), “No” can read if the pc says it to himself as an answer to a question asked.

A read, therefore, does not mean invariably “yes” or that the question is charged. All it means is that the Meter has read.

The Auditor must now find out what the read was before determining he should do something about that portion of the Green Form or List. One doesn’t just assume the read was “yes”.

One asks about the read as a general rule, not assuming at once the thing asked was charged.

Example—

Auditor: 	“Do you have a missed withhold?” Meter surges.
Auditor: 	“What was that?”
Pre OT: 	“I thought No I don’t.”
Auditor: 	“Ok. Do you have a missed withhold?”
Pre OT: 	“No.”—Meter didn’t read.

Auditor: 	“Anything suppressed—asserted—protested—invalidated. Ok that’s clean.”

Ticks (1/8 inch) often mean something is there. A Pre OT’s postulates have greater length when they surge.

It is not important how you handle this phenomena of postulate or to-oneself comment by a high level case. It is important that the Auditor does not hang the case with a wrong adjudication of what’s wrong by thinking every surge means “yes”, or that the question is charged because it surges. A question is charged only if it won’t clean up with buttons until the action itself is taken.

A Pre OT, unlike pcs below Grades I or II, usually recognizes what is wrong as soon as it is mentioned. He or she is more aware.
2. 	A response like a brief dirty needle on a Pre OT means “No” always.

So there is a certain and trustworthy negative to be had on a Pre OT.

A real dirty needle is constant and continues. The same small jerky needle action on a person Grade 5 or above means “No!” or that the question is negative.

On pcs below 5 it means a withhold or an ARC break or almost anything and is of course continuous.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:jc.rd 							
Copyright © 1968 						
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.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 SEPTEMBER 1965
Issue V
Remimeo
Tech Div
Sthil Students
E-METER DRILLS

Having the data that Out-technology is the result of a lack of study, drill and familiarity, it is imperative that meter drills be done well.

As it is the Academy’s purpose to train auditors, students must do the required meter drills for each level and must not resort to the use of a pen to represent the needle of an E-Meter.

Irrespective of whether a student is or is not a Release, these drills must be done. ‘If a student should have a coach whose needle only floats, that student should request of the Supervisor another coach.

The state of Release can always be rehabilitated, so the Academy should not be overly concerned with the protection of Releases. Studying the mind and spirit of Man may be restimulative, but it IS the only way through and out.

A real Roller Coaster of processing results is never because of restimulation caused by training, it is always the sole result of association with a Suppressive Person.

Don’t back off in the training of auditors. Only a well trained auditor will eventually make it all the way to Clear.

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 26 NOVEMBER 1963

Central Orgs
Franchise
ALL LEVELS
STAR RATING

A NEW TRIANGLE
BASIC AUDITING, TECHNIQUE,
CASE ANALYSIS

All processing can be broken down into three separate parts for any level of auditing.

These three parts are: (1) BASIC AUDITING (2) TECHNIQUE and (3) CASE ANALYSIS.

BASIC AUDITING

The handling of the pc as a being, the auditing cycle, the meter, comprise the segment of processing known as Basic Auditing.

If an auditor cannot handle this segment or any part of it well, trouble will develop in the other two segments (technique and case analysis). When technique and case analysis seem to fail “even when done by the book” the fault commonly lies in Basic Auditing. One or more of the five faults elsewhere listed will be present and these faults effectively prevent any technique or case analysis from working.

Where Scientology “isn’t working”, the wrong first places to look are technique and case analysis. The right place to look is Basic Auditing.

Until an auditor can handle a pc in session easily, handle a meter smoothly and accurately and is flawless in his auditing cycle, he or she should have no hope of making any technique work or of analyzing any case for anything.

In smooth Basic Auditing lies the open sesame to all cases, for only then do technique and case analysis function. The gun barrel is Basic Auditing. Technique and Case Analysis form the Ammunition and sight. A poor basic auditor using a fine technique is firing ammunition with no gun. It doesn’t go anywhere.

There is a level of Basic Auditing for every level of Scientology. At the lowest level it is only the ability to sit and listen. It grows in complexity from there up to the fabulous co-ordination of pc, auditing cycle and meter so flawless that neither auditor nor pc are aware of the presence of Basic Auditing at all, but only the actions of the technique and the guidance of case analysis. And between those two practices of Basic Auditing lie many gradients.

Basic Auditing is the rock on which all gains are built.

TECHNIQUE

The techniques of Scientology are many, spread out over 13 years of development.
A technique is a process or some action that is done by auditor and pc under the auditor’s direction.

The lowest technique is the single co-audit question given by the supervisor to let the pc Itsa. The highest is the complex listing of goals and GPMs.

A technique is a patterned action, invariable and unchanging, composed of certain steps or actions calculated to bring about tone arm action and thus better or free a thetan.

There have been thousands of techniques. Less than a hundred, at a guess, are in common recommended use for the various levels of auditing.

Techniques have their place in various levels of auditing today rather than various differences of case.

As cases may be audited only at the level in which they are trained, by modern ruling, and as several techniques exist at each level for choice out of Case Analysis, it will be found quite simple to select a technique and get results with it. Safe auditing and good sense dictate such selection and classing of techniques, and trouble only results when someone sells himself out of his level to a high fast flounder.

Techniques exist in tables and texts for the various levels and it will be found that these give the best case results applied in that way.

CASE ANALYSIS

Case Analysis establishes two things (a) What is going on with the case and (b) What should be done with it.

Case Analysis is a new subject to auditors at this time. It is commonly confused with techniques and the gravest fault is treating Case Analysis as only another assessment technique.

There is a level of Case Analysis for every level or class, to compare with the Basic Auditing and Technique of that class.

My first development in this new segment of processing was Programming. This is the consecutive techniques or actions a case should have to get adequate Tone Arm action and achieve a new plateau of ability.

But Case Analysis itself has steps like (a) and (b) above.

There is also an invariable sequence of application in a more advanced Case Analysis. These steps should be very, very well known by a trained auditor since all Case Analysis fits into them:

1. 	Discover what the pc is “sitting in”.

2. 	Have the pc detail what assumptions and considerations he or she has had about it; and

3. 	Identify it fully and correctly.

The “it” above can be as slight as a worry, as bothersome as a Present Time Problem or as overwhelming as a Goals Problem Mass. Whatever “it” is the Case Analysis steps would be the same.

In the first step the survey may be very brief. It should certainly have certainty in it for the pc. It can be very general. It can be a part of a case or a geographical location. The pc could be clear or insane. The sequence or the 3 steps would be the same.

The next step (2) gets the lies off, giving TA action and thus clearing away charge for a more accurate assault in (3). This second step can be very lengthy as in Level Two or very brief as in OT auditing techniques. But it must exist whether short or long. Otherwise the analysis is heavily hindered by the lies and these will read on the meter and upset the analysis or they will cloud the pc’s perception on which all Itsa depends. So the lies must come off in any Case Analysis. Usually this is quite permissive and gently done. But it can amount to also pulling missed withholds. It all depends on the level on which the analysis is being done and what is being analyzed. This step (2) becomes itself a technique at lower levels. It is just a spatter and promise at high level auditing.

The third step can be long or short but must always be there. Here, with the charge gone in (2), the auditor and pc can now identify the thing much better and the pc can have a final certainty on it. Usually at lower levels, the certainty is only that it is gone. The familiar “How do you feel about that problem now?” “What problem?” is a lower level result of Case Analysis. At the highest level, “On checking the meter, I find that is a wrong Item” would be the auditor’s final (3) statement.

So Case Analysis at any level has as its action establishing what the pc is in, what it has been supposed to be and what it now is (or isn’t).

Anything from a habit to a headache could be analyzed in this way. At the lowest levels it could occupy an intensive, at the highest levels five minutes.

ARC Break handling has been the most familiar tool of Case Analysis.

Case Analysis handles the momentary or prolonged problem, determines the technique to be used, and is always done with Basic Auditing.

An auditor has three hats. One is his Basic Auditor’s hat. This he never takes off. The other two are his Technique hat and his Case Analysis hat and these he switches back and forth at need.

These are the three segments. Put together well, they make successful auditing.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :dr.rd
Copyright © 1963
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 16 JUNE 1970
Remimeo
(Reissued & corrected 3 Oct. 71. Only change—
[page 79] word “arrived” corrected to “aimed”.
Correction in this type style.)

C/S Series 6

WHAT THE C/S IS DOING

In Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health considerable stress is placed on the words and phrases in engrams. This is still functional. However as I did further research I found that (a) many pcs were unable to get the words in the engram and (b) the apparent force of the words was derived wholly from the pain, emotion, effort contained in the engram. In Standard Dianetics the words in an engram play no major role in the auditing.

The use of the words to de-aberrate and concentration on phrases in engrams is valid but junior in force to the pain, misemotion, etc in the engram. Thus if you run out the force the words drop into insignificance. This is often how the pc gets cognitions: the words and meaning concealed in the engram are changing value and devaluating. The pc can then think clearly again on a subject previously pinned down by the force. Get the force out and the words take care of themselves and need no special handling.

The meaning of things plays a secondary role in processing to forces.

Thetans find counter-forces objectionable. Almost all chronic (continual) somatics have their root in force of one kind or another.

In that the handling of things with bodies involves force to greater or lesser degree, incapability and derangement of mental values is proportional to the thetan’s objection to force.

This objection descends down to a wish to stop things. It goes below that into overwhelmedness in which propitiation and obsessive agreement manifest themselves.

LOW TAs

The low TA is a symptom of an overwhelmed being.

When a pc’s TA goes low he is being overwhelmed by too heavy a process, too steep a gradient in applying processes or by rough TRs or invalidative auditing or auditing errors.

A low TA means that the thetan has gone past a desire to stop things and is likely to behave in life as though unable to resist real or imaginary forces.

HIGH TA

Chronically high TAs mean the person can still stop things and is trying to do so.

However, all one has to do is restimulate and leave unflat an engram chain to have a high TA. High TA is reflecting the force contained in the chain.

An “over-run” means doing something too long that has engrams connected with it which means an engram chain with too many engrams on it being restimulated by life or auditing. Hence Over-run.

If this overrun persisted unhandled eventually the pc would be overwhelmed and one, in theory, would have a low TA.

MENTAL MASSES

Mental masses, forces, energy are the items being handled by the C/S on any pc.

If the C/S loses sight of this he can wander off the road and go into the thickets of significance.

Engrams, secondaries, locks all add up to mental masses, forces, energies, time, which express themselves in countless different ways such as pain, misemotion, feelings, old perceptions and a billion billion thought combinations buried in the masses as significances.

A thetan can postulate or say or reason anything. Thus there is an infinity of significances.

A thetan is natively capable of logical thought. This becomes muddied by out-points held in by mental forces such as pictures of heavy experiences.

As the masses and forces accumulated and copied from living build up, the logic potential becomes reduced and illogical results occur.

PC SEARCH

The pc is continually searching for the significance of a mass or force—what is it, why is it.

The C/S is easily led astray by this.

All forces in the bank contain significances.

All forces can be unburdened and lightened up by the various procedures of auditing.

The search of the pc is for significance.

The action of the C/S is reduction of forces.

THE E-METER

The E-Meter records what force is being discharged in every slash, fall and blowdown. The amount of TA per session is the C/S’s index of gain.

Note that a discharged process no longer gives TA and gives case gain.

The amount of significance recovered or realized by the pc only shows up as cognitions.

As the TA works off the case, then one has two indicators:

1. 	There is needle and TA action.

2. 	The pc cognites.

One shows that force is coming off. Two shows that thought is releasing from force.

BACKWARDS C/Sing

If a C/S processes toward significance only he will get cases that do not progress.

The needle action detects not so much significance as where the force is.

Diving toward significance the C/S winds up shortening grades, looking for “magic one-shot buttons” and overwhelming cases by shooting them on up the grades while levels remain loaded with force.

RELIABLE INDICATORS

When a pc gets no more TA action on Level I he will have made Level I and will know it. He will therefore attest to “No problems”.

The reliable indicators are TA action and cognitions while a level is still charged.

Diminished TA action and cognitions mean the purpose of the level has been reached.

A feeling of freedom and expansion on a subject is expressed in a normal TA and a loose needle.

The pc will now attest to an ability regained.

F/N ABUSE

To process only to F/N and even chop off the cognitions on a process abuses the indicator of the F/N.

You can find many pcs who bitterly resent F/N indications. They have been:

A. 	Not run on all the processes of a level;

B. 	Still have force on the subject;

C. 	Were chopped off before they could cognite.

The ARC Break in this is UNFINISHED CYCLE OF ACTION.

The proper End Phenomena for a process is F/N Cognition VGIs. Now look at that carefully. That is the proper end phenomena of a PROCESS. It is not the end phenomena of a LEVEL or even of a TYPE of process.

Let us say there are 15 possible Scientology processes for orienting a pc in his present location.

To run one of these 15 and say, “F/N that’s it. You’re complete,” is a Quickie impatient action that rebounds on the pc eventually. If there are 15, run 15 !

Possibly the pc on no. 12 will cognite he’s really right where he is. Only then could you cease to work at it.

An F/N Cog VGIs tells you a process is finished, not a whole class of actions!

Thus 21/2 minutes from 0 to IV is not only impossible, it is murderous. It will result in an overwhelm, a low TA or a high TA eventually.

Level I says, amongst other things, “Problems Processes”. There are certainly half a dozen. Each would be run to F/N Cog VGIs. When these and the other processes of the Level are run, the pc will come to have no further reaction to problems and will be able to handle them.

A cognition in lower levels is not necessarily an ability regained. Thirty or forty cognitions on one lower level might add up to (and probably would) the realization that one is free of the whole subject of the level.

It is safe to run more processes. It is unsafe to run too few.

PC ABILITIES

It is not enough for the pc to have only negative gains of deleting force. Sooner or later he will have to begin to confront force.

This comes along naturally and is sometimes aided by processes directly aimed at further confront. “What problem could you have?” sooner or later is needed in one form or another.

What force can the pc now handle?

All auditing in a body—and any living in a body—makes a being vulnerable. Bodies break, suffer, intensify pain.

Sooner or later a pc will go Exterior. The Interiorization Rundown must be ordered as the next action or you will have a pc with a high TA. 2-way comm Ext-Int must be given in a following session (not the same one) so the full cognitions will occur.

After this the pc is less subject to the body and his ability to confront force will improve.

Do not be too worried or surprised if after this the pc has some minor accident with the body. Exterior he forgets its frailty. However, such things are minor. He is “learning how to walk” a new way and will run into chairs! He gets this figured out after a while.

Pcs sometimes improve their ability to handle force while interior so as to have mysterious headaches or new body pressures. Inevitably they have been exterior and need Interiorization run. They were just using too much force while still inside !

Thus force is the thing, significance very secondary.

Force of course is made up of time, matter, energy, flows, particles, masses, solids, liquids, gasses, space and locations. All this gets inherently handled in processes published long since.

The pc tends to dive for the thought imbedded in the force. He will tell you he’s being processed to find out who his parents were or why he is sterile or who did him in, etc, etc. The C/S who chases after this is a deerhound illegally chasing mice!

C/S PURPOSE

The C/S is there to make certain that the pc makes gains and attains the actual abilities of the level.

The C/S is for the pc.

C/S auditor control exists only to keep the auditing standard, the TRs good, the processes ordered done and to End Phenomena each one.

No other reasons for C/Sing exist.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH: nt.rd 
Copyright © 1970, 1971 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 AUGUST 1965

Remimeo 
All Students 
All Staff
AUDITING GOOFS
BLOWDOWN INTERRUPTION

It is a serious goof for the auditor to speak or move during a blowdown of the Tone Arm.

When a Tone Arm has to be moved rapidly down, the needle appears to float to some but it is just falling.

To see if a needle is floating the TA must have stopped moving down.

A Blowdown is a period of relief and cognition to a pc while it is occurring and for a moment after it stops.

Therefore it is a serious goof for an auditor to speak or move during the blowdown or for a moment afterwards.

This was noted years ago and is given in early materials on goals.

AN AUDITOR MUST NOT SPEAK OR MOVE DURING A BLOWDOWN.

When the auditor has to move the TA from right to left to keep the needle on the dial and the movement is .I divisions or more then a blowdown is occurring. The needle of course is falling to the right.

That is a period of charge blowing off the bank. It is accompanied by realizations for the pc. Sometimes the pc does not voice them aloud. They nevertheless happen.

If the auditor speaks or moves beyond adjusting the TA quietly with his thumb the pc may suppress the cognitions and stop the blowdown.

To see if a needle floats the TA must be halted for the moment between 2 and 3 on a calibrated meter. A floating needle cannot be observed during a blowdown.

For an auditor to sit up suddenly and look surprised or pleased, or for an auditor to say the next command or “That’s It” during a blowdown, can jolly well wreck a pc’s case. So it’s a real goof to do so.

To get auditing results one must audit with a good comm cycle, accept the pc’s answers, handle the pc’s originations, be unobtrusive with his auditing actions, not hold the pc up while he writes, not develop tricks like waiting for the pc to look at him before giving the next command, not prematurely ack and so start compulsive Itsa, and be very quiet during and just after a blowdown.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 MAY 1969
Issue IV

Dianetic Course
(HCO BULLETIN 21 SEPT 1965 EDITED
FOR USE ON THE DIANETIC COURSE)

THE FIVE GAEs

The five Gross Auditing Errors (GAEs) are:

1. 	Can’t handle and read an E-Meter.

2. 	Doesn’t know and can’t apply Technical data.

3. 	Can’t get and keep a pc in session.

4. 	Can’t complete an auditing cycle.

5. 	Can’t complete a repetitive auditing cycle.

These are the only errors one looks for in straightening up the auditing of an Auditor.

If you look for other reasons, this is itself a gross goof. There are no others.

LRH:cs.rd							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright o1969						Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 SEPTEMBER 1966

Remimeo

ARC BREAK NEEDLE

The needle of a preclear with an ARC Break may be dirty, stuck or sticky, but may also give the appearance of FLOATING. This is not a Release point however, as the pc will be upset and out of comm at the same time. The auditor must observe the preclear and determine which it is.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:lb-r.cden 
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 21 MARCH 1974
Remimeo 
AO Auditors 
Class VIII
END PHENOMENA

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

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

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

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

TYPES OF EPs

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

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

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

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

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

F/N ABUSE

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

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

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

OTs and EPs

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

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

Thus overruns occur and charged areas are bypassed.

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

REMEDY

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

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

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

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

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

SUMMARY

Overrun and underrun alike mess up cases.

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

Don’t overrun pcs and have to repair them.

Let the pc have his wins.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 AUGUST 1969

Remimeo 
Class VIII Chksht 
Case Supervisors 
Class VIIIs

FLYING RUDS

To clarify how to fly ruds:

If a rud reads, you get the data and then ask for earlier until you get an F/N.

If a rud doesn’t read, put in Suppress and recheck. If it gets any comment, natter or protest or bewilderment, put in False and clean it.

To fly all ruds you ask for an ARC Brk, if no read, put in Suppress. If it reads take it, do ARCU CDEI Earlier ARCU CDEI Earlier until you get an F/N. Then do the same with PTP. Then with MW/Hs.

If in starting a rud does not read or F/N even if Suppress is put in go to the next rud until you get one that does read. Follow it earlier to F/N.

Then F/N the 2 that didn’t read.

INCORRECT

To get a rud reading with or without Suppress and then fail to follow it earlier and to continue to call it and take only reads is incorrect.

CORRECT

If a rud reads you always follow it earlier until it F/Ns.

You do NOT continue to test it with a meter and do NOT leave it just because it fails to read again.

If a rud reads you clean it with earlier, earlier, earlier to F/N.

If a rud reads and the read is false you clean false.

There are TWO actions possible in flying ruds.

1. 	The rud is not out. If it didn’t read you check suppress. If it read but is in any way protested you clean false.

2. 	The rud is out. You get the data, you follow it earlier earlier until it F/Ns. You do not continue to check it for reads.

GREEN FORM

This applies also to handling ruds on the Green Form.

ARC BREAK

If there is an ARC Break you get it, use ARCU and CDEI, indicate, then if no F/N you follow it earlier, get ARCU CDEI, indicate, if no F/N you get an earlier one on and on, always with ARCU CDEI until you get an F/N.

PTP

If you get a PTP you follow it earlier earlier earlier until you get an F/N.

MISSED WITHHOLD

If you get a withhold you find out WHO missed it, then another and another using Suppress. If protest you put in false. You will find these W/Hs also go earlier like any other chain but they don’t have to.

MIXING METHODS

If you get a rud read and the pc gives you one you don’t then check the read again. You get more until you get an F/N.

To get a rud answered and then check suppress and its read is mixing 1 and 2 above.

FALSE

   “Has anyone said you had a ......when you didn’t have one?” is the answer to protested ruds.

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

Any VIII should be able to fly any rud at will. The above clarifies HCOB and Tape data on this subject.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH: Idm .ei.rd 
Copyright © 1969 
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

Remimeo			15 APRIL 1969
All Students	REISSUED 28 JULY 1974
SH Courses	AS BTB
All Staff
CANCELS
HCO BULLETIN OF 15 APRIL 1969
SAME TITLE

PTP RUDIMENT

THE PTP RUDIMENT IS HANDLED BY ITSA EARLIER SIMILAR ITSA.

DO NOT USE A PROCESS TO HANDLE THE RUDIMENT.

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 
COpyright © 1969, 1974 
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

B O A R D  T E C H N I C A L  B U L L E T I N

11 APRIL 1974
Remimeo
Tech Checksheets
as applicable

ARC BREAK HANDLING

(Data from LRH C/S of 13 Feb 1972)

Here is some additional expertise on the ARC Break Rudiment from an LRH C/S:

“Auditor assesses ARC Brk incorrectly:

A sF /
R x x
C F x
U x x

(The Auditor) “is doing it by elimination, doing it twice because of a possible instant read fault.

“You assess it once, ask the pc if it’s right, if he says no, rehandle. If yes, give it to him.”

CDEINR follows the same rule.

“Assessing by elimination is done on double (2 item) reads. But a hot auditor does it on best largest instant read.”

The auditor that knows his business does not miss the read, the pc will also brighten up, even if ever so slightly, on the very first assessment. PROVIDED THE RIGHT ITEM HAS BEEN GOTTEN.

Sometimes the pc will originate, “Yes, I guess it was R , but to me it really is more a break in communication ,” (for example). The wise auditor then says “Thank you” and indicates the “C”

Any goofing auditor should go to Cramming.

Reissued as BTB 
by FMO 1234
CPO Andrea Lewis I/C 
Molly Harlow 2nd

Authorized by AVU

for the

BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
of the 
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY 
BDCS:SW:MH:AL:ams
Copyright © 1974
By L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

TWO -WAY COMMUNICATION

A lecture given on
1 November 1954

Like to talk to you about two-way communication. This might possibly be a good moment to bring to you some small inkling of the fact that a number of centuries ago, there was a man—number of centuries ago—in a small town in Bavaria who could communicate. But since that time, there’s been very little of this. And it is in an effort to bring the auditor into cognizance of this condition amongst man, and so perhaps bring at least one more man into communication and get him to communicate, that I dedicate this particular talk.

Now, I don’t want you to get an extreme idea about two-way communication. There have been many examples of this. I don’t want you to get this idea that two-way communication is common, commonplace, is undertaken, is done, and so forth, amongst men. Because to do so would be a lie. But you, as auditors, are pretty well trained by social usage and action throughout most of your lives to believe that you are communicating with human beings, and I wish at this moment to knock that now. It is highly improbable that you have communicated actually and accurately on a two-way basis with more than one or two people in your entire lives. Now, you can tell me who these people are right now.

Two-way communication has to embrace a certain amount of understanding. The fundamental parts of understanding are A-R-C. If you were really in two-way communication with anybody, it would be denoted solely by this fact: you right now can think—if you’ve ever been in two-way communication in this lifetime with anybody—you can think of somebody with some affection. Now, if there’s any person right now that you can think of, in your whole life, with some affection and an affectionate feeling right at this moment, you have been in two-way communication with that person.

And you will note as you remember this person that there are a great many things that you can remember about this person, and a great many things that they have said would come rather rapidly into mind. I do not say that you have had such a person in your lifetime, necessarily. Because it is not a common thing in man in this twentieth century to be in good communication anyplace. But real good communication is a lot different than what you think of as communication. Do you follow me? Good communication is a lot different than your casual and common experience with education and communication —lot different.

So, the possible high Of a two-way communication may or may not have been attained by you sometime in this lifetime, but if you can think of any person you have known in this lifetime with some affection, then you are approaching a good two-way communication with that person.

Now, am I putting the point across to you? Now, isn’t it odd and peculiar that with such a person you would have a considerable recall on—if you thought it over for a moment—on what they’d said and what you’d said to them, and so forth. You’d have quite a recall; quite a lot of stuff there.

When a mother has been very, very affectionate to a somewhat reluctant son, you get a communication inflow so strong that it practically occludes. This is a one-way communication. Son—very reluctant, doesn’t like all this; affection from women, you know, standoffish. Baby talk. They kissed you, fool around, carried you around, very affectionate, worried about you, would let you climb the backyard fence, very concerned about the time when you decided to take up the air force or flying or diving, or something of, quite concerned for your well-being.

You’ll get a different manifestation where you yourself felt no great affection. That’s ARC: affinity, reality and communication, of course. And where you had somebody feeling very affectionate toward you, where you didn’t feel very affectionate back, the very funny part of it is, is the material is liable to sit there with you as thoroughly occluded, but very, very, very controlling on you—a control factor.

When this sort of thing takes place, you have the individual giving us an opinion of his own past—what he’s been told his own past was. You follow this?

Let’s take a daughter, and Mother was very affectionate toward the daughter, and the daughter was rather standoffish, see? Maybe had a couple of other children in the family, and they sort of knocked the daughter around. There were a lot of other manifestations took place a lot of ridges, you might say, of one kind or another. But you had Mother very affectionate toward her daughter, and you had the daughter, then, twenty years after childhood, tell you about her childhood. And she would say, “And when I was two, so-and-so-and-so and yap-yap-yap. And when I was five, yap-yap-yap, and so-and-so and so-and-so. And when I was ten, I was so-and-so and so-and I—we lived there at that time. It was a very beautiful house.”

Do you know who you’re talking to? You’re talking to Mama. You: “Now, where did you learn that was what you did at two?”—because you think, as an auditor, this is pretty good for this preclear to have a straight recall back to two.

“Where’d you learn about this?”

“Well I . . . “ (comm lag) “Oh, my mother told me.”

And you’d find it out that what her mother told her about when she was ten was what she was telling you. And what her mother told you [her] about when she was twenty. That’s her life. It would be enough for Mother to call up . . . Mother could come up and tell her that she was married to another man, and she would have to have a comm lag before she could reject it.

Here you have this big flow from one terminal—high affinity, see? Mama may have had very high reality too. And Mama certainly did communicate to this child. But the other terminal was only resisting. And when you have a familial situation where the child is resisting a parent, they only resist them just so long. They only usually resist them only the first or three, four years of their life. And after that they become affinity (same terminal).

The basic definition of affinity is actually lost in antiquity. The word is chosen, by the way, from the ancient days of magic. The magicians, the ancient magicians, used this word consistently and continually. It actually meant “occupying the same space.” A complete, total affinity would mean “occupying the same space as.”

But, where we have distance intervening with spatial occupation possible, we have perfect communication. Now, follow me on that. We have possibility of occupying the same space, you see, but a distance intervening. We get communication; we get duplication.

What is duplication? Duplication is simply cause-distance-effect, you see, with the same thing as effect as is at cause. Well, that’s duplication.

Now, let’s take the most complete duplication there would be, which would be a perfect duplication, and we would discover, then, that cause and effect could occupy the same spot. And the moment they occupy the same spot—no ridge, no energy, no space, no universe. See?

No energy manifestation or spatial manifestation then takes place when you get a perfect duplicate. So therefore, you could have two people standing facing each other with the possibility in either one that they could occupy the same space (see, as thetans; awareness of awareness units), and what would we get?

We’d get a very curious manifestation. They would both know what they were saying before they said it. Both know this. They’d have an instinctive understanding. They could converse with a minimum of words. One of them would say, “Hey, Joe. Ah . . . mmm.” And Joe would hand him the spanner. But these two people would make a considerable team against life; they would be very, very hard to combat.

Did you ever know a pair of twins? And did you ever try to fight a pair of twins—fight one individually? You’d find yourself fighting two twins. See? When they try to talk to each other: well now, they’ve been—they understand. They have a very high understanding of each other and considerable affection. So much so, quite often when one twin is killed the other one simply kicks the bucket. I mean you get an immediate duplication on a bad situation. You never see one twin of a pair of twins that—identical twins I’m talking about, not fraternal—who are operating very individually. One gets sick; the other one gets sick.

Well, this is a communication—on a lower level. But if both of them felt in high affinity for each other they would have, as a pair, much less chance of getting sick. They’d as-is everything, you know, that was bad that was coming in. They’d talk it over, and it’d be gone.

Quite in addition to that, if they themselves could maintain a fairly high communication and affinity line to their environment, you would discover that their entire environment would be improved by the fact that they were present. Two terminals are always better than one. Six are better than two. A thousand are better than six—if they’re in high affinity.

Now, we get into this factor in the military when we talk about esprit de corps. If you have a unit where everybody is fighting everybody else in the unit, you’ll have bad communication inside the unit—real poor communication. You give them an order, “Squads right,” and they will all have a tendency to rag it up, and training might, and force might carry them through. But if you ever put them on a parade ground in competition or something like that, gee, they’d be terrible. I mean, they’d just—no matter how long you drilled them or trained them they would never come through. Training is no substitute for ARC or understanding.

Now, an individual could have such high ARC with his environment that he would not have to learn about any part of the environment; he would simply know all about it simply by observing it, because he could occupy its same space with no liability to himself. You see that clearly?

Now, the first oddity about which I talked to you was where you have a high-ARC outflow from one terminal hitting another terminal of a low-ARC potential. The low-ARC potential gets swamped up. It just plain ordinarily gets drowned.

Now, actually, a person - Mother in this case - would not have to be very affectionate to accomplish this if the other terminal, the child, were way down, see? So that all we have to have here is a difference of potential to get a flow.

Let’s take a battery and put ten thousand volts on it, and let’s take another plate or battery and put two volts on it. And now let’s connect the two of them together. Which battery gets swamped? The two-volt plate, of course. Right?

Life and beingness and the granting of beingness, and so forth, are all phrases or descriptions which simply describe this thing called communication or an outflow of understanding or an activity of understanding. See?

We could say granting of beingness: we mean high-potential ARC. See? He can grant high-potential understanding, or he can flow out to . . . We’d say, he can also make live and make alive . . . Get the idea here? See? We say high ARC: we’re also saying high potential of granting beingness; we’re also saying high potential of granting life; we’re also saying high knowingness, and we’re also saying—right along with those things—we are saying that this individual can understand or can be understood.

Well, believe me, an individual like that’s liable to be understood—he’s liable to be understood thoroughly—to such a degree that a low potential facing him is liable to understand nothing else. You see this?

Now, let’s take a look at life at large, and we find out that the successful life forms are simply being successful relative to other life forms. Now we have a study in relativity, and not Einsteinian relativity but Hubbardian relativity. And that’s of more use to man, I’m afraid.

All due respect to Professor Albert and his umbrella, I don’t quite see how he’s done very much for existence, except maybe to speed it on its way. You know, I don’t think anybody would have gotten real serious about the atom bomb if somebody like Einstein hadn’t given it a good hard shove. And you notice right after they built one, Einstein was one of the first boys jumping in to try to organize in order to help and save humanity; and of course, he just didn’t have enough on the ball. He lent his name to a couple of organizations, and they flopped, and it was a sorry mess.

But this was not an outflow of high life except in relationship to other mathematicians, other electricians and other engineers. Isn’t that right? So Einstein has a terrific outflow or potential, and so forth, compared to others in his field.

Sister Kenny probably has so much more life potential or ability to grant beingness or ARC and actual understanding of life and its problems than Albert Einstein that it’s very doubtful if the two of them could converse without Mr. Einstein suddenly buying anything and everything that Sister Kenny said. Get this high/low potential.

But now, Einstein can’t talk to a bunch of mathematicians or engineers or government political lads without getting them swamped. Get the relative factors involved here just taking people’s name in vain. And maybe be the most useful thing he ever did was to be included in the conversation.

That’s a hell of a funny thing to say, but let’s look at it. Let’s look right up to it, and let’s see that right out here in Nevada there’s a quarter-of-a-mile-radius hole in the sand which is green glass, which to this moment is radioactive.

And this might be a high understanding compared to that stove, but you see, we’ve almost moved out of the life band. Did you ever write Mr. Einstein a letter and get an answer? No, you never did, and you never will. Now, this is an interesting fact, isn’t it? But here we have somebody who is exclusively making MEST produce an effect upon MEST.

There’s even medical doctors in this town who have a higher understanding potential of life than Albert Einstein. I don’t mean in the field of medicine; I mean just of life at large, who can grant more beingness, who are more worthwhile to be alive. Now, life itself is happier to have them around. You see? Because they can produce an effect upon living beings which is a good effect or an improving effect with a higher ARC.

And I just said we were talking about medical doctors! I mean, let’s really crawl over the threshold and slime up on the first mark on the ladder, because these boys are not high in that particular direction.

Actually, today, the minister of the gospel is right there. He isn’t even vaguely starting to climb that ladder.

Now, undoubtedly around town you could probably pick up a guy or two who could produce an optimum effect or something more optimum on the subject of life than any medical doctor in town—who hasn’t even studied medicine. You know, he sort of walks in and says “Hello ‘ or something like that, and people feel better. There’s undoubtedly somebody circulating like that. Maybe it’s a salesman out here; maybe it’s a girl in a library; or maybe he’s a plumber. We don’t care what this fellow is doing.

The ability to understand life, and life’s assignment of labels to life forms are two different things. Life assigns labels to forms, which are thereafter supposed to perform on this level. Well, the actual understanding of life . . . I’m reminded of Mark Twain’s “Visit to Heaven ‘ think it was—Mark Twain —and he saw this tremendous line of men standing there, and they were all lined up to get signed up or something of the sort, and they were in order of precedent. And Mark Twain said, “Who’s this?” And his conducting angel said, “Why, those are the greatest generals that earth ever had.”

And he says, “They are? Well, who’s that fellow up there in front?” (He didn’t recognize Napoleon or Alexander the Great or anybody.)

“Oh, he’s . . .” I’ve forgotten the man’s name out of the book, but “that’s Ebenezer Smaltz from Poobar, Vermont.”

“Well, I never heard of this general. You say he’s the greatest general ever lived?”

“Yes, yes, he was actually easily the greatest general ever lived, but he just never got around to doing any generating.”

The success label assigned by life, as represented by a race or a government, is not necessarily the actually-borne label of the individual. You see, if you were asked to believe all the signs that you see around, that everybody is carrying on his chest one way or the other, you would get an entirely erroneous idea. But I tell you how you could get an erroneous idea corrected: You could get an idea about the value to life or actual position on the gradient scale of importance to life at large; you could get the understanding and ARC of the individual. And the understanding and ARC of the individual is a direct monitoring factor on how Valuable that individual is to the remainder of life. And that’s the only factor there is that’s worth measuring.

So, we don’t care if Doris Duke comes in to see you as a preclear or whether this person is Dr. Jow of the Jow Clinic or whether it’s Menninger or Mayo or the president of the United States. The label on this preclear, put there by social agreement, has nothing whatsoever to do with his value to life at large nothing; it has nothing to do with it at all.

There is a way to measure it, and that is his understanding and his ARC potential. If you exteriorized at a tremendously high potential—I mean, you’re exteriorized and really swamped up—your ability to understand that at which you look, your ability to have ARC would be so high, could be made so high, that your communications would have no slightest symbol value. But you could be so high that you would not even be observed by the rest of life, and you would simply find them caving in (as far as you were concerned) and simply accepting your ideas with no critical eye of any kind whatsoever. And you would make a race of slaves.

Difference of potential? You could get yourself up to a point where it would be enough for you to think a thought to have everybody run around and move like puppets to that thought, because you have assumed an ARC potential of such magnitude that your just thinking toward them caved them in.

Now, every once in a while somebody comes up and says, “Well, why do you talk to us, Ron?” See? “I mean, why do you put these things in words and phrases. Why do you bother to teach them in this arduous fashion?”—inferring “If you were really on the ball, you see, you would just think a thought, and then we’d all know it.” You see?

Well, if I ever were up that high and adopted this method of education or training, I’m afraid there would not be much individuality or self-determinism or life or power of any kind on the part of any auditor I trained.

Now, you boys don’t feel particularly reduced in your ability to get on in life through being trained by me, do you? That’s because I’m training across the face of your own decision and criteria, and through your own experience, right?

I’m not saying I simply could think a thought and then everybody’d walk around like puppets; that’s not my inference. That’s a lot of malarkey. It’s a theoretical possibility, but to train in that way would be an error, wouldn’t it? Hm? It would be an error. Then, all of a sudden, whoever trained you might get bored and go off to Arcturus or something of the sort, and that would leave everything on a completely robot basis. An individual cannot stand by his own inspection and criteria—if he can’t stand alone and function alone without support, he is not worth training. It’s not worth training him unless hey going to be able to stand alone and practice and utilize what he’s learned.

See, to train a man and take away from him, at the same time, his individuality would be a very horrible thing.

All right. We’re right here in the field of communication, and I invite you to observe the fact that we are also in the field of hypnotism. High ARC, low ARC—the potential can be sufficiently different that the low-ARC potential will simply become a robot. See this?

There’s why your Freudian analyst thought it was necessary for his patient to assume the valence or personality of the analyst before he was well. What was he trying to do? One way or the other, he was trying to overpower this personality and make a socially adapted robot. Do you see that clearly? Because this is the goal of Freudian analysis.

And where he couldn’t get a man to do this transference, he said the man could not be helped. I would like to know how the man has been helped by having lost his individuality or personality.

One of the greatest fears there has been in this universe was that some government would form with some terrifically accurate, useful therapy which would then depersonalize and remove the individualities of the persons under the control of that government. There would be no greater tragedy, and no government would collapse faster. The duration of that government could probably be measured in two winks of the eye.

People are afraid of this, but it can’t happen. Because any race so governed would perish because they would be leaving up to the government the exact method by which they moved the spoonful of food from the plate to their mouths, the exact number of times they masticated, and the audible audibility of the gulp when they swallowed. It would all have to be monitored by the government if you stripped them of their personality.

So let this be a lesson to you as an auditor. Please don’t just overwhelm your preclear. You won’t ever get anyplace with him. You’ll wonder why . . . He stays overwhelmed for three days—you’ll see this occasionally: three days he’ll feel wonderful, on the fourth or fifth day all of a sudden he’ll collapse. Why sure, all you did was overwhelm him. This doesn’t mean hold back your ARC. It merely means establish the other guy’s.

Two ways you can set up this two-way communication, then, isn’t there? You could set it up on a high-potential-, low-potential-terminal basis and have it simply go from the high potential to the low potential 80 overwhelmingly that then the low-potential terminal would become the high-potential terminal with all of its individualities and peculiarities. Right?

There’d be another way you could rehabilitate this, wouldn’t there? There’d be to take two terminals and make them—not by reducing one, but by increasing the low potential, you could make a two-way communication possible between these two, couldn’t you? And that would be two-way communication then, wouldn’t it? Comparable terminals.

All right. Let’s say you as an auditor: You can control a mind. You can control aberrations. You know that you can make people well. Your case is high. It has stayed high. You’ve remained in good self-possession. You are perfectly willing to grant beingness, life or ARC—whatever we want to call it—you’re perfectly willing to grant this to other people, and so forth. And you audit this fellow, and you gradually bring him upstairs as a terminal. You found him in the basement someplace. You got him up past scientist; you got him up past medical doctor, up past psychoanalyst, up past a parson, up past a yellow dog out here in the alley, up past scorpions, upstairs higher and higher and higher and higher, and you got him up there somewhere in your realm of flight.

You think this person is going to be effective thereafter and that life is going to benefit? You said it! And all this is tested solely by his communication ability, isn’t it?

The main thing you will see, that is visible, is the communication speed. His communication lag will be the quickest test of this. When he has a bad communication lag, he then and therefore cannot have very high ARC, cannot have a very high potential, cannot have much granting of beingness—all these things are consequent to this communication lag. See that clearly?

All right. Then underlying every single process that you will ever learn is two-way communication. Two-way communication cuts in at the Tone Scale at—8.0. Down at that level it would just be a hunt-and-punch system— mimicry-in-the-dark sort of thing. It would move on up the line, it would get on up the line, and it would cut out as the only process possible—the only process possible—at 1.0. It would go all the way from—8.0 on the Tone Scale clear on up to 1.0 as the only process possible. Will you learn that for my sake, by observing it?

Preclear walked out of here the other day after thirty-two hours of processing who still had a communication lag. You know why he did? Because he came in here at 0.5 on the Tone Scale. And the auditor processed him on Opening Procedure of 8-C and Opening Procedure by Duplication for thirty-two hours. Thirty-two hours of improper processing, done by an auditor who is a pretty good auditor. Number one, this auditor had never studied Science of Survival; did not know his Chart of Human Evaluation even vaguely. Number two, had evidently never completely learned what a communication lag is. And number three, had never understood that two-way communication is itself a process. He thought it was something which introduced processes. But it is a process, just as clearly a process as Opening Procedure by Duplication.

Let’s take the rest of this scale and just look at it in passing. Now, I’ll mention it to you again: the rest of the scale would be that from about 1.1 up to hostility just almost into antagonism there is only one other process which really has a lot of value, and that’s Elementary Straightwire. From 1.1 to 1.8, Elementary Straightwire has a great deal of value. But Opening Procedure by Duplication will be found to fail. All too often. He wasn’t in communication in the first place. You see?

But his idea—when you’ve really got him up to 1.1 he will communicate with his past and your past and other people’s pasts. You know, it’s past; it’s safe. So you have to get him up there to where he can look at life before you do much else with him. But the past is nagging him so much—he’s way back in the past somewhere.

So actually, the most facile method of processing, and according to my experience has been—1.1 to 1.8 has been Elementary Straightwire.

I’ll give you a process for Elementary Straightwire that is a murderous process - just murderous. And there’s a little quirk on it that’s equally murderous. And another process—there are two of them in there. Elementary Straightwire, of course, is simply “Something you wouldn’t mind remembering; something you wouldn’t mind forgetting.”

I doubt if there’s anybody present has run Elementary Straightwire long enough to do any good on a preclear. What’s long enough? Oh, couple of hours; three hours, four hours, something like that, at a stretch. And you’ll see some changes made—there’ll be some changes made in that case.

Well, let me give you the other switch—another switch on this. I mean, this is a process. Put in the Mystery to Know Scale on Elementary Straightwire: “Give me a mystery you wouldn’t mind remembering. Another mystery you wouldn’t mind remembering. Another mystery you wouldn’t mind remembering. Another mystery you wouldn’t mind remembering. Another mystery you wouldn’t mind remembering. A mystery you wouldn’t mind forgetting”— you got that lag flat, see, on one of them—”And a mystery you wouldn’t mind forgetting. And a mystery you wouldn’t mind forgetting. And a mystery you wouldn’t mind forgetting. And a mystery you wouldn’t mind forgetting. Give me another one and another one and another one. Okay.

“Some sex you wouldn’t mind remembering. Some sex you wouldn’t mind remembering. Some sex you wouldn’t mind remembering.” Now, finally, “Some sex you wouldn’t mind forgetting. Some sex you wouldn’t mind forgetting.” In other words, people at that level of the Tone Scale are pretty doggone wobbly. They’ve got to have a lot of significance, see? So, if you asked them something they wouldn’t mind remembering, something wouldn’t mind forgetting—they actually are so complicated as people that they don’t really swerve in toward anything, and they just sit there sort of gaa gaa.

But there’s a big liability of processing this individual on a technique that you can’t observe inside his own bank, isn’t there? Hmm? You can’t look in his head. Well, actually, yes you can, with a communication lag. That communication lag will vary and change. If it stays the same but is slightly laggy or is fast, he’s kidding you.

Now, Opening Procedure of 8-C could be used in such a case just to show him that you were boss around there, not to get him well.

Now, let me give you another quirk on this—I said there were two. “Something you wouldn’t mind remembering” “Something you wouldn’t mind forgetting” is Elementary Straightwire, with ARC Straightwire, as being right in the same band. But, “Something you wouldn’t mind remembering,” and “Something you wouldn’t mind forgetting” on the subject of mystery, sex, eating, symbols, thinking, effort, emotion, looking and knowing. You just run it in there, and it gives them enough significance to keep them going for quite a while. And you’ll see some change is made.

Now, there’s another way of running old-time 8-D: Pick out the fellow whose universe he is interiorized in. Mama—all right, let’s go to town: “Give me something real about your mother. Time when you were in good communication about your mother.” In other words, the specific person out of whose universe you’re trying to exteriorize him. See, you’re trying to pull him out of this universe. So something real about him- something real about that other universe, you see? And you’ll see him go bmmr pop! Why? Because he’s as-ising the connecting communication lines which still remain to his mother. Mother was obviously of a higher potential than he was, or otherwise, he wouldn’t be in that universe.

All right. Let’s take a look here. Let’s take a look and see and find out that Elementary Straightwire is intensely usable. But it will depend upon you and your ability to observe to know whether or not the preclear is actually remembering anything or not, won’t it? And therefore, it takes a sharp auditor to use that. It’d also take a knowledge on your part of the Tone Scale as given, and nothing more than is given, in Science of Survival. You’d have to know that great big Chart of Human Evaluation, and you’d be able to look along here and see by various factors where he actually is on the Tone Scale. You really find him there too.

Now, the communication lag will change, and he will rapidly improve. Maybe in a hour or two he will become quite improved. You’d jump the band, then; you’d get upstairs—up to 1.8. And about 1.8, then you would be able to run Opening Procedure of 8-C. And you would be able to run Opening Procedure of 8-C until he finally hit about 2.3 on the Tone Scale or 2.5 - in other words, the boredom range—and then hit him by Opening Procedure by Duplication from there on up and through conservatism. And you’ll knock him out on conservatism on this.

Remedy of Havingness actually does not take place as a very, very effective process until you have somebody at about 3.5 on the Tone Scale. And then it becomes intensely effective.

And Spotting Spots in Space cannot be done by anybody who is not, at least once in a while, at the band of enthusiasm.

Well, these are the processes you have there, simply plotted on the Tone Scale. But let’s take a good look at this and recognize that the widest band we have—1.1 on down south through 0.0, through—4.0, on through—6.0, on down to—Swathe only possible process anywhere on that range would be two-way communication .

Well, if this is the case, for Christ’s sakes, how do we use it as a process? Oh, we have a particular question we ask. That’s how we use it, and it’s profitable. That is Elementary Straightwire. If this disagrees with anything I have said before, what I’m saying now is true.

The only reason you’ve ever been fed a question to go along with two-way communication is just so that you can at least get in there and stir up a communication lag—you understand? To that you can understand the communication lag! But that isn’t what you’re expected to run on a preclear for the rest of your life.

Let’s look at it. Let’s take a good look at this, and we’ll find out that from -8.0 up here to 1.0 on the Tone Scale, we’ve got no business using anything under the sun except two-way communication. Two-way communication means he’s got to say things, and you’ve got to answer them too.

Most curious thing ever happens is when an auditor tells some preclear that he’s fishing up out of the rain barrel—out of some medical school . . . Don’t ever attempt one out of a psychology-major class. Oh, don’t do that to yourself. Just don’t bother, because two-way communication is too well shielded in that particular case.

Freud says, I think in lecture 27 or 28 at the end, “And these people then cannot be healed by us.” We can say this about psychologists: “These people then are not desirous for being healed by us.”

You know why? They sit there and observe the effect. They’re trained to sit there and observe the effect. Anybody who’s been trained in psychology will sit back in an auditing chair and observe the effect.

Once in a while, I get real brutal with them, grab them by the nape of the neck, make them go over and touch the wall and then sit there and see if anything happened. They’re not there to be processed toward being any better. They’re not there to be processed so as to become Clear. They’re not living in order to attain any goal or be happy or anything else. They’re just living in order to observe an effect. Not create one, you understand. No, no, no. Just observe one. Out in the street a blade of grass moves. That’s an effect, so they write it down in the book. That’s the way they’re trained.

One of the best ways to get rid of that is to just butcher them on this basis of a two-way communication, only you make two-way communication with them one way or the other. But ask them to observe an effect, or what effects can they observe or anything like this that taps the circuit. It’s a very curious thing.

Now, let’s in this last fifteen minutes really get down to cases on two-way communication. Just what is two-way communication? It is you asking a question and receiving the exact answer to the question. It is also the preclear asking an exact question and receiving an answer to that question. Got it?

And it is being used, ordinarily, on people who are so full of significance that any communication on anything is either aberrative or a process. Do I make myself very clear here? It’s either aberrative or a process. Anything they’re doing in life would fall in these two categories.

They meet some fellow, tips his hat to them in the morning and they think, “Let me see. Lets see, did he . . . No, what did he mean? No, I-I guess I’m in good con . . . I don’t know.” See, figure-figure-figure-figure-figure—the least it’ll do. Or apathy, an emotional reaction on their part. Somebody has actually tipped their hat to them and they’re so degraded, you see, and they’re just caved in by this whole action. Think I’m exaggerating things, but this is the way these people live! They cover it up with some social machinery now and then. But when they’re rough, they’re rough.

How do you know? Well, there’s a thing called disassociation that you certainly better get cognizant with. And I would advise you that you put on your little medallion dong-dong around your neck and take a walk down to the local spin bin or any home or sanitarium. And you just talk to some of those patients in there. And you won’t be asking anybody after that what somebody being out of communication means. You’ll see tremendous varieties of it. And one of the varieties you’ll see is this sort of thing: Statement on your part— zong-zong-zong—and then they dodge their own.... They dodged yours and then what they said, although it wasn’t on the subject, now has to be dodged, and now anything that they said then now has to be dodged. In other words, dodge-dodge-dodge-dodge-dodge. See, they’re dodging everything in life. They are trying to avert ever being at the effect point of a communication line. So therefore, anything you say, they change the subject. And then, having changed the subject, they then have to change the subject for sure in order not to have a straight line there. And this is called disassociation.

It is almost impossible for a sane person, unless he simply memorized an actual transcript of one of these people, to even mock up this type of disassociation. It’s almost impossible to. I’ve tried it several times, and I just never really get a grip on it.

Therefore, any rendition that I would give you would be a poor one on this subject. Because the second I start into that kind of logical traveling, and so forth, I will at least add a significance of making it funny or something like this. And they don’t do this. It’s just perfectly dull. You say, “Is that chair comfortable?” And you would expect, then, the person to reach down and touch the chair or do something in connection with the chair, but these people do not do that—not even vaguely. They will look over at the window. And then you expect them to tell you that the window is open. But they don’t say anything about the window. They talk about the stove which they now have their back to. You see? And having talked about the stove, now something comes up about some relative—only there’s clothing sequitur anyplace. And it’s just a lost circuit that you see these people walking through.

Listen, to get a straight stimulus-response on these people, such as you ask a question and they give you an answer, is one of the most fabulous things you ever heard of. So you know what you do with them? You shake them by the hand and squeeze their hand twice. And the first time they squeeze your hand once. And you shake it again and you say, “No,” you know, and, “squeeze it twice,” see? Don’t be surprised to see a fear charge come off. They will finally squeeze your hand twice in reply. You see some relief on this basis—two-way communication.

You go in, and you salute them, and they salute you—exact duplication, by the way. I mean, they’re not perfect duplicate, but they’re mirror duplicate, you know? They salute you with the same hand on the other side—a rapport, something of this character. If you ever get a patient of that character to do anything like that with you, and you don’t salute back so they can salute you back, and you don’t salute them back so they can salute you back, back and forth, back and forth, and recognize that you really got a process going here, you ought to be examined by Steves.

In other words, that’s a process, isn’t it? So what’s this communication? It’s cause-distance-effect with a duplication at effect of what is at cause, and cause changing position on the line. You finally get them to a point where they’ll salute you, and you salute back.

Now, people always miss on little kids. They go, “Goo-goo, bla-bla-bla and nya-nya-nya-nya. Wave bye-bye,” and they pick up their hand, you know, and wave it bye-bye like mad, and so forth. And then the next day the little kid comes in and steps on their toe or something like that—does something, you know, in this line—they don’t two-way respond to the kid at all. They pat him on the head or, you know, say, “Goo-goo, da-da, wave bye-blah-blah.” What are they doing? They’re doing a compulsive-obsessive outflow, obviously to a being who cannot register or recommunicate.

You want to get into good ARC with a kid so the kid will mind you and not fall in the garbage can and do other weird and strange things, and be successful in life, so forth, don’t go pounding them around, for heaven’s sakes. There’s just never anything happened in that direction. But let them communicate to you once in a while, you know? They walk up to you and they say, “Gub-glubglub.” Well, for heaven’s sakes, say at least yes or no. You know? Or say “Glub-glub” in response. But let them originate a communication once in a while. And if you don’t let anybody originate a communication ever, you get on one of these stuck flow bases, and there you are. And they will either get swamped or pay no further attention to you. In either case, they go out of communication with you. See, they go out of communication.

Now, parents wonder where their children get to be four, five, six—and wonder why, when you take them out to a soda fountain or a movie or something like that, they sit there and yell and scream, and they want something, and they whine and moan and victimize their parents at every—why they don’t mind. And they wonder when they’re twenty-one and twenty-two why they’ve gone off and married the wrong girl or the wrong boy and—you know?— and why in college they didn’t study, and why they never answer any mail. Particularly, you’ll hear parents always complaining about this: Johnny never writes them a letter.

Now, I’ve seen a few slaps administered to a kid (just a few slaps administered to a kid to put him out of an emanation band; just drop him out of an emanation band)—you know, around the house. He can take it from life, you see, but taking it around the house, that would be something else, (from a maid or somebody like that). You see, just a few cuffs: all of a sudden go out of communication—just out of the communication band, get sick, stick somewhere low on the Tone Scale, stay there for a day or so, see, sick, and then finally rebound. You’ve just watched a person go down Tone Scale and up Tone Scale again. Well, you actually could produce the same effect just by letting him reach and you withdraw. See, if he happened to reach toward you just accidentally, you back up. And you get an astonishing thing.

Now, I know of a case where a person finds it utterly impossible to make children or dogs obey—utterly impossible. This person cannot understand it. No dog or no child has ever been trained by this person satisfactorily, and yet this person has tried and tried and tried. Never worked. Can’t train them. Doesn’t matter what dog it is. Even if a dog is trained at a kennel someplace, you know, and is then turned back to him. He says, “Heel,” the dog runs away. He says, “Lie down,” the dog jumps up on his chest and licks him in the face. He just can’t figure this out.

But he never could figure this out either: The dog, in playing around— let’s say a dog’s playing around, see? Just chewing around and chewing on an old shoe, you know, and you walk in the room and the dog comes over and looks at the shoe you got on and says, “Rrrrahr-rrrahr-mahr-rrrahr-rrrahr,” you know, and grabs hold of your shoe.

Now, the person I just talked to you about would say, “Get away. What are you doing chewing on my shoe?” See? Not, “How are you, Rover?” In other words, under his conditions, with life exactly arranged the way he wants it, he will talk to the dog.

The dog offered a communication, didn’t he? He actually offered a game. Dogs play four or five games as just standard games of dogs. All right, he came in and he offered a game, hm? He didn’t inquire whether or not your shoes had just been shined or not. But then you didn’t inquire whether or not he’d just scratched his ear when you fluffed up the hair on the back of it. He bit you. Well, this person . . . If you were in good communication with life in general your—not an analyzed reaction, but just your instinctive reaction would be “Ouch! Don’t do that! Get away from me, you beast! What are you trying to do to me?” You’re letting him emanate, because you’re not basically scared. You can play a game. See that? This dog will think you’re wonderful. You’re a stranger. He’s done this. Next time you come to the house he’ll think you’re wonderful, and so forth. He’ll come out, and he’ll look at you, and he’ll wag, and he’ll go “Hah-eh-hah-eh-hah.” And you look at him and you go, “Eh-haheh-hah-eh-hah. How are you?” “Ah, that’s a great guy, a great guy,” you know? Two way communication in all directions, and so on.

I had people say to me “What do you do to animals?” It’s nothing mysterious what you do to animals. “What do you do to kids? Every time you come over here, Ron, every time you come over here these children just go completely out of control. What’s the matter with you?”

Yeah, I’ve been so mean as to say occasionally, “Completely out of control? Are you sure they were in control before I came?” But they’ve certainly come to life on this kind of a basis.

And I’ve seen kids get beaten down enough so that any playful push in their directions or attack in their directions, they just instinctively cringe away and try to go out of communication. In other words, a reach in their direction is enough to make them go out of communication.

Now, you understand that I’m also talking to you about preclears when I talk to you about children and dogs? Look, your preclear is well enough off—I’m just talking about living forms; same thing would apply to ants, plaster saints, anything. I’m just talking about life.

All right. Your preclear—the surest measure you ever had is your preclear’s willingness to play a game with you. He’s as bad off as he can’t play a game. A lot of preclears come in, sit down, you start processing, they’ll run anything for you. They’ll give you any kind of effect you can think of. All over the house they’re in good shape anyhow. Say, “Be three feet back of your head,” they probably would be without any trouble at all. They go through a drill; they do this; they do that.

Look at this person’s life. Life is a game. Earth is a playing field—no more than that. All right. This other preclear comes in, he says, “I don’t know, I feel pretty bad today. Your auditing session last week really didn’t do me very much good, you know?” He’s just announced to you at that moment he can’t play a game.

How’s another way he announces to you that he can’t play a game? You say, “Well, let’s see if we can get down and finish off that Straightwire we were running last week.”

“Oh, uh . . . well, that really didn’t do me too much good. I actually had a dream. Hm-hm-hm.”

See, he isn’t in this Straightwire game at all, see? I mean, he’s out of communication with you. You, being educated as a social animal, are liable to believe that you’re talking to somebody who has a rational reason why he doesn’t want to run Straightwire! All you’re talking to is somebody who cannot answer your question! The sooner you learn that, the sharper you’ll get! They sound so reasonable!

Well actually, the band between about 0.75 on the Nine Scale, and about 0.2—pardon me, 2.2 (in that band right in there), my God! Reason? Oh! Why, they could give you a total explanation, probably with all the physical laws involved of exactly how a sun got created. But by God, they could never walk in the sunlight! Do you get the sudden difference here? Hm?

Oh, can they be reasonable. And they keep on fooling you as an auditor by being so reasonable. You’re guilty of an overt act all the time, too, along a certain part of this band, see? Just by being there—your “thereness.” You want to know what your overt act is, your “thereness” is the overt act. You are in a mass, in a form; you are visible, and that alone is the overt act to people in that Tone Scale band. And you’re going to run these people on Opening Procedure by Duplication and precision, expect them to get in touch with their environment . . .

Well, once in a while you’ll be lucky, and that luckiness—that one lucky one—will sell you on the idea that then you could run this Opening Procedure on anybody, anyplace. You could get this person to drill around like an automaton and go over and touch walls and that sort of thing, and then after you’d given him a couple of hours of session you would say to him, “How do you feel now?”

And he’d say, “You know, I really don’t . . . uh . . . I-I really didn’t get through. There was one spot up there that I didn’t . . . “ Crrrr.

See, he was willing to go through like a little doll, all wound up. You’re not in communication with him. Did it ever occur to you that you have a high enough ARC to run a body around a room just by dropping a nickel in the slot, and that there’s no preclear walking around the room? Did it ever occur to you that you could animate a body into 8-C? You sure can!

And the only way you can really tell whether you’re doing it or not is two-way communication.

Can that person put out a communication that you can answer? Can you put out a communication that he can answer? Can you talk about something that is interesting in order to get life a little bit uncomplicated and as-ised and get some of these lags out. Just get him talking at first, and let him get you talking any way... But remember, the only communication there is isn’t talk. There are other ways to communicate, too, you know? All the tactile sensations can be used in two-way communication.

And then you’ll finally get him up to a point where he’ll really talk to you. You had to see him several times, you know, and he finally is really talking to you, and you’re talking to him—there’s where analysis misses every time. You know? It takes two-way communication. There isn’t a preclear sitting there puking words year after year—that’d make anybody wog. To match that two-way communication, the analyst would have to do the same thing.

All right. Back and forth we go here, back and forth we go. We could then get him up to Elementary Straightwire. And we can run Elementary Straightwire on him, then we can run almost anything, you see—when we get him through that lag. He can contact his past; his past is still there; he can still live; life would become more clear to him; you’ll break him out of that band and then hit him on 8-C.

This is the way I’ve been running them lately, with a tremendous amount of success just overwhelming quantities of success with them. And the only place Eve been watching auditors failing is they forget that they can run a body by their own willpower. And they get a person who is not in two-way communication, they run his body around the room through 8-C, and I don’t know how many thousand years they could do it, but they’d get awfully expert in running two bodies at once: the body that’s sitting in the chair, and the body that’s going around the room.

Okay.

P.A.B. No. 44
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
163 Holland Park Avenue, London W.11

_____________________________________________________________________

21 January 1955

TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION IN ACTION

The first thing one should know about communication is its formula. The formula of one-way communication is Cause, Distance, Effect, with Intention and Attention, where that which occurs at Effect Duplicates what emanated from Cause. The elements of communication, then, are Intention, Attention, Cause, Effect, Distance and Duplication. Meaning, Significance, are secondary phenomena.

Communication is part of the triangle of Affinity, Reality and Communication. Reality is composed of the degree of duplication possible, and this is also describable under the heading of Agreement. Reality is a quality which depends upon duplication, and in the action of duplication expertly or poorly done we find agreement and disagreement. The basic definition of Affinity is “co-existence” and as we drift away from actual co-existence, we drift into the ARC triangle and the communication formula. Co-existence is superior to the ARC triangle and the mechanics of living. Here we would find two things occupying the same space. This would be at the top of the scale. Two things with no space, no mass, and no energy. At the bottom of the scale we would find two things compulsively or obsessively almost occupying the same space. As Affinity enters into the state of not-quite co-existence, we get the manifestations of particles and significances, symbols, and, of course, much more intimately, Affinity embraces the distance part of the communication formula. It begins with the no distance of co-existence and then, as Affinity drops, the distance factor is more and more important (regardless of whether the distance is far or close) until we have at last a complete and positive objection to proximity, or a complete and positive objection to any distance, and in this “state of mind” we find material objects or the particles which compose them. Under Affinity, of course, we have the emotional scale: Effort, as found in Science of Survival, and the Know down to Mystery Scale as discussed in the Advanced Clinical Course Tapes.

The entirety of ARC is the subject of understanding. Knowingness is highest on the scale, and this exceeds ARC and is in the realm of considerations and ideas. The moment we enter into understanding we get into the communication formula and the ARC triangle. Understanding is a highly superior commodity, but still lower than knowing. Understanding itself produces a column of the Chart of Human Evaluation which could be added to it. At the top we would have a complete understanding of all things, and it would be complete knowingness, but this would require no communication to effect. From this knowingness we would drop downscale into understanding, and then into varying but dwindling degrees of understanding until we arrived at 2.0 on the scale, where we would find that understanding had become commixed with incomprehensibilities to such a degree that the entire vectors of life are reversed and become the vectors of physical objects. From 2.0 down we specialize in greater and greater degrees of incomprehensibility.

The subject of incomprehensibility is difficult to comprehend. If we examine the communication formula we discover that a duplication at effect must take place if a communication is to be received from the cause point of the line. Similarly, the cause point of the line has to take into account the fact that effect must be able to duplicate. Thus, the cause point of the line, if it wishes to communicate, must communicate in a fashion or in a guise which can be duplicated at the effect point of the line. This is not a question of being so stupid or incomprehensible as to cause an effect on any incomprehensibility, but it is a willingness to self-determinedly emanate in such a manner as to allow a duplication to take place at effect.

The basic stuff of the physical universe, to a thetan, is an incomprehensibility, but he is entirely devoted to trying to understand it. A thetan himself, the awareness of awareness unit, is understanding. Thus, we have this unit attempting to understand the incomprehensible. A thetan can, with perfect ease, understand incomprehensibility, but sometimes until it is called to his attention, he is continually on the track of trying to find some comprehensibility in the incomprehensible. The very fact that a thing is in a mass form is a puzzle to a thetan, since he, himself, has no mass, no wave length, and no actual position in space other than his own declaration of it. He can easily understand a form, since he is generally “experienced” in forms, but he can’t understand the stuff of which the form is made because that stuff is incomprehensibility. Thus we find the thetan very easily “as-ising” forms and altering them, and we find him considering that he is incapable of altering in its actual substance, creating or destroying the stuff of which the physical universe is made.

A thetan looking at the incomprehensibility of the physical universe is, of course, doing a no-duplicate. He is mocking himself up in the role of having to understand the incomprehensible. Thus we get him fixated on the idea of the physical sciences and eventually degenerating down to a point where he behaves like MEST, and here we have the luckless nuclear physicist who can cause MEST to vanish only by blowing it up, physically—a game which will never win. Here we find science in general, and here we find scientists, and their utter incapability of understanding any slightest particle of human behavior or conduct, and without any beliefs to speak of in humanity, and with a perfect and gruesome willingness to destroy it. These, as awareness of awareness units, have agreed so thoroughly with the physical universe that they have no agreement with actual understanding. They write their books with many communication lags, hemming and hawing, and without any decisions, and thoroughly object to anybody’s writing as though he knows what he is doing. The one thing that the scientist knows is that nobody knows, and this does not happen to be true. Thus, his science is based on a false datum. He originates a theory that man rises from mud because he, himself, is so close to it. When he does go into the field of the human spirit, the spirit itself, and indeed his own beingness, is an other-determinism to him. He sees no virtue in human fellowship or decency and advises in his books the necessity to turn to higher force. Once a scientist has broken through, in a revulsion against himself, his feelings of non-understandingness about people, it is generally on the downward side and it is in the realm where he must obsessively turn to God.

I give you this as an idea of what happens to preclears as they go down the tone scale. When they get close to the bottom they become scientific and pretend they know nothing and fight anything else which might know. When they get a little further down they become more violently neurotic and a little more south they become psychotic and forget even their science. And this is of considerable interest to the auditor, for the auditor is interested in human reactions and actions, and all he has to do is understand that he is looking at an incomprehensibility when he looks at anyone who is that neurotic or psychotic. There is no other causation in psychotic behavior than that everything is incomprehensible. There is no private, secret button which can be hit in a case, magically turning the individual into sanity, unless, of course, we utilize successfully “Be three feet back of your head” with some basic preparatory work. But this, of course, returns the person upscale toward understanding since it takes him from such close proximity to mass.

The auditor, then, who is looking at a psychotic, is trying to understand an incomprehensible, and if we were to cease using the word “psychotic” and began to use the word “incomprehensetic,” we would have a word which would serve us extremely well.

Thus, an auditor processes the psychotic with considerable difficulty in the absence of this understanding of incomprehensibility. For the auditor, to get any communication across, has to mock himself up, at least to some degree, as psychotic before he can communicate. The auditor’s fight to keep from being psychotic, or even seeming psychotic, is such that this conflict within himself (not because of any emanation from the psychotic, since these people do not emanate) restimulates him. The best way to handle a psychotic is with physical form, making the psychotic mimic the physical form by mimicking, with the physical form, the psychotic. Thus we have our basic level of mimicry, and thus we have the entering wedge of communication.

One-way communication is a first-dynamic operation. Two-way communication is a third-dynamic operation. An auditor who is playing “the only one” does not engage in third-dynamic activities, much less communication, and so he withdraws into one-way communication, and thus never lets the preclear emanate any communications, and will not listen to anything the preclear has to say. To this one fact alone we attribute the breakdown and lack of forward progress of many cases. The auditor did not pay any attention when the preclear had some vital information he desired to impart.

The process involved with running a two-way communication is best entered in the field of mimicry, and the best two-way process is then, of course, mimicry. Such a process will be given in the next PAB.

On the subject of communication itself, the auditor must realize that two-way communication is part and parcel of every process known in Dianetics and Scientology, and if it is not established, and if it is not continued, and if no attention is paid to two-way communication, only a small amount of benefit will occur. If two-way communication is understood as a process, many cases which previously seemed utterly unsolvable can be resolved with considerable ease.

CHART OF PROCESSES

WHERE THEY ARE ON THE ARC TONE SCALE

Exteriorized

                                     					4.0
               		Spotting Spots in Space
								3.6
								3.5
               		Remedy of Havingness
								3.1
								3.0
               		Op. Pro. by Duplication
								2.6
								2.5
               		Opening Procedure 8-C
								1.8
								1.8
               		Elementary Straightwire
								1.1
								1.0			
               		Two-Way Communication
								-8.0

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 APRIL 1970

Remimeo

2 WAY COMM C/Ses

There are four main reasons why a Case Supervisor or an auditor gives a “2 way comm” C/S.

1. 	WHEN NOT ENOUGH DATA TO C/S. “2 way comm to obtain data about case progress and status.”

2. 	WHEN PC INFERS SOMETHING IN CASE THAT’S NOT BEEN HANDLED. “2 way comm to find what pc thinks should be handled on case.”

3. 	WHEN PC HASN’T COGGED ON END RESULT. “2 way comm on (process just run) to see what thoughts pc had regarding it.”

4. 	WHEN PC’S POST PURPOSE IS BEING CLEANED UP. “2 way comm on how his post purpose fits into org—or if he can do it.”

In all these instances the C/S may be as specific as he likes about what he wants asked or cleared up. In other words the quoted C/Ses above are only examples. Each of the above four general types can have a great number of different questions. The C/S must be very familiar with the four types given in capitals above.

On his part the auditor can vary the C/S’s question around to get different slants on it. The auditor doesn’t have to get an F/N on the 2 way comm session but often does.

The auditor can introduce a curve, an alter-is, by Q and A with the pc and by evaluation.

The Drill on 2 way comm is the old ask and listen.

A Q and A is of course echoing the pc’s statement. Example: Pc: “I never liked my father.” Auditor: “What about your father?” Pc: “He was cruel.” Auditor: “What about cruel people?” Pc: “I don’t like them.” Auditor: “What else don’t you like?” And so on and on.

A correct session is for the auditor to hold to the C/S’s main line of questioning no matter how he phrases it and listen to and write down what the pc says.

Evaluation in auditing 2 way comm is the other deadly sin. The auditor asks and listens. He doesn’t explain anything to the pc. Example: Pc: “I didn’t dig the process.”
Auditor: “Well you see that process was intended to ................	“ and here we go on
Evaluation. Even an auditor’s facial expression can be evaluation.

Ask and listen and ack. Prompt only by varying the original question now and then, that’s what the good 2 way comm auditor does.

W/S

The 2 way comm worksheet is rather more detailed as to what the pc says than process worksheets.

The C/S needs the data.

Or in looking it over the auditor himself, if he’s his own C/S, will need the data.

The questions the auditor asks should be noted on the worksheet as a guide.

MAXIM

It is a C/S maxim “when in doubt order a 2 way comm”.

2 WAY COMM AUDITOR

Any auditor can 2 way comm. Saint Hillers were best at it. Academy Level Auditors can be used in this, even Dianetic Auditors.

The only reservation is not to assign an auditor whose grade is lower than the pc’s. The auditor’s class is not as important as his grade. The reason for this is that the OT pre-OT, in being 2 way commed by a Grade V, can blow the poor auditor apart or can be stuck with a data withhold.

METER

All 2 way comm is of course done on a meter. It is, however, not a Sec-check or Prepcheck. TA position and needle reaction and F/Ns are important to the C/S.

One doesn’t 2 way comm past an F/N, cog and VGIs.

                                       					L. RON HUBBARD
                                       					Founder

 LRH:dz.ei.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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 FEBRUARY 1972
Remimeo
All Tech
Terminals	C/S Series 74
All Auditors
Franchise
TALKING THE TA DOWN MODIFIED

The expertise of talking the TA down should be preserved. It is a skill.

But we have had high and low TAs solved for nearly a year and don’t have to talk them down anymore as a constant action.

Auditors SHOULD know how to do it, and then use it as a rare action.

The right way to handle a high TA is to:

Do HCO B 24 Oct 71, HCO B 12 Nov 71, HCO B 15 Feb 72, each named FALSE TA if it has not been done by the auditor on the pc.

THEN if TA is high don’t talk it down or do unusual solutions, do a C/S Series 53 or a Hi-Lo TA Assessment and handle. The Int-Ext Correction List is done as indicated and so is the Word Clearing Correction List.

As far as a C/S is concerned, when the pc’s TA is seen to be high at session start, he should order as follows: “Check as per False TA HCO Bs” then when that is done he orders “C/S Series 53 Assess and return to me”. Or “Hi-Lo TA Assessment and return to me”. He then rapidly C/Ses the required actions.

He should have a standing order with all his auditors:

IF TA IS HIGH OR LOW
AT SESSION START DO
NOT CONTINUE THE
SESSION BUT SEND FOR
A C/S.

An auditor should not in fact talk a TA down, we know now, as he may be auditing over an Out Interiorization Rundown, either not done or botched.

It therefore saves time if other auditing is not done when the TA is high.

In general practice it will now be considered standard for an auditor, Dianetic or upper class, to not start a session over a high TA but to call for a C/S.

And where there is no C/S it will be considered standard for an auditor, seeing a high TA, to at once do a C/S 53 Method 5 (assessing it all), and then handling.

THERE ARE EXACT
REASONS FOR A TA
BEING HIGH AND
THESE TODAY ARE
EASILY HANDLED.

There is no need to talk a TA down. It is faster to directly locate the reason it is up.

Smoothly handling such situations is the mark of an expert.

LRH:ne.bh                                  	L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright © 1972                             	Founder 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 MARCH 1971
Remimeo	Issue II
All Scientology
Levels	
TALKING THE TA DOWN
(A FLAG EXPERTISE SUBJECT)

One of the Hallmarks (sign of) an expert Auditor of any Scientology Classification is the ability to TALK THE TA DOWN if it is high at start of session. It is not a new Technique. It has been done for many years by well trained Auditors and is done at Flag simply and expertly as needed.

If one understands the anatomy of the Human Mind and what is By-passed Charge he will understand this simple but important technique.

Scientology Auditors of all levels should be able to Talk the TA Down quickly and simply without restimulating the pc further.

The TA is NOT Talked Down by getting overruns, Ruds or ARC Breaks. It is not done by Rehabbing Former Releases. It is done by the simple time honored action of ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTION, GETTING IT ANSWERED,

AND—LETTING THE TONE ARM BLOW DOWN.

By letting the Tone Arm blow down, it is meant that the Auditor does not have any attitudes or ridges toward the Preclear, and lets him blow off Charge which will bring the Tone Arm down.

THE AUDITOR NEVER INTERRUPTS THE PC WHILE THE TONE ARM IS MOVING .

To ask the right question on this technique, you must first know what you are trying to accomplish.

Why do you want to bring the TA down?

The Answer is simply, that the TA being high (3.5 or above), indicates that there is some mass the preclear’s attention is on. You want that mass out of the way so that you can direct the preclear’s attention where you want it.

So what you simply do is get the preclear to tell you what is in restimulation so that it will key out WITHOUT DRIVING THE PRECLEAR FURTHER INTO HIS BANK—AND THUS RESTIMULATING MORE MASS.

You must not further restimulate the preclear’s bank because it already is restimulated by something. The mass is right there. You can see it reading on the meter. But as this is not the mass you came into session prepared to run, it would be a Q and A to change the C/S and program by running it.

So you must DESTIMULATE the pc by having him tell you what it is that his attention is on and thus free his attention so that you can run the Major action.

Briefly, in Talking the TA Down, you are freeing the preclear’s attention from where it is so that you can then DIRECT IT WHERE YOU WISH.
HOW TALKING THE TA DOWN IS DONE

Talking the TA Down is simply starting the session as usual, and IF the TA is high-3.5 or above—asking the pc a question such as one of the following—using good ARC, excellent TRs, granting the pc Beingness not soppy or sugary, but being there comfortably and even pleasantly if the preclear is not upset.

Some of the questions you could ask are:

“Do you have your attention on any thing?

“Is there anything you’d care to tell me?”

“Since your last session has anything happened you’d like to tell me about?”

“How have things been going lately?”

“How have things been going since your last session?”

Or on occasion you could ask “Have you had any wins lately?”

The question should be phrased to limit the time period to just what the preclear’s attention is on and not to drive him into his bank by restimulating new things.

It is LIGHTLY, LIGHTLY, with one eye on the pc and one eye on the meter so you can see if the Tone Arm blows down and what it blows down on.

This does not get wild and complicated. There is no Q and A. Perhaps the pc will say “no” and the question will not have any reaction on the meter. Try another question but stick to one of the types given.

If the meter reads and the pc says nothing and the Tone Arm is not blowing down you could ask “What was that?” or “Did you have a thought there?” (See Fishing a Cognition drill.)

You will also find certain subjects the pc mentions give a blow down. These can be used by noticing them, redirecting the I c’s attention to them when the pc changes the subject and the TA starts up. Example: He says “Mother”, TA blows down, he goes on to “Father”, TA starts up. Casually ask him about his mother again and it will go on down. This is dangerously close to a Q & A except it manipulates the TA. A little of this goes a long way.

When all else fails look back on your W/S for the lowest TA read and redirect the pc’s attention to that subject and you may get your F/N.

DON’T GET ACCUSATIVE OR ABUSIVE OR EVALUATIVE.

The preclear will answer you and the Tone Arm will start blowing down. Sometimes the preclear will not answer, but will be looking, and the Tone Arm will start falling.

NEVER INTERRUPT WHILE THE TONE ARM IS BLOWING DOWN, EVEN IF THE PRECLEAR ISN’T TALKING.

Write down on the worksheet whatever names, items, events or whatever it was that blew the Tone Arm down and CIRCLE IT.

B O A R D  T E C H N I C A L  B U L L E T I N

10 JULY 1970
Remimeo 	REISSUED 28 JUNE 1974 AS BTB
Auditors and 	
above	CANCELS
HCO BULLETIN OF 10 JULY 1970
SAME ACTION

2-WAY COMM - A CLASS III ACTION

Amends HCOB 21 April 1970 2-Way Comm C/Ses And HCOB 3 July 1970 C/S Series No. 14, C/Sing 2-Way Comm with regard to Classification of 2-Way Comm actions.

2-Way Comm is now classified as a Class III action. This is because of the frequent use of Assessment in running the 2-Way Comm sessions which require Class III techniques.

Hereafter it is to be taught on Level III in Academies and is to be audited only by Class III Auditors and above.

Checksheets, Gradation Charts, Course Packs, etc. are to be adjusted accordingly.

This amends HCOB 21 April 1970, page 2, paragraph 5 which states “Any Auditor can 2 Way Comm .......... even Dianetic Auditors”. The rest of this HCOB remains unchanged. On HCOB 3 July 1970, C/S Series No. 14, Rules E and M are changed from “Class II” to “Class III”.

Following are some points on 2-Way Comm for C/Ses and Auditors:

1. 	Do not push non reading questions.

2. 	You can check “suppress” and “protest”.

5. 	2-Way Comm with a high TA is not bad but an Auditor who fights a high TA is.

4. 	2-Way Comm is not an invitation to Q and A.

5. 	2-Way Comm sessions can be run to F/N in most cases.

(Based on LRH C/Ses)
C/S-4

Reissued as BTB
by Flag Mission 1234

I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis
2nd: Molly Harlow

Authorized by AVU

BDCS:SW:AL:MH:mh	for the
Copyright © 1970, 1974	BOARDS OF DIRECTORS	
by L. Ron Hubbard	of the
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

B O A R D   T E C H N I C A L   B U L L E T I N

15 DECEMBER 1974
Remimeo
Auditor Courses

Auditor Expertise Drills Series No. 2

BASIC SESSION ACTION 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 numbered as Expertise Drill 1 (ED-1), Expertise Drill - 2 (ED-2) etc. The odd numbered Drills are unbullbaited. The even numbered Drills are bullbaited. If Coach upset occurs because of restimulation fruit words should be inserted in place of the process Key Words on bullbaited Drills. 

	Simply start with the first actions and work through the Drills in the order given. 

	If a student has trouble on a Drill locate whether the student has a misunderstood or has 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. Whatever it is, find out why and handle. 

FORMAT FOR UNBULLBAITED DRILLS

NAME: Auditing on a doll unbullbaited. 

COMMAND: As for each separate process. 

PURPOSE: To train the student to be able to co-ordinate and apply the commands and procedures of each separate auditing action with the actual doingness of auditing. 

POSITION: Student seated at a table with E-Meter. worksheets and auditing forms as needed. In the chair opposite the student is a doll occupying the position of the PC. (During the Drill the Coach is seated or standing beside the Auditor. He does not take the position of the doll.) 

TRAINING STRESS: This Drill is coached. The student sets up the E-Meter and worksheets exactly as in a session - as follows: 

1. 	Set up E-Meter as for E-Meter drills. 

2. 	Set up shield (to prevent TA and admin being seen by PC - doll). 

3. 	Have extra pens under the E-Meter. 

4. 	Have C/S face down between the bottom of the E-Meter and the table. 

5. 	Have W/S and Lists readily available in sequence required for the session. 

	Auditor starts the session and runs a standard session with the particular auditing action being taken up on the doll, keeping full session admin and using all standard procedures of the auditing action. Coach watches Drill and points out any outnesses noted, giving a “That’s lt” and re start, 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 confusions ie. flublessly! 

FORMAT TO BE USED FOR UNBULLBAITED DRILLS

NAME: Auditing _________________ unbullbaited. 

COMMANDS: As for each separate auditing action. 

PURPOSE: To train the student to be able to co-ordinate and apply the commands and procedures of each separate auditing action in a Drill similar to a real auditing session and thereby become flawless in applying lt.’ 

POSITION: Student seated at a table with E-Meter and Auditor forms, as needed. In the chair opposite the Auditor is a doll, as the PC. Coach sits beside doll and is the bullbaiter and gives answers as PC, not about his own case. 

TRAINING STRESS: The drill is the same as for auditing in that the “PC” Coach bullbaits the student Auditor using “fruit” answers during the session in an attempt to throw the student of a session. Where necessary, the Coach squeezes the cans to simulate reads. He still using “fruit” answers (six apples, blue pears) when asked to speak. 

	The PC bullbaiter can throw in situations, originate troubles or gains, be tricky, etc . But he must never lose sight of HCOB 24 May 1968, “Coaching”, especially the second paragraph, “Coach with reality”.

	Once the Coach throws out a situation, etc., he must allow the student Auditor to carry it out, and handle the situation before the Coach calls a new situation. 

	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

	Each Drill is to be done thoroughly building up the speed of Auditor commands and actions (“It’s the number of auditing commands per unit of auditing time which make gains in a session.” LRH) 

	The Drill is passed when the student can do the Drill flawlessly with excellent TRs 0-4, correct procedure and commands, without comm lags or confusion.

	These are the Drills that train the student Auditor to handle all the elements in a session, to be exact and be real.

ED - 21	FLYING RUDS UNBULLBAITED

ED - 22	FLYING RUDS BULLBAITED

	Ref:	HCOB   6 Sep 68	“When you check for earlier Auditor false reads...”
		HCOB 15 Aug 69	Flying Ruds
		HCOB 16 Feb 72	C/S Series 74 Talking the TA Down Modified
		BTB    11 Apr 74	Handling ARC Breaks
		HCOB 21 Mar 74	End Phenomena

PURPOSE:  To train an Auditor to handle Rudimnents expertly.
POSITION:  Per Basic Drill Format and Procedure.

TRAINING STRESS:  Coach with reality and on a gradient, getting tougher as the student auditor gets better and until student auditor becomes flawless.

COMMANDS:  As given in HCOB 15 Aug 69  Flying Ruds.

NOTE:  Also see Drill ED 53 & 54 for false read handling.

STEPS:  (Use Basic Drill Format and Procedure).
NOTE: If TA is not in normal range, do not attempt to handle the ARC Break Rud (or any rud). See HCOB 15 Sept 71 C/S Series 60 The Worst Tangle and HCOB 23 Aug 71 C/S Series 1 Auditor’s Rights. “ARC Breaks do not cause the TA to go up and so will not bring it down.” LRH

ARC BREAK RUDIMENT

1.	On a brand new PC (or PC who is new to you), give an R-Factor on what you will be doing.

2.	Clear: Rudiments, ARCU CDEINR and ARC Break. Clear the ARC Break question and the Earlier Similar ARC Break question.

3.	Ask PC: “Do you have an ARC Break?” Watch for meter read. (If no read, check suppress.)

4.	If yes, have the PC tell you about it.

5.	Tell the PC you are going to assess the ARC Break on the meter, or just do it.

	“Is that a break in Affinity
		Reality
		Communication
		Understanding”

6.	Assess once, take largest read.
	Ask PC” “Was that a Break in ______(item assessed)?”
	
7.	If PC agrees, indicate: “It was a Break in ______(item assessed).”

8.	If PC is in disagreement, get (from PC) the correct one or reassess and indicate the correct charge.

9.	The PC may want to ITSA. Let him. Acknowledge what the PC says.

10.	Assess CDEINR. Watch for reads. (“Very rarely will the PC have his own item instead of CDEINR and will volunteer it.” LRH)

11.	If no F/N, ask: “Is there and earlier similar ARC Break?”

12.	Wait for PC to reach around and find one. When he does, repeat earlier steps 4-11 to EP. (See HCOB 21 Mar 74 End Phenomena.)

13.	If the PC is not ARC Broken, the needle should float.

14.	A read may occur on the quetsion without the PC being ARC Broken. In this case, the situation gets handled by asking the “False Read Button” question: “Who said you had an ARC Break when you didn’t have one?”
	This may well have to be taken E/S to F/N by asking “Is there an earlier similar time someone said you had an ARC Break when you have one?”

NOTE: PC may be ARC Broken to the extent of being unwilling to even talk to the auditor. The auditor without further preamble handles the ARC Break per steps 5-12.

PTP RUDIMENT

1	Clear: Problem, time, present, “present time problem”. Clear the Earlier Similar question (if PC is new).

2.	Ask PC: “Do you have a present time problem?”  Watch meter for read. (If no read check suppress.)

3.	If yes, have PC tell you about it.

4.	If no F/N, ask: “Is there an Earler Similar Problem?”

5.	Let PC reach around and find one. When he does, repeat earlier steps 3-6 to EP.

6.	False Button can be used - as in ARC Break Drill. “Who said you had a present time  problem when you didn’t have one?” E/S to F/N.

MWH RUDIMENT

1.	Clear: Withold, missed, Missed Withold. Clear the Missed Withold question and the Earlier Similar question (if PC is new).

2.	Ask PC: “Has a Withold been missed?”  Watch meter for read. (If no read check suppress.)

3.	Get what the MWH is and
		“Who missed it?
		“What did he/she do that made you think he/she knew?
		“Is that all of that?”

4.	If no F/N, go E/S to EP.

NOTE:  Rudiment questions are not rote. There are many ways to ask for an ARC Break. eg:  Upset?, Sad?  PTP - Worried?, Concerned?  MWH - Not told? Haven’t said?

If the PC is not fully OK on a rud, although one chain may have F/Ned, there may be another chain in restimulation. If PC is not fully OK - on that rud - check “Do you have another ARC Break (PTP; MWH)?” Handle to EP.

WITHOLD RUDIMENT  (On C/S order, WH rud is used as well as MWH)

1.	Clear the Question and Earlier Similar question.

2.	Ask PC: “Are you Witholding anything?” Watch for meter read. (If no read check suppress).

3.	Get “What” the WH is; if discreditable and MWH phenomena turn on (critical-nattery) find out “all?” and “Who nearly found out?” etc, E/S MWH to EP.

4.	Check Suppress when no read and False when PC says “No” but meter reads.

5.	Otherwise go E/S WH to EP.

OVERT RUDIMENT (On C/S order, overt is used as an additional rud.)

1.	Clear overt. Clear the Question and E/S question.

2.	Ask PC: “Have you committed an overt?” Watch for meter read. (If no read check suppress).

3.	Get “What” the overt is and “All”.

4.	If no F/N, go E/S to EP.

5.	Check False when PC says “No” but meter reads.

NOTE:  For Triple Flow Ruds, follow the same procedure as for Single Flow Ruds. The commands are given in BTB 17 June 70 Issue II Triple Rudiments.

ED - 23	AUDITING C/S 1 UNBULLBAITED

ED - 24	AUDITING C/S 1 BULLBAITED

	Ref: BTB 8 Jan 71R Auditing C/S 1 for Dianetics and Scientology.

PURPOSE: To train the student auditor to educate his PC so that PC can be audited smoothly and get excellent case gain.

STEPS: (Use Basic Drill Format)

1.	Collect all the references you will need to do a thorough C/S 1. If necessary, do some research on the material covered in the C/S 1 so that you can refer your PC to Source quickly on any question he might have.

2.	R-Factor: Give the PC an R-Factor that you are going to do an Auditing C/S 1 to familiarise him with auditing procedure and any basic data that may require clarification.

3.	Follow the instructions for each step in the general C/S 1 (BTB 8 Jan 71) and the Dianetics C/S 1. On a gradient, the PC (coach) is to mock up MUs’ questions, and situations that must be handled by the student auditor.

4.	Have the PC (coach) on the cans except when doing demos.

5.	Obnose the PC. Watch the PC and the meter for indicators of MUs or confusion. Handle any MUs or questions thoroughly using Word Clearing and Study Tech as necessary.

6.	Handle each area until both of you and he are satisfied that he understands it. Make sure he can apply what he is learning and doing in the C/S 1 - to what he will be doing in auditing. Make sure that by the end of the C/S 1 he has no more immediate questions and is ready to be audited.

7.	The drill is passed when the student auditor can do a standard C/S 1 on a PC and knows he can get the product of a PC who is educated in the basics of auditing and is ready to be audited.

ED - 25	PC ASSESSMENT SHEET UNBULLBAITED

ED - 26	PC ASSESSMENT SHEET BULLBAITED

	Ref: TAPE 6110C11 SH Spec 65 Problems Intensive
	        BTB 24 April 69R PC Assessment Sheet

PURPOSE: To train the student auditor in doing a PC Assessment Sheet.

POSITION: Use Basic Drill Format and Procedure.

TRAINING STRESS: Maintain proper session admin in handling the PC Assessment Sheet and on what you will be doing.

STEPS: 

1.	Give the PC a brief R-Factor on the PC Assessment Sheet and what you will be doing.

2.		Auditor goes over each question on the PC Assessment Sheet as covered in the tape given in the reference section.

3.	Note PC’s answer and any physical or emotional reaction to the question.

4.	Mark TA each time it changes. Mark all reads on questions.

5.	Indicate any F/Ns that occur with good indicators.

6.	Repeat steps 2-5 throughout the PC Assessment Sheet.

7.	Have additional worksheets available and use as needed.

8.	Upon completion of the Form, say: “That completes the Form. Thankyou very much.”

9.	The drill is passed when the student auditor can confidently and flublessly handle a PC Assessment Sheet.

ED - 27	OBNOSING RUDS GOING OUT UNBULLBAITED

ED - 28	OBNOSING RUDS GOING OUT BULLBAITED

	Ref: HCOB 23 Aug 71 C/S Series 1 Auditor’s Rights

STEPS:  Use Basic Drill Format and Procedure.

1.	The student auditor does the drill as in TR 4.

2.	The coach answers and on a gradient, throws in an out of session indicator as given in C/S Series 1.

3.	At first, the coach is obvious. The student handles as given in C/S Series 1.

4.	The coach gets more subtle as the student auditor gets more confident. Coach with reality.

5.	The drill is passed when the student auditor can handle out ruds situations standardly and smoothly and when he knows he can handle any out rud that comes up.

ED - 29	FINDING HAVINGNESS UNBULLBAITED

ED - 30	FINDING HAVINGNESS BULLBAITED

	Ref: E-Meter Essentials
	        E-Meter Drill 5
	        HCOB 18 Mar 74 E-Meter Sensitivity Errors

PURPOSE: To teach an an auditor to find the correct havingness process for the PC.

STEPS:  Use Basic Drill Format and Procedure.

1.	Student auditor, having already done E-Meter Drill 5 (Book of E-Meter Drills) clears the word havingness.

2.	Give the PC and R-Factor that you’re going to find his Havingness process.

3.	Set the sensitivity knob at one on the sensitivity dial. Adjust the needle to ‘set’. Tell the PC to squeeze the cans. (The coach squeezes the cans for the doll.) Ref: E-Meter Drill 5. Make sure the PC knows how to squeeze the cans.

	Observe how tight or loose the needle is and how far it goes over to the right. Mark this down.

4.	Pick a Havingness process and clear the words and commands.

5.	Run a few commands. The coach simulates reads as necessary.

6.	Test the can sqeeze again. If it is looser (wider swing) than the first squeeze, then you have found the correct Havingness process.

7. 	If the process tested for Havingness tightens the needle during the test - get rid of it. Don’t bridge off. Tell the PC you’re going to try another Havingness process. Repeat steps 3-6.

8.	The drill is passed when the student auditor can do it effortlessly and flawlessly.

ED - 31	2 WAY COMM UNBULLBAITED

ED - 32	2 WAY COMM BULLBAITED

	Ref:	HCOB 1 Oct 63 Scientology All - How to get TA Action
		HCOB 21 Apr 70 2 Way Comm C/Ses
		HCOB 3 Jul 70 C/S Series 14 C/Sing 2 WC
		HCOB 10 Jul 70 2WC A Class III Action
		BTB 14 Mar 71R Talking the TA down - a Flag expertize subject
		HCOB 16 Feb 72 C/S Series 74 Talking the TA down modified
		HCOB 17 Mar 74 TWC Checksheets - TWC Using Wrong Questions
	Tapes:
		5410C05    8AAC-2    2WC Straightwire 8C
		5410C06    8AAC-4    2WC 
		5410C022  8AAC-17  2WC 
		5411C01    8AAC-23  2WC 
		5411C29    HCAP8    2WC 
		5407C27    PRO17     2WC 

STEPS:  Use Basic Drill Format and Procedure.
1.	Give R-Factor to PC that you will be doing 2WC.

2.	Write out the question on the worksheet. Clear it.

3.	Ask PC the question And watch for read (if you’re 2WCing a subject) if no read on question or PC statement, check suppress, inval on the question/subject. If still no read, leave it. (Applies to 2WC on a subject. Does not apply to 2WC “attention on?” or 2WC for data.)

4.	For this drill say to PC, “Tell me about ______ (use fruit words).”

5.	Listen to what the PC says. Record any reads with the statement the reads occurred on.

6.	Don’t go off the subject you are 2WCing. You must take what you started to an F/N, Cog, VGIs. Sometimes you may have to go earlier similar to F/N.

7.	2WC is Listen Style Auditing. Let the PC ITSA. Apply the rules “A silent auditor invites ITSA” and “All auditors talk too much. All auditors acknoledge too little.” LRH

8.	Don’t use questions that start with “Who”, “What”, “Which” as this instantly turns it into a Listing Question if asking for terminals or locations. Ref: HCOB 17 Mar 74 TWC Checksheets - TWC Using Wrong Questions.

9.	2WC questions must be limited to feelings, reactions, significances; they ust never ask for terminals or locations. 2WC questions are not rote but you must stick to the subject and not Q & A. Ref: HCOB 17 Mar 74 TWC Checksheets - TWC Using Wrong Questions.

10.	If any ARC Breaks, PTP or MWH shows up on the 2WC, they must be handled to EP at once and the 2WC resumed and taken to F/N, Cog, VGIs. Ref: HCOB 20 Nov 73 F/N What You Ask Or Program.

11.	You 2WC the TA out of the subject. Any 2WC question that did read will go to F/N.

12.	The drill is passed when the student auditor can 2WC smoothly and flublessly with excellent TRs 0-4.

ED - 33	PREPCHECKING UNBULLBAITED

ED - 34	PREPCHECKING BULLBAITED

	Ref:	HCOB 14 Aug 64 Scn Two - Prepcheck Buttons
		HCOB 20 May 70 Unreading Questions and Items
		HCOB 14 Mar 71 F/N Everything

STEPS:  Use Basic Drill Format and Procedure.

1.	The coach makes a list of fruit items and gives it to the student auditor.

2.	 The student auditor gives the PC an R-Factor that he will do an assessment. Clear the action with the PC if he has never had an assessment.

3.	Auditor does an assessment on the list and gets an item. Coach simulates and indicates reads.

4.	Clear what Prepcheck is. Clear all words and commands.

5.	Take largest reading item (from your assessment) and ask PC: “On ______ (item) has anything been ______ (Prepcheck button)?” If a time limiter is used, the command is: “Since______ (date or time) has anything been ______ (Prepcheck button)?”

6.	Run step 5 repetitively until PC has no more answers.

7. 	Then say: “I’ll check the question.” Check it and observe the needle. If it read, look at the PC expectantly; if he doesn’t speak up, ask him the question directly.

8.	Run the question repetitively until the PC has no more answers. Then follow steps 7-9 until the button F/Ns. Go on to the next button on the Prepcheck and repeat steps 7-9.

9.	If indicators of an ARC Break appear during the Prepcheck, handle the ARC Break per ARC Break Drill. When this ARC Break F/Ns, end off on the Prepcheck button. You may run further Prepcheck buttons on the same item if no major Cog with F/N, VGIs occurs on the subject being Prepchecked.

10.	When the item you’re handling has gone to EP, take the next largest reading item and handle as per steps 5-11.

11.	Repeat as in step 10 on all reading items.

12.	Drill is passed when the student auditor can Prepcheck confidently and flublessly.

ED - 35	REHAB BY COUNT UNBULLBAITED

ED - 36	REHAB BY COUNT BULLBAITED

	Ref:	HCOB 4 Aug 63 All routines - E-Meter Errors Comm Cycle Errors
		TAPE 21 Aug 63 ITSA Line Continued
		BTB 6 Dec 68 Release, Rehabilitation Of

STEPS:  Use Basic Drill Format and Procedure.

NOTE: If it’s the PC’s first Rehab, you will have to clear all the words (i.e. Rehab, Release, Key-out, Key-in, Mass, Cognition, Cognite, Suppressed, Invalidated, Unacknowledged.) and go through the basic steps of the rehab procedure with the PC. Make sure he understands why you rehab. Be alert for an F/N on the subject being rehabbedwhich could occur at any point during the rehab.

1.	Tell the PC: “We are going to check a question.”

2.	Ask PC: “Were you released on ______ (name of process or state)?” and “How many times were you released on ______ ?” Get the correct number of times and it will F/N.

3.	If there is a read - but the PC says “No”, check “False”, or “Protest” or “Assert” or “Decided”. Indicate the button if it reads and clean it up. If there was no release, end the rehab.

4.	If you get NO read on the release check question, but the PC says “Yes I was.” the auditor puts in the buttons: “On that release, has anything been suppressed?” “Invalidated?” until the read turns on.

5.	If the PC cannot say how many times he went release, give an R-Factor “We’re going to count the number of times you went release.” and do so, watching the meter and the PC. Ask: “Were you released on ______ (process or state) one time, two times, three times, four times, etc?”

6.	Count until you get a read on a number.

7.	Indicate it to the PC: “You went release 4 times” (for example). If it is correct, the PC will have an F/N. (If you cannot get an F/N by doing Rehab by Count, go to the ‘65 Method of Rehab - see HCOB references and procedure in the following drill.)

8.	The drill is passed when the student auditor can Rehab by Count flawlessly.

ED - 37	REHAB REHABILITATION UNBULLBAITED

ED - 38	REHAB REHABILITATION BULLBAITED

	Ref:	HCOB 30 Jun 65 Release, Rehab of
		HCOB 21 Jul 65 Release Rehabilitation
		HCOB 2 Aug 65 Release Goofs

STEPS:  Use Basic Drill Format and Procedure.

1.	Auditor clears all words and commands.

2.	Auditor gives PC an R-Factor on the procedure.

3.	Then date the session or time to the nearest day the release occurred.

4.	If you know you have just O/R the process, check with PC, “Have we overrun this process?” If PC says “Yes” then follow step 5.

5.	Get in Supress, Invalidate buttons on the session ot time. Indicate anything found to the PC as by-passed charge.

6.	Get in “Unacknowledged” or “What was unacknowledged on that release point?” Indicate anything found to the PC as by-passed charge.

7.	Find the Key-In that was Keyed-Out in that time or session (the person went release because something Keyed-Out in that time or session).

8.	When this is found and recognised by the PC, the PC will then return to Release.

9.	If this does not happen, find what Keyed-In that ended the state and repeat steps 3-8 on it.

NOTE: In doing a Former Release Rehabilitation ... you find the point of Key-Out of the moment the PC was formerly released, and then the moment of Key-In afterwards and then get the PC to ITSA these alternate points, one after the other, with a bit of guiding when you see a fall, (Telling the PC - who is thinking - the needle fell by saying “What’s that?”) and then ... you get off any unacknowledgement by the auditor in the rehabilitation session...

... it isn’t a repetitive alternate question, “What was Keyed-Out then?” “What was Keyed-In then?” but a use of these and any such wording one after the other as ITSA invitations, until you get the TA off it and the TA down (and not up again on session comm cycle goofs).” LRH

10.	The drill is passed when the student auditor can do a Release Rehabilitation confidently and flawlessly.

ED - 39	LISTING AND NULLING UNBULLBAITED

ED - 40	LISTING AND NULLING BULLBAITED

	Ref:	HCOB 1 Aug 68 The Laws of Listing and Nulling
		BTB 7 Nov 72 L&N Lists
		BTB 20 Aug 70 Two complete differences - 
		Assessment and Listing & Nulling

STEPS:  Use Basic Drill Format and Procedure.

1.	R-Factor to the PC you’ll be running an L&N process.

2.	Clear the procedure of L&N with the PC and make sure he understands that he is to give you all his answers to the question.

3.	Clear words as necessary. Write PC’s definitions on the worksheets.

4.	Clear the question watching the meter response and noting any read.

5.	If no read on clearing the question, call the question out to the PC. Note any read on the listing sheet.

6.	If still no read, put in Suppress and Invalidate on the question until you get a read. eg: “On the question ‘What change has occurred in your life’, has anything been Suppressed?” “On the question ‘What change has occurred in your life’, has anything been Invalidated?”

7.	If no read on checking the question with Supress and Invalidate, do not list the question. NOTE: You can also check “Not-Ised” and “Abandoned” as buttons if there is no read using Supress and Invalidate.

8.	If the question or button reads, list it by asking the Listing Question.

9.	Coach uses fruit words for answers.

10.	Write each item VERBATIM, with its reads.

11.	List to BD F/N item and indicate the item to the PC; then indicate the F/N.

12.	If PC runs out of items while listing, (without a BD F/N item), check the Listing Question. If it reads, extend the List. If it is clean, Null the List and give the PC his item.

13.	If you cannot get the item, do an L4BR Method 5, handling what you find by following each instruction for each line exactly.

14.	The drill is passed when the student can do Listing and Nulling flawlessly.

ED - 41	RUNNING A COMPLETE SESSION UNBULLBAITED

ED - 42	RUNNING A COMPLETE SESSION BULLBAITED

PURPOSE: TO train a student auditor in the procedures of setting up for, running and handling whatever comes up in a session and then ending a session.

TRAINING STRESS: The auditor executing the session in a business like fashion yet keeping in good comm with the PC and being fully prepared to handle what comes up.

STEPS:  Use Basic Drill Format and Procedure.

1.	The coach will take the various parts of D of P, Tech Services, C/S, PC Examiner etc. as required.A third person may be used if required. The coach or third person must be REAL in assuming these roles.

2.	Coach gives the student a start and the student auditor goes to D of P to get assigned a PC.

3.	The student auditor collects the folder form Tech Services and studies the folder and the C/S. If OK, he accepts the C/S as correct.

4.	The student auditor liaises with Tech Services and gets his PC set up for a session. He then sets up his auditing room.

5.	Tech Services sends the PC to the auditor per C/S Series 25.

6.	The student auditor checks with the PC if it is OK for him to be auditied in the room. He also observes whether the PC is sessionable and, if questioned, checks with the PC to make sure.

7.	If all is OK, (for this DRILL only say) “This is the Drill”.

8.	Fly the ruds per Ruds Drills.

9.	Run a process. Use, “Do birds fly?” or “Do fish swim?”. Run to EP.

10.	The coach - on a gradient - throws in various Out of Session indicators (per HCOB 23 Aug 71 C/S Series 1), Bad indicators, Overun, etc., letting the student auditor handle each type - one at a time.

11.	As the student auditor gets more confident the coach makes the gradient tougher.

12.	Also, drill various session endings:

A.	The C/S action attempted will not run and cannot be handled in the session. Tell PC you are ending the session for further C/S instructions and “That’s it”.

B.	PC has a major win, attains EP of the rundown or Ability Regained.

C.	The C/S actions for that session are all successfully completed.

13.	When the student auditor has completed the “session” he takes the PC to the examiner.

14.	Auditor does the folder admin. He turns the folder in to the C/S.

15.	The drill is passed when the student auditor can do each action smoothly and flublessly.

ED - 43	DATE/LOCATE DRILL UNBULLBAITED

ED - 44	DATE/LOCATE DRILL BULLBAITED

	Ref:	TAPE 21 Aug 63 ITSA Line continued
		HCOB 24 Sep 71 Urgent - Int R/D

DATING STEPS:  Use Basic Drill Format and Procedure.

1.	Clear all words and commands you will be using in the Date/Locate actions.

2.	Coach chooses an incident - using fruit - not actual incident, and writes down a date for it.
3.	The auditor tell the PC, “We’re going to date that point in years, months, etc. ago until somethings blows off - some mass or energy etc. I want you to tell me as soon as that happens. Alright?”

	If the PC is confused about “blow” the auditor can do a demo by putting his hand on the PC’s arm and taking it away suddenly.

4.	The student does dating by getting the PC to give him the years, months, days, hours, minutes, seconds and fractions of seconds ago to a point when something blows and F/Ns.

5.	The PC coach must indicate that “Something blew”, “Disappeared”, “Vanished”, “Went”, “Not there any more”, “Gone”, or some such word.

	It must be a statement of LEAVINGNESS. Something like “That handles it”, or “That takes care of it”, is not a blow statement. It must be a decided blow.

6.	If the PC gives up on getting the date himself, only then does the auditor meter date the flat point or incident to a blow - F/N.

	LRH data re meter dependency of PC’s and echo-metering are to be remembered here.

7.	If a big BD occurs and the auditor suspects a blow but the PC will not originate it, the auditor can ask the PC if it blew.

8.	If no blow occurs the auditor verifies each part of the date and corrects where necessary to a blow-F/N. If still no blow-F/N, the auditor then checks for an earlier “incident orflatpoint.” If there is one, the auditor dates that point to a blow-F/N.

9.	When the date has gone to a blow-F/N and the F/N has been indicated, the auditor tells the PC “Now we’re going to spot the exact location where that occurred, until something blows off. I want you to tell me when that happens. Alright?” The auditor is getting the PT physical universe location.

10.	The auditor clears the words: stars, planet,galaxy, location. Point if this is the first time Date/Locate is being done on the PC.

11.	When the PC understands what is expected of him, the auditor begins the Location steps.

12.	The auditor says, “Point to that location.” The PC points with his finger until he is satisfied he has the exact direction. Then the auditor goes down the rest of the steps to a blow-F/N.
Distance?
Exact?
What Galaxy?
What Star?
What Planet?
What Country?
What City?
What Street?
What House?
Position on street?
What Room?
Distance from front of hous?
Where in room?
How far from each wall?
How far off the floor?
How far from the ceiling?

13.	If while locating the PC starts running the incident or gives too much “scene”, the auditor has the PC point again, then continues from where he left off on the Location steps.

14.	If at some point on these steps the location turns out to be in the middle of the ocean or in a field, etc, the auditor uses available landmarks or reference points to get the location. (eg. distance from nearest point of land? or distance from the big rock? etc.) down to a blow-F/N.

15.	If no blow-F/N, the auditor verifies each part of the Locate step and corrects any necessary to a blow-F/N.

16.	If the auditor suspects a blow but the PC will not originate it, the auditor can ask the PC “Did something blow?” If the auditor suspects he’s gone past a blow, he can check “Did it blow previously?” If so, and no F/N, the auditor rehabs by asking the PC how long ago that happened and gets the F/N.

17.	If the point won’t Date/Locate, do the apropriate correction list. (ie. L3RD, Int Corr, L4BR etc.)

18.	The drill is passed when the auditor can Date/Locate confidently and flawlessly.

ED - 45	CORRECTION LIST DRILL UNBULLBAITED

ED - 46	CORRECTION LIST BULLBAITED

	Ref:	BTB 11 Aug 72 C/S Series 83 Correction lists
		LRH ED 257 Int Delivery Prepared Lists

PURPOSE: To train the student auditor to have understanding, familiarity and confident flawless handling of correction lists.

TRAINING STRESS: The student uses actual correction list forms in doing this drill, but uses the prefix “On apples” (for example) rather than a session prefix. The coach answers with fruit answers and squeezes the cans to make reads. The coach indicates an F/N with his index finger. Flunks are given for out TRs, incorrect procedure or out admin. The drill is passed when the student auditor can handle each correction list for his level flawlessly.

STEPS:  Use Basic Drill Format and Procedure.

1.	Read through the entire list and, with a dictionary, clear any words you don’t know as you go along. This step could also be done using Method 9 Word Clearing if necessary.

2.	Read through the list again, this time take each line and demo it with another student. Demo:
A.	What is happening with the PC and his bank in that situation.

B.	The handling instruction for each line showing each step of the handling and what is happening with the PC and his bank as it is handled.

3.	Drill the handling of each line per the instructions written on the correction list. Drill each line one at a time until you have it. Then on a gradient, the coach throws in situations that are likely to come up in a real session which the student auditor must handle.

4.	This part of the drill is passed when the student auditor can handle each question on the list for his level without flubbing.
5.	On this step of the drill the coach has a pile of the various correction lists, holds each up in any order and asks “When do you use this?” “How do you use it?” Auditor must answer correctly without comm lag. When the auditor can do this without error, coach then varies the drill by giving session situations and auditor must state the appropriate corrective action to be taken.

6.	A flunk is always handled by having the student auditor restudy the relevant bulletin (never by coach interpretation). Any disagreement or confusion is handled by appropriate word clearing on the materials concerned.

7.	The student auditor passes when he can smoothly handle the correction lists drill and knows when and how to use each.

ED - 47	METHOD 3 ASSESSMENT UNBULLBAITED

ED - 48	METHOD 3 ASSESSMENT BULLBAITED

	Ref:	BTB 11 Aug 72 C/S Series 83 Correction lists
		HCOB 3 Jul 71 Auditing by List Revised
		HCOB 14 Mar 71 F/N Everything

STEPS:  Use Basic Drill Format and Procedure.

1.	Use meter at proper sensitivity so meter is loose but it is easy to keep at set.

2.	Have your meter in a position (line of sight) so you can see the list and the needle or you can see the needle and the PC. The meter position is important. “A good auditor is expected to see his meter, PC and worksheets all at one time.” HCOB 28 Feb 71 C/S Series 24 Metering Reading Items.

3.	Hold the mimeoed list close beside the meter. Have your worksheet more to the right. Keep record on your worksheet. Mark the PC’s name and date on the list. Mark what list it is on the worksheet with the time. The list remains in the folder stapled to the worksheets.

4.	Read the question of the list, note if it reads. Do NOT read it while looking at the PC. It is more important to see the PC’s cans than his face as “can fiddle” can fake or upset reads.

5.	TR 1 must be good so the PC clearly hears it.

6.	You are looking for an INSTANT READ that occurs at the end of the major thought voiced by the auditor.

7.	If it does not read, mark the question “X”. If the list is being done through and F/N and the F/N just continues, mark the question “F/N”.

8.	If the question reads, do NOT say “That reads.” Mark the read at once (sf, F, LF, LFBD, R/S), transfer the number of the question to the worksheet and look expectantly at the PC. You can repeat the question by just saying it again if the PC doesn’t begin to talk. He has probably already begun to answer as the question was live in his bank as noted by the meter.

9.	Take down the PC’s remarks in shortened form on the worksheets. Noe any TA changes on the worksheets.

10.	If there is no F/N, at the first pause that looks like the PC thinks he said it, ask for an “Earlier Similar _____ (whatever the question concerned)?” Do NOT change the question. Do NOT fail to repeat what the question is. The PC will answer.

11.	Follow step 10 until you finally get an F/N and GIs. Use Suppress and/or False as needed. (see ED 53 and 54)

12.	When the PC’s answer results in an F/N, (Cog, VGIs sometimes follow, GIs always accompany an F/N) mark it rapidly on the worksheets and say “Thankyou. Your needle is floating.”

13.	Do NOT wait endlessly for the PC to say more. If you do, he will go into doubt and find more.

14.	Take up the list and continue assessing. The next question that reads, you mark it on the list, transfer the question number to the worksheet as in step 8.

15.	Take the PC’s answer.

16.	Follow steps 10-15 until you get an EP for the list.

17.	If part way down the list, the PC on some question gets a wide F/N, big Cog, VGIs, the auditor is justified in calling the list complete and going to the next C/S action or ending the session.

18.	If you got no read on a list question but the PC volunteers some answer to the unreading question, do NOT take it up. Just ack and carry on with the list.

19.	BELIEVE YOUR METER. Do not take up things that don’t read. Don’t get “hunches”. Don’t let the PC run his own case by answering non-reading items and then the auditor taking them up.

20.	This drill is passed when the student auditor can smoothly and confidently do Method 3 Assessment.

ED - 49	METHOD 5 ASSESSMENT UNBULLBAITED

ED - 50	METHOD 5 ASSESSMENT BULLBAITED

	Ref:	BTB 11 Aug 72 C/S Series 83 Correction lists
		HCOB 3 Jul 71 Auditing by List Revised
		HCOB 6 Mar 71 C/S Series 26 New Uses For The Green Form
		Book of E-Meter Drills  E-Meter Drill 26

STEPS:  Use Basic Drill Format and Procedure.

1.	R-Factor to the PC.

2.	Take the prepared list and assess down it rapidly marking reads and the size of them on the assessment sheet. If no read, mark “X”. If stop or F/N, mark such. (Coach squeezes cans for reads.)

3.	Also keep the PC in field of vision so the PC movement is not mistaken for reads.

4.	Continue the full assessment without indicating any reads or handling. If the PC originates, just use TR 4.

5.	Mark list in the order you are going to handle, normally in descending size of read or per HCOB 10 June 71 C/S Series 44R C/S Rules.

6.	R-Factor to the PC that you’re going to handle some of the items. The first one is ______ (line off list).

7.	Handle each line that read and mark it with an F/N. Suppress and False can be used where needed to take an item to F/N. (As used in ruds)

8.	Occasionally, the C/S will order “Assess M 5 and return to me.” In this case, give the PC an R-Factor that you are doing an assessment for C/S info only. Do not tell PC what read or if any lines read.

9.	The drill is passed when the student auditor can assess Method 5 flublessly with good impingement and is confident in his list handling on all the lists for his level.

ED - 51	BUTTON HANDLING DRILL UNBULLBAITED

ED - 52	BUTTON HANDLING DRILL BULLBAITED

	Ref:	HCOB 14 Aug 64 Prepcheck Buttons
		HCOB 1 Aug 68 The Laws of Listing and Nulling
		HCOB 11 Sep 68 False Reads
		HCOB 5 Aug 69 Flying Ruds

STEPS:  Use Basic Drill Format and Procedure.

1.	The following buttons are used when you get no read on a question, assessment or item:
	Suppressed
	Invalidated
	Not-Ised
	Abandoned

2.	Use “Do birds fly?” as the question. Coach squeezes the cans for reads when needed.

3.	When the question doesn’t read, the Auditor must put in the buttons. If a button reads, ack what comes up; then handle the question.

	An example of phrasing: “On the question ‘Do birds fly?’ has anything been suppressed?”

4.	If the buttons don’t produce a read, don’t take up the question or item.

5.	The drill is passed when the student auditor can use the buttons flawlessly.

FALSE READ HANDLING

STEPS:

1.	The following signs indicate a false read:

A.	On checking the question you get a read but PC says ‘NO’.

B.	Follow up of the read seems to bog down, get nowhere and when PC has no answers.

C.	When the PC protests, seems ARC Broken by the read or seems resigned.

D.	When the PC starts to explain how the thing has been run before.

E.	When there is Protest or Inval.

2.	Use “Do birds fly?” for the question. Coach squeezes the cans for reads.

3.	Coach acts out various false read indicators.

4.	Auditor handles by asking “Did anyone say you had a ______ when you didn’t have one?” and going E/S (if necessary) to F/N. (Make the question fit the action.)

5.	The drill is passed when the student auditor can handle false read indicators flawlessly.

Issued by Flag Mission 1234
I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis
2nd: Molly Harlow
In co-ordination with CS-4
W/O Ron Shafran

Approved by the 
Commodore’s Staff Aides and
the Board of Issues

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 JUNE 1965
Remimeo
Franchise
CLASS III AND UP
CLASS VII CHECK SHEET

CLEAR AND OT BEHAVIOUR

We know all the attributes of Clear and Operating Thetans.

In the history of this universe there has never been a true Clear or true OT.

Every Clear ever encountered in this universe was a Keyed-out Clear—a Release. He still had all his bank, GPMs and engrams. They were simply keyed out and not influencing him.

We have known that for some time. But here is a new one.

Every Operating Thetan in the history of this universe was only a KEYED-OUT OT!

This is startling. It accounts for the wild conduct of some OTs. They still had a complete bank (all their GPMs and engrams, secondaries, the lot). This bank could be restimulated causing them to indulge in bad conduct. When it was restimulated too much they suddenly ceased to be OT and became powerless and human or animal.

Thus there has not only never been a real Clear in this universe, also there has never been a real Operating Thetan! Every one contacted on the track or history had an R6 bank, momentarily keyed out.

This is then the Roller Coaster effect one encounters in one’s own history—OT— aberree—Clear—aberree—OT—aberree, etc, depending on accidental key-outs and keyins of the bank.

We are for the first time in the history of the universe making real Clears and real OTs, no bank.

You may accidentally make a keyed-out OT as well as a Release.

And if you don’t go on auditing even in that session he or she will stay that way.

I have good subjective reality on making keyed-out Clear and keyed-out OT in auditing. And also on being overrun.

Auditors must be trying for a result not a number of hours. Then they’ll see some of these phenomena.

The trick is stopping when the result is obtained !

It can be fatal even to conclude the session in which keyed-out Clear (Release) or keyed-out OT were attained. Just say, “Oh! That’s it!” And STOP. This is true for all attainable phenomena, even getting well. An overrun brings it back.

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 30 JUNE 1965

Remimeo
Review Hats
Qual Division

RELEASE, REHABILITATION OF
FORMER RELEASES AND
THETAN EXTERIORS

There are probably a great many processes that will recover the state of First Stage Release or First Stage Thetan Exterior or Released OT.

Poorest but easiest of these is plain Itsa. Itsa probably will not recover a floating needle but will pull down the TA. When it’s down, stop—don’t press your luck too far.

The real technical job (other than Itsa) requires expert metering and a thorough knowledge of dating on a meter and a smooth comm cycle.

Best at it would be an auditor who himself was a Former Release and who had himself (or herself) recovered the state.

The technically correct procedure is unfortunately a delicate one which requires good command of tech on the subject of the Time Track and perception of the pc and meter alert enough to stop exactly when Re-Release occurs and say “That’s It!” (Never say “End” in such sessions.)

Remember all recovery must be by Key-out, not erasure. Key-outs are done by finding Key-ins. It is de-stimulation, not re-stimulation. Therefore all must be smooth and jolly with no forcing or overrun.

The exact tech follows:

To regain a Former Release (or Thetan Exterior or Keyed-Out OT [Released OT]):

1. 	Loosely locate the session or time in which it occurred.

2. 	Get in Suppress, Invalidate buttons on the session or time.

3. 	Get in “Unacknowledged” or “What was unacknowledged”.

4. 	Indicate anything found to the pc, as By-Passed Charge.

5. 	Find the Key-in that was Keyed out in that time or session (the person went release because something keyed out in that time or session).

6. 	When this is found and recognized by the pc, the pc will then return to Release or Released OT.

7. 	If this does not happen, find what keyed in that ended the state and repeat (1) to (6) on it.

This is all rough to communicate to the pc who is not well trained.

This datum will help (a standard datum of early Dianetics): The analytical mind when it becomes aware of a point in the Reactive Mind, makes it vanish. In other words one needs but become aware of the actual cause of an aberration to have it vanish.

We see this mainly in Cognitions. But it is the backbone of all auditing.

When the person was originally released he had become aware of something that caused the reactive mind to de-stimulate at that point or become weak. And so he Released. You have to find that point of sudden awareness again as in ( I ) to (6) above and if you miss it you can at least find (7). You could find both and in a lot of cases will probably do so. But if you win on ( I ) to (6), for heaven’s sakes don’t go on to (7). If you do (7) you may suddenly turn up with (5).

When you’ve done it realize you’ve done it and come off of it. Don’t overrun.

When you have done it, tell the person to get trained so he or she can go on to actual Clear.

LIABILITY

The Liability in all this is finding the original thing that was keyed in (which when keyed out gave Release).

If this happens you have a new key-in in the session you are running right now. It is a new key-in and is handled as one.

TECH COMMENT

This tells us that finding and running out key-ins will make a First Stage Release out of someone who has never been one. Standard Grade Processing does this.

                                        					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 POLICY LETTER OF 10 FEBRUARY 1966
Remimeo	Issue II
Tech Hats
Qual Hats
Ethics Hats	
TECH RECOVERY

My study of a Nov 1965 plummeting HGC Completion statistic indicates certain policies are necessary in all HGCs and Qual Divisions.

The following errors were found:

1. 	The HGC ceased to look for former release grades to rehabilitate and ignored opportunities to do so on the basis that “outer orgs have rehabbed them all already”. This came out in the Comm Ev held on a D of P of that period. Of course, if the HGC failed to rehab earlier grades (or earlier life overruns) it could achieve no later grades or Grade V. This alone would have ended completions promptly on all grades and wiped out the graph.

2. 	Invalidation of the appearance of a free needle and invalidating any auditor who “thought he saw one”. This wiped out all release attainments and made for total overrun of all pcs of all grades. This error existed for 15 years so it is not surprising that it got back in again.

3. 	Whenever an overrun occurred, “rehabilitation of it” was done by running differenf new processes instead of standard rehab routine as in HCOBs, i.e. Doing ARC Break, PTPs, Rudiments, anything but a real rehab of that process that was overrun.

4. 	Abandonment of standard tech in favour of unusual solutions. This is always present when a collapse of Tech occurs.

5. 	One SP was found in the middle of all this but after his departure the statistic did not recover so one can assume another SP was in the middle of it still or that the HGC remained PTS and didn’t separate from the SP found because he was so convincing, so reasonable and so persuasive as to why aE Tech statistic must remain down.

It is interesting that (1) above—ceasing to rehab lower grades—would be absolutely fatal to any upper grades. Therefore this becomes policy:

NO UPPER GRADE OF RELEASE MAY BE BEGUN NEWLY ON A PC UN1 IL ALL LOWER GRADES ARE FULLY REHABBED TO FREE NEEDLE. THIS APPLIES TO ALL GRADES 0 TO VII.

Regarding (2)—Invalidation of what a free needle is-and thus running past all free needles, let it be noted that t ;is is an Auditor’s Code Break—continuing a process that has ceased to produce change and is therefore a crime. This was wrong too long to be allowed to go wrong again. Thus we get the policy:

AN AUDITOR WHO HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE OVERRUN A FREE NEEDLE ON A PRECLEAR MUST BE GIVEN AN ETHICS CHIT; AND IF THE ACTION IS SEVERAL TIMES REPEATED, ETHICS MUST ORDER A FULL REVIEW OF THE AUDITOR’S CASE INCLUDING AN EYESIGHT TEST AND CONDUCT A THOROUGH ETHICS INVESTIGATION AND HEARING.

Note that a Mark V Meter run with too high a sensitivity does not give a marked change when a needle floats. Thus sensitivity must be reduced in ordinary running and increased only to get in rudiments. Then a free needle becomes more visible. A Mark V cranked up to 128 sensitivity looks like a floating needle all the time at a casual glance on most pcs. Sensitivity 5 is ample.

Also, meters go out of 5,000 ohm calibration and don’t read on the M and F “Clear” reads and change of electrodes can change M and F “Clear” reads.

A free needle, if a process is overrun vanishes with just one extra command so an auditor must be alert.

Please also note that this has been part of the Auditor’s Code for ages—running past a flat point of a process has been forbidden since the first formulations of the Auditor’s Code.	,

Regarding (3) Rehabilitation by using other processes—the HCO Bs on rehabs are very explicit. To rull another process would clobber the pc. Thus we get the policy:

REHABILITATIONS MUST BE DONE BY REHABILITATING THE PC ONLY ON THE PROCESS OVERRUN AND ONLY BY STANDARD HCOBS ON REHAB PROCEDURE.

Re (4) unusual solutions - we get the policy:

ANY AUDITOR ACCEPTING AN UNUSUAL SOLUTION WITHOUT FILING A JOB ENDANCJERMEN T CHIT OR FOUND USING AN UNUSUAL SOLUTION MUST BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME AND GIVEN AN ETHICS HEARING. FAILING TO REPORT AN UNUSUAL SOLUTION ADVISED OR USED IS ALSO SO HANDLED. AN UNUSUAL SOLUTION IS ONE EVOLVED TO REMEDY AN ABUSE OF EXISTING TECHNOLOGY.

On (5) Statistic failing to recover after an SP is spotted in a department gives us the 2 policies:

WHENEVER AN SP IS DISCOVERED AND DECLARED IN AN ORGANIZATION ALL HIS ASSOCIATES IN THAT PORTION OF THE ORG MUST BE CHECKED OUT FOR OR GIVEN AN S & D.

and

WHEN AN SP IS DISCOVERED IN AN ORGANIZATION, IS DISMISSED OR REMOVED AND THE STATISTIC DOES NOT RECOVER, ANOTHER SP MUST BE LOOKED FOR.

It is noted that the general condition of the Completion Statistic of Dec 65 to Jan 66 could be attributed to the above gross errors.

It is now certain that (1) Rehabilitation of earlier grades, (2) Free Needle and (3) Rehabilitation by standard practice are primary targets in our technology for anyone seeking to mess it up and that unwitting tampering with these three things and lack of HCO Enforcement on them will reduce HGC statistics and prevent their recovery.

Of course one could also go mad in the opposite direction—(1) rehabilitate earlier grades endlessly on a pc regardless of how many times a free needle had been obtained, (2) Call any loosening up of a needle a free needle and (3) refuse to even 2-way comm with a pc under repair for overrun for fear it violates standard procedure for rehab.

The middle course is the correct course in this case. Relax and just be very sure the pc has been properly rehabbed to free needle on each grade up to the one one is going to start by demanding the awards of release that were granted and if these weren’t ever awarded, then do the rehabs necessary grade by grade. The only sticky point in this is that if a pc had ever been run on a higher grade without rehab of a lower, one must rehab “from the top down” at times, tackling the highest overrun first, but nevertheless doing all of them that were by-passed eventually.

The way to recognize a free needle is watch for one. When it happens you will see one. Then you will never afterwards wonder. The free needles available on a case can all be swallowed up by a failure to rehab all grades ever by-passed or overrun. If no free needles show up on a case at all then partially rehab any grade available for rehab back and forth until one has one of them go free needle and then get a free needle on the remainder. Life can also be an overrun and a pc never audited will respond to a rehab of “something overdone”. This doesn’t mean the pc went release before Scientology—it means that purpose overrun then jams—reh lb of life situations of overrun consists of hitting the purpose that was overrun and when this is hit, the pc goes release in PT and was not a release in the past. An example is an overrun located in 20 AD when the person, alert to Christianity decided to be good, made it and then overran it for 1945 years. When the purpose was found (to be good) and dated and the overrun spotted the needle went free. Rough auditing, bad TRs, “letting the pc Itsa” etc can swallow up free needles. Also a totally ARC Broke meter that won’t read at all with bad indicators all over the place won’t record a read, looks sometimes like a floating needle, the difference being the pc has total bad indicators—sour, mean, sad, etc. A free needle occurs most often after a big cognition and the unskilled auditor looks at the pc who is being bright and interesting and just doesn’t see the needle float, asks more questions and overruns, and the free needle vanishes—when a pc is cogniting, look at the meter not the pc. And the instant the TA starts up and needle goes sticky suspect an overrun and check.

As for doing something else rather than Standard Procedure for rehab, plain ignorance can cause it. The auditor’s desire to help the pc if unaccompanied by solid tech background leads to wild efforts, new processes and anything but cool standard procedure.

When the person checking out pcs is also the case supervisor, unusual solutions creep in. The most errors I’ve seen made by a Case Supervisor were made after he had seen the pc or talked with the auditor. Cases have to be run by report only and auditors have to be supervised and their sessions listened to by somebody else besides the Case Supervisor. Tech is Tech. There is such a thing as Standard Tech. Pc wild tales and hollow eyes and auditor hobby horses have to be kept off Case Supervisor lines. So there must be a person who checks out pcs and supervises auditors and their auditing performance but who never opens his or her face to suggest instructions about the pc and only writes down that the auditor is rough or the process is flat or the process is overrun. The Case Supervisor lives in an Ivory tower. Sounds strange but unless it’s done that way, wild departures from Standard Rehab Procedure and from Standard Tech in general will occur. Hell, all psychiatry went down that drain-the desperate patient, the desperate measures. Squirrelling stems from the Case Supervisor being the auditor supervisor and the pc interviewer. Oil, water, being in two divisions, Commies and Fascists, dogs and cats won’t mix. Neither will the personal contacter of auditors and pcs and the Case Supervisor ever successfully stay crossed. The individual practitioner breaks down only because he does both auditing and Case Supervision. Auditing is an organization action which is why today we have Field Staff Members and HGCs.

Additional notes of things discovered in the investigation of the plummeted statistic on Completions were:

1. 	Auditors rabbiting out of uncertainty and so stumbling past End Phenomena and floating needles.

2. 	Case Supervisor getting auditors to ask leading questions on Pr Pr 2—”Ask the pc if he is interested in Medical Practices”.

3. 	D of P: “Find out what the needle is floating on”.

4. 	Case Supervisor: Told auditor that a floating needle was not the End Pheonomenon of a Process in which “the TA had to be run out”.

5. 	Lack of knowledge and understanding of the Technology and not knowing the difference between such things as Anaten, Secondaries and Engrams by Case Supervisor, D of P, and so confusing auditors.

Of course the one thing one can’t technically overcome is an SP keeping an area messed up. His case doesn’t improve because of his intentions and overts and fear of people getting better or being bigger than he. When an SP dominates an area, only Ethics actions can handle.

The primary indicator of the presence of an SP in an org is a plummeting statistic immediately after he starts handling a portion of it.

Indifferent leadership, even inaction can’t drive a statistic down. Only active suppression can.

So watch the statistics and don’t get reasonable when they fall. Either outside the org suppression has been brought down on that portion of the org, making it PTS or there is an SP there. The final answer is what happened just before the statistic fell. If a new appointment was made and it fell, unappoint it fast. If nothing cures the down statistic flnd the SP or handle the PTS situation because one or the other are there.

Completions stayed down for 15 years. Then we found auditors never noticed free needles. Now for Heaven’s sakes, 15 years was enough. Don’t repeat the error!

It does work you know.

L. RON HUBBARD 

LRH:ml.mw.rd 
Copyright © 1966 
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 18 NOVEMBER 1966

Remimeo

REHAB ON SELF ANALYSIS

The following letter is of importance on rehab of pcs run on Straight Wire or Self Analysis:

“Dear Ron,

The following is an account of rehabbing an ARC Straight Wire Release; the info may be of use to other auditors.

I got a read on PC being Release on ‘Book of Self Analysis’ which several people had run on her. I checked on meter if PC had ‘Gone Release on (Name of Process).’ ‘Can you recall a time when (on General Incidents)?’ (List I in Book of Self Analysis.)

‘Did you go Release on “Can you recall an incident which happened on Time Orientation?” ‘ (List 2 in Book of Self Analysis.)

‘Did you go Release on “Can you recall a time when (on Orientation of Senses)?” ‘ (List 3 in Book of Self Analysis) etc.

PC had 6 of the Processes she had been Release on. I then dated the release points, all over a period of 2 years, then put Rehab steps in on each time until needle floated.

PC ended shining. I hope this will help other auditors rehabbing this level.

                                   				Very best,

							Ron Pook.

P.S.  Auditors need the book of Self Analysis with them when doing Rehabs at ARC Straight Wire level.”

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:jp.rd 
Copyright © 1966 
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

6 DECEMBER 1968
Remimeo	REISSUED 5 JULY 1974 AS BTB
Class III
CANCELS
HCO BULLETIN OF 6 DECEMBER
SAME TITLE

RELEASE, REHABILITATION OF

With the power of Standard Tech as it is today the rehabilitation of former states of release has become a very simple action.

It cannot be overstressed the importance of the Auditor having perfect TRs, perfect Comm Cycle, and precise meter handling.

The procedure is simple. The Auditor finds out from the PC what level process or activity the PC has been released on in life or auditing, finds out how many times and gets the F/N. There is no listing.

Example:	Rehabbing of Grade 0.

Auditor:		What communication process have you been released on?

PC:		0-0.

Auditor:		Fine. How how many times were you released on 0-0?

PC:		Oh, about 16 times!  (F/N - GIs)

Auditor:		Thankyou. Your needle is floating.

If the PC doesn’t know “How many times” the Auditor can then help the PC on the meter by counting. (It can go to billions on some activities.)

It’s that simple! That’s all there is to rehabbing any activity or process the PC has been released on. And if you don’t get a free needle then the PC is being audited over a PTP, ARC Break, Missed W/H or the Auditor’s TRs, Comm Cycle or meter reading is out or the process was never flattened.

Alright so make sure your Comm Cycle, TRs and meter handling are perfect and you and the PC will win every time.

And keep Standard Tech simple.

Tech & Qual Aide
Reissued as BTB
by Flag Mission 1234
I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis
2nd: Molly Lewis
Authorised by AVU

BDCS:SW:AL:MH:PQ:mh	for the
Copyright © 1968, 1974	BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
by L. Ron Hubbard	of the 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 SEPTEMBER 1966
Remimeo

MINUS SCALE RELEASES:
ARC STRAIGHT WIRE
DIANETIC

There are several grades of Release below Zero, in the minus scale of the original complete Gradation Chart.

Many of the minus scale can be attained by simple assessment. (And ceasing to assess the moment the release occurs is vital—don’t keep on assessing as the same session auditing action.)

There are three specific grades of Release below Zero and above the lower minus scale. These are, from lowest:

 	Straight Wire Release
  	Dianetic Secondary Release
     	Dianetic Engram Release

Old ARC Straight Wire is not at Grade Zero or Grade III but way down below the Dianetic Releases. The original purpose still holds—to make a person able to run secondaries and engrams. (Our Tech is still valid, you know, despite the 1950 origin of ARC Straight Wire.)

ARC Straight Wire was fantastically effective in moving a person from “neurotic” to “normal” .

But in running ARC Straight Wire one must use a meter and cease to audit the pc the moment the needle goes free. Don’t keep making the blunder of the ‘50s and early ‘60s.

The pc released by ARC Straight Wire can now have secondaries run. When a needle goes free on a secondary, one again must cease to audit secondaries.

The Dianetic Secondary Release can be run on engrams. When the needle goes free while running engrams, one ceases to audit the pc at once.

Declares for these lower release grades can be confirmed by Qual and even declared by Certs and Awards by a small note from the Director of Certs and Awards.

Thus you can possibly get a Release on the minus scale by assessment of the minus scale, a higher Release by running ARC Straight Wire, an even higher one by running Dianetic Secondaries, and yet a higher one by running Dianetic Engrams. And then, by good TRs and standard tech as usual, get a Grade 0.

As many people go Grade 0 Release easily, these lower bands get overlooked. But those who don’t go Grade 0 Release easily (unless it is overrun as the reason for “no Release”) they can be begun by a Minus Scale assessment, then ARC Straight Wire, etc, back up to Zero for another try there.
All pcs could be started on the minus scale with no harm.

QUAL NOTE

Remember, there are several overruns that can require repair. These are:

Life (overrun in a past life on some subject). 
Straight Wire (including Self Analysis). 
Earlier Repetitive Processing (Locational, etc). 
Dianetic Secondaries. 
Dianetic Engrams.

Some cases hang and won’t go Release at Grade 0 unless the above are rehabbed or (if never run) actually audited on the pc.

ARC Breaks can cause a failure to go Release on Grade Zero or any other level and can prevent rehabs. And poor TRs can block the lot.

								L. RON HUBBARD 
								Founder 

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 MAY 1970
Remimeo

CORRECTION LISTS, USE OF

The various lists designed to find by-passed charge and repair a faulty auditing action or life situation should be used heavily and thoroughly.

There are many such lists—Green Form, L1B, L4, etc.  They are available in HCO B form and are themselves corrected and re-issued from time to time. They can be found in HCO B 5 July AD13 and others.

There are FOUR WAYS TO USE these prepared lists.

1. 	The auditor starts at the top and takes up each read until he gets one to F/N. In this case the auditor does not do “Itsa earlier Itsa”. He just cleans each read.

2. 	The auditor starts from the top and on each read cleans it and does Itsa earlier Itsa to F/N or to a clean no-read and goes on.

3. 	The auditor assesses the list down until he gets a heavy read and cleans that, using Itsa earlier Itsa. Then he can go on to the next heavy read, cleans that. Etc to F/N. In this case he can get several F/Ns on the same list.

4. 	The whole list is rapidly assessed over and over until one item stays in and that is given to the pc.

UPSET PC

When a pc is very upset and misemotional the action in 4 above is the only one to use as it is the safest. On a very upset or antagonistic pc don’t engage in any chatter, just grab a list and assess it, and indicate the By-Passed Charge. The results are usually magical.

REPAIR

Repairing a case fully, as done in Qual or in an HGC, where the person has led an out-rud life, Method 3 above is the one to use. Various and assorted lists can be employed.

SETTING UP

The best way to set up a case for auditing a major action is to Repair it.  This can be necessary before the person is ever audited at all on any major action such as Dianetics or Grades.

Such an action can go on and on and should. The action is to bleed the list of all possible use, using 3.

This is a new discovery I have made.

AUDITING REPAIR

Auditing repair usually uses Methods 1 or (for pcs upset from lists) 4.

ERROR IN USING LISTS

The major error in using prepared lists is not to really get full use out of the list.

In using lists don’t be in a great hurry or do a superficial job.

The list is for the pc, not a statistic.

LRH: kjm.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 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 3 JULY 1971
Remimeo
Franchise
All Auditors
Level III Checksheets
Replaces HCO Bs 22 May 65 and 23 Apr 64,
and cancels HCO B 27 July 65 all on the
same subject.

SCIENTOLOGY III

AUDITING BY LISTS REVISED

(Note: We now F/N everything. We do NOT tell the pc what the meter is doing. This changes “Auditing By Lists” in both respects. We do not say to the pc, “That’s clean” or “That reads”.)

AUDITING BY LISTS

(Reference: HCO B 14 Mar 71, “F/N Everything”)

Use any authorized, published LIST. (Green Form for general review, L1C for ARC Brks, L4B for listed items list errors.)

METHOD 3

Use meter at a sensitivity so meter needle is loose but it is easy to keep needle at “Set”. If sensitivity is too high the needle will be in constant motion as one tries to set the TA. If too low, the instant read will not be visible. 5 is usual for upper grade cases. 16 is usual for lower grade or Dianetic cases.

Have your meter in a position (line of sight) so you can see the list and the needle or you can see the needle and the pc. The meter position is important.

Hold the mimeoed list close beside the meter. Have your worksheet more to the right. Keep record on your worksheet. Mark the pc’s name and date on it. Mark what list it is on the W/S with Time. It remains in the folder stapled to the W/S.

Read the question on the list, note if it reads. Do NOT read it while looking at the pc, do NOT read it to yourself and then say it while looking at the pc. These are the L10 actions and are called Method 6, not Method 3. It is more important to see the pc’s cans than his face as can fiddle can fake or upset reads.

TR 1 must be good so the pc clearly hears it.

You are looking for an INSTANT READ that occurs at the end of the exact last syllable of the question.

If it does not read, mark the list X. If the list is being done through an F/N and the F/N just continues, mark the Question F/N.
If the question reads, do not say “That reads”. Mark the read at once (tick, SF, F, LF, LFBD, R/S), transfer the number of the Q to the W/S and look expectantly at the pc. You can repeat the Q by just saying it again if pc doesn’t begin to talk. He has probably already begun to answer as the Q was live in his bank as noted by the meter.

Take down the pc’s remarks in shortened form on the W/S. Note any TA changes on the W/S.

If the pc’s answer results in an F/N (Cog VGIs sometimes follow, GIs always accompany a real F/N), mark it rapidly on the W/S and say, “Thank you. I would like to indicate your needle is floating.”

Do NOT wait endlessly for the pc to say more. If you do he will go into doubt and find more, also do NOT chop what he is saying. Both are TR errors that are very bad.

If there is no F/N, at the first pause that looks like the pc thinks he has said it, ask for an Earlier Similar_____whatever the question concerned. Do NOT change the Q. Do NOT fail to repeat what the Question is. “Was there an Earlier Similar Restimulation of ‘rejected affinity’?” This is the “E/S” part of it. You do not leave such a Question merely “clean”.

It does not matter now if you look at the pc when you say it or not. But you can look at the pc when you say it.

The pc will answer. If he comes to a “looks like he thinks he said it” and no F/N, you ask the same Q as above.

You ask this Q “Was there an earlier similar______” until you finally get an F/N and GIs. You indicate the F/N.

That is the last of that particular question.

You mark “F/N” on the list and call the next question on the list. You call this and other questions without looking at the pc.

Those that do not read, you X as out.

The next question that reads, you mark it on the list, transfer the question number to the W/S.

Take the pc’s answer.

Follow the above E/S procedure as needed until you get an F/N and GIs for the question. Ack. Indicate and return to the mimeoed list.

You keep this up until you have done the whole list in this fashion.

If you got no read on the list Question but the pc volunteers some answer to an unreading question, do NOT take it up. Just ack and carry on with your mimeoed list.

BELIEVE YOUR METER. Do not take up things that don’t read. Don’t get “hunches”. Don’t let the pc run his own case by answering non-reading items and then the auditor taking them up. Also don’t let a pc “fiddle the cans” to get a false read or to obscure a real one. (Very rare but these two actions have happened.)

BIG WIN

If half way down a prepared list (the last part not yet done) the pc on some question gets a wide F/N, big Cog, VGIs, the auditor is justified in calling the list complete and going to the next C/S action or ending the session.

There are two reasons for this—one, the F/N will usually just persist and can’t be read through and further action will tend to invalidate the win.

The auditor can also carry on to the end of the prepared list if he thinks there may be something else on it.

GF AND METHOD 3

When a GF is taken up Method 3 (item by item, one at a time and F/Ned) it can occur that the TA will go suddenly high. The pc feels he is being repaired, that the clearing up of the first item on the GF handled it and protests. It is the protest that sends the TA up.

This is not true of any other list.

Thus a GF is best done by Method 5 (once through for reads, then the reads handled).

L1C and L4B, L7 and other such lists are best done by Method 3.

The above steps and actions are exactly how you do Auditing by List today. Any earlier data contrary to this is cancelled. Only 2 points change—we F/N everything that reads by E/S or a process to handle (L3B requires processes, not E/S to get an FIN) and we never tell the pc that it read or didn’t read, thus putting his attention on the meter.

We still indicate F/Ns to the pc as a form of completion.

L1C and Method 3 are NOT used on high or very low TAs to get them down or up.

The purpose of these lists is to clean up by-passed charge.

________

An auditor also indicates when he has finished with the list.

An auditor should dummy drill this action both on a doll and bullbait.

________

The action is very successful when precisely done.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 MARCH 1971
Remimeo

LIST—1—C

L1C
(Cancels earlier L1 Lists
such as HCO B 8 Aug 70)

Used by Auditors in session when an upset occurs, or as ordered by C/S.

Handles ARC Broken, Sad, hopeless or nattery pcs.

Questions can be prefaced with “Recently” “In this life” “On the Whole Track” or used without.

DO NOT USE ON HIGH TA TO BRING IT DOWN. USE HI-LO TA LIST.

TAKE ALL READING ITEMS OR VOLUNTEERED ANSWERS Earlier Similar to F/N as they occur.

1.	 Has there been an error in listing?
	(If this reads change to L4B at once.)
2.	 Has a withhold been missed?
3.	 Has some emotion been rejected?
4.	 Has some affinity been rejected?
5.	 Has a reality been refused?
6.	 Has a communication been cut short?
7.	 Has a communication been ignored?
8.	 Has an earlier rejection of emotion been restimulated?
9.	 Has an earlier rejection of affinity been restimulated?
10.	 Has an earlier refusal of reality been restimulated?
11.	 Has an earlier ignored communication been restimulated?
12.	 Has something been misunderstood?
13.	 Has someone been misunderstood?
14.	 Has an earlier misunderstanding been restimulated?
15.	 Has some data been confusing?
16.	 Has there been a command you haven’t understood?
17.	 Has there been some word you haven’t known the meaning of?

18.	 Has there been some situation you haven’t grasped?
19.	 Has there been a problem?
20.	 Has a wrong reason for an upset been given?
21.	 Has a similar incident occurred before?
22.	 Has something been done other than what was said?
23.	 Has a goal been disappointed?
24.	 Has some help been rejected?
25.	 Has a decision been made?
26.	 Has an engram been restimulated?
27.	 Has an earlier incident been restimulated?
28.	 Has there been a sudden shift of attention?
29.	 Has something startled you?
30.	 Has a perception been prevented?
31.	 Has a willingness not been acknowledged?
32.	 Has there been no auditing?
33.	 Did you go Exterior?
34.	 Have actions been interrupted?
35.	 Have actions continued too long?
36.	 Has data been invalidated?
37.	 Has someone evaluated?
38.	 Has something been O/Run?
39.	 Has an action been unnecessary?

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

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

HANDLING ARC BREAKS

A Lecture given on
28 May 1963

Thank you.

All right, this is what?

Audience: 28th.

LRH: 28th? 28th of May, A.D. 13.

All right. Now, this lecture is not for people with weak hearts. If you can’t take it, why, I advise you to go over into the other building there, where they have a speaker, and turn it off.

This auditing dissertation here actually is possibly passed by, by the student who is doing other types of auditing, but it applies to him very much.

I’ve discovered the common denominator to ARC breaks. And that common denominator of all ARC breaks, all ARC breaks—is bypassed charge. That’s the common denominator to all ARC breaks. And that includes, therefore, all misemotion exhibited by the PC at the auditor.

Now, we should define an ARC break as the PC’s transfer of attention from the bank to the auditor and a dramatization of the bank directed at the auditor. And that is an ARC break.

Now, you can get the mechanics of an ARC break just by dropping your E-Meter, or something of the sort, and just calling the PC’s attention off of his bank on to the auditor. The ARC break might not take place, but you have approximated the mechanic of what happens. And the probability is that it will take place. See what I mean?

So, we get down to this fundamental, which is not terribly important at first glimpse: but dragging the PC’s attention on to the auditor, you see, and on to the session is a precipitating factor even though the PC doesn’t dramatize. You see, that’s beside the point. You’ve dragged his attention on to the session. Well, that’s an ARC break in sort of reverse.

Let’s show you something; you go like this: [clicking switches and rattling noises] You’ve not laid a fundamental for the ARC break, but you’ve approximated one of its mechanics, don’t you see? You’ve dragged the PC’s attention on to the auditor.

Well, very often when you do this—when you do that, you leave the charge of the session not held back. See, the charge of the session now is not being as-ised, and therefore provides a background booster, and the PC “row-rows” at the auditor, see, or becomes annoyed or something of the sort, don’t you see?

Well, so not even that one falls outside this definition. It’s bypassed charge. See, PC’s attention is on his bank, the auditor does something weird, attracts the PC’s attention off the bank. Then, you see, you’ve bypassed some charge. You’ve left some charge there, the PC’s attention is not on the charge but the charge is restimulated. Do you get that as a simple mechanic?
 
So that in normal course of human events you’re talking to this same PC out of session, you know, and you drop an anvil on his toe or something of this sort, and he’ll argue with you about it, but he won’t ARC break. You see? It is not, then, that a social faux pas has taken place that causes the PC to ARC break. So an auditor very often feels terribly reserved and preservative of the social amenities and all of this sort of thing, and walks around on tiptoe in a session being terribly polite and so forth. Well, you see, that isn’t necessary to prevent an ARC break. You see?

But this mystery is presented: In common course of human events, you make some crack at this person, and they make a crack at you and you yap-yap, and that’s all there is to it, you see? And in a session, you make the tiniest inference about this person and all of a sudden he’s splattering all over the walls with an ARC break.

Well now, if you understand what you have done, you understand this matter of bypassed charge and so forth, this most flagrant example (the easiest to observe, don’t you see; the easiest to observe and actually not of any really very vast importance but I’ve just given as an example to show you what this is): In the session he’s got his attention on charged areas. And then you take his attention off the charged area and put it on the auditor, you bypass charge and that’s what causes the ARC break, see?

He’s about to tell you “ . . . and then they drowned me in a well.” He’s saying, “And I—I—I’m standing here, and I’m looking down into the thing, and there’s somebody grabs me by the arm, I can feel his arm, and he’s about to throw me over . . . “

And you say [switch clicks] “Just—just a minute. Let me see if I can get some charge on this. Let’s see, [click] I—I beg your pardon, my meter . . . I don’t know, I guess I forgot to charge the thing,” or something like that. And the PC goes splatter!

Oh, that’s very obvious, you see, what’s happened there. See, he’s got all this charge he’s sitting down on, and all of a sudden his attention comes off of it, and you in effect have bypassed the charge right there.

Well, now, the other part of it is, is he is being cause over the charge, right? As long as he’s running it he’s being cause over it, see? All right. Now, the moment that his attention is flicked off of it he is now the effect of that charge. And any tone level or Know to Mystery Scale level higher than the chronic tone of the PC . . . Now, get this; you know what chronic tone is, the old Know to Mystery Scale? Boy, we’re back amongst the familiar tools here these days, you know? The Know to Mystery Scale, the Expanded Tone Scale, you see—all of those things quite valid, see? And let’s say the PC is at apathy as a chronic tone, you see that’s pretty high, by the way. Very few PCs are there; they’re more or less kind of wood, you know? They’re way down below that.

The other day I suddenly realized that I was feeling continuously apathetic, and I thought something is happening, my auditing is doing me in or something of the sort. I went around like that for about twenty-four hours and then suddenly realized it was I, a free thetan, who was feeling apathetic. All of a sudden, you know, any consequences of it blew, you see? And I realized suddenly I was feeling much better than I had for a long time. See, I hadn’t felt like myself, a free thetan, for some time. You know? You get the idea? I mean, gradually the Tone Scale had come up, you see, not as Ron or human being, you see, but had gradually come up, up, up. See, I’d feel pretty good as Ron, you see? Fine, feel very high-toned. But I’d come up, up, up, and I didn’t get the sneaker of it. And the first emotional response you get to it is feeling apathetic. You know, “Well, guess I’m not worth much. Look what they’re doing over in the States these days, you know? People talking about rerunning Kennedy. You know?” You know, I was kind of thinking about things that way, you know? And all of a sudden—”Hey, that’s me!” you know? “Me! That’s me I’m feeling about! “ And it felt wonderful. Was a great feeling after that. I went around and enjoyed it, you know?

Well, actually, a PC will come up through degradation as a chronic tone, and actually will come up from unconsciousness as a chronic tone. We had a PC over in the States. I mean, it isn’t anything esoteric, you know; he just lies there conked out all the time. You try to audit him and he—conk—you know? And audit him and—conk. And talk to him—conk—you know? And he’s actually existing above his chronic tone. His chronic tone is unconsciousness. And so this boy, of course, you process him now to get rid of his unconsciousness—well, cut your throat; you’ll never get anyplace, you see? You just have to generally process his case with processes which are real to him and bring up a general case advance, and the unconsciousness will disappear. You see that as a different look?

That doesn’t mean that there are chronic tone levels of maladies, you know? You don’t have maladies as chronic tone levels, but anything above— anything above—the PC’s chronic tone, you see, being higher than the PC, can be cause over the PC and therefore become a dramatization.

There is nobody more amazed than the PC to find himself in raging anger in a session. He’s absolutely flabbergasted! Well, some charge gets bypassed, and he doesn’t know where So look, he doesn’t know what charge is bypassed, he doesn’t know where to look. He looks at the auditor—the auditor doesn’t even have to fiddle with the E-Meter, see? He looks at the auditor and there is something, you see, and anger or something like that, being higher on the Tone Scale and contained in the incident which has been missed, causes the PC to dramatize. And the PC is actually as helpless as a dish towel in a hurricane. He’s totally helpless. He says, “Ohh-aww, what’s going on?” And he’s shouting and screaming at the auditor, you know?

Well, you can get somebody who is dramatizing effort. You know, he’s got to pick up the chair and break it in half, you know, something like that? That’s a pretty low-level dramatization, that particular one. Anger is more common. Bored is something you very often don’t recognize as a dramatization. PC is getting along fine, and all of a sudden ARC breaks and feels very bored.

Now, similarly, you could go further and find a PC ARC break into a total manic. I have never seen this, but by extrapolation, you could say he would become very manic, you see terribly, wildly enthusiastic, with glaring eyeballs, you see? Be an ARC break.

So an ARC break, then, comes about whenever charge is bypassed, which then puts the PC at its effect point. And the PC then dramatizes the charge that has been bypassed. This is actually far simpler than it sounds. I’m just giving you all of the ramifications of it, giving you all of the ramifications of it. These are the mechanics involved in the thing.

Now, the remedy for an ARC break is to locate and indicate the bypassed charge, at which moment the ARC break ceases. Now, that could be interpreted by a Q-and-A artist as meaning you have to go and run the bypassed charge right now. You see, he goes into a do. No, that gets into impossibility. You find yourself fifth on the chain. You are running the fifth engram and the PC is ARC breaking on the chain. Well, then you would interpret it and say, “Well, you can’t possibly run the fifth engram because the PC will ARC break,” you see? Some Q-and-A artist would interpret it at once, you see, in that category. And you will find them doing so no matter if I’ve said so. And if you’ll just remember I’ve told you this and remember this particular mechanic, you can prevent this other consequence from taking place.

And the consequence is this: Well, the PC is ARC breaking, running this engram, so therefore you have to at once go run the earlier engram. And that is not what I have told you. If that were the case, then to prevent everybody from ARC breaking would require continuous auditing. See, that is not the remedy. The remedy is to find and indicate the bypassed charge. And the ARC break ceases, right like that. Find and indicate the bypassed charge. It’s actually as simple as that. Nothing to it.

Now, you are, all of you, cognizant of the trick of turning off somebody’s anger at you by saying “somebody’s missed your withholds.” Sometimes it doesn’t work. Sometimes it doesn’t work. The person just gets more insulted. Well, that’s because a missed withhold isn’t the source of the bypassed charge. You just indicated the wrong bypassed charge.

But this fellow does have missed withholds, somebody has missed a withhold on him in session, he doesn’t even know this, and he’s ranting and raving at you, or something of the sort, and you say, “Boy, somebody missed a withhold on you, man.” He cools right down.

It isn’t, as you might think, that it introverts him so that he immediately begins to look around inside of his skull, “I wonder what the missed withhold is,” and so pulls him off of your neck. That isn’t what’s happened there. You take a good, close look at it. Get some experience on this and get some reality on it yourself, and this material will really be in your grasp.

Now, sometimes you’ve said to somebody, “Well, somebody missed a withhold on you, man,” and the person has said, “Goddamn, don’t you pull that on me!”

Well, it wasn’t a withhold that was missed, see? Somebody missed a goal. Get the ides? And if you were to pursue it right then and say “Well, let’s see, was it—it was probably a goal that was missed. Probably somebody missed a goal on you—missed a whole GPM. Somebody missed a whole RI. Somebody’s missed some RIs on you.” And he’s just about to let out of his mouth a horrendous scream and follow this thing through, and he all of a sudden says, “I wonder if it could have been a missed RI? Probably was.” See?

So the trick of turning off an ARC break is to find and indicate the bypassed charge. But it must be the charge that was bypassed. See, that’s where the accuracy comes in. And that makes you an artist.

Now, it’s still within the realm of scientific approach still within the realm of scientific approach—because there are only a few charges that can be missed. See? There’s engrams and GPMs and goals and RIs, an engram more basic on the chain or an incident more basic on the chain, or a failure to acknowledge, or a refutation of reality, or a rejection of affinity.

This character is feeling you’re a pretty good auditor and you say, “Ah, nuts!” see? All right, he’s got a charge there of affinity, see, and that isn’t acknowledged and you bypass it. You rejected it. So you get this thing firing back in your face. Don’t you see what that is?

Now, these are not mechanisms which are totally relegated to session, but they relegate themselves to life. Now, you’re a registrar and somebody is coming in, or you’re signing up PCs. (All of you have to wear a registrar’s hat at one time or another.) And you’re trying to get somebody to get some auditing, you’re a registrar, see? And there you are one fine day with a yow-yow-yow and a scream-scream-scream standing in front of your face: Seventy-five hours of auditing have been delivered—he feels terrible! He says, “Oh, I could kill everybody in the place,” and he ought to go out and sue everybody, and he’s going to inform the government that so on and so on and so on and so on—yap, yap, yap, you never hear such a thing. Don’t worry too much about the threats, because the person totally lacks direction. Person will go halfway down the steps and change his mind and do something else, don’t you see? They’re incapable of carrying forward a program that has any cohesion or direction, see?
 
Now, you actually are very foolish to engage this individual in any reasonable conversation, because it’s not a reasonable situation. That attitude is wholly the product of bypassed charge. And as registrar, you simply should hunt and punch around till you find the bypassed charge. That’s all, just hunt and punch around till you find the PC’s bypassed charge. All of a sudden the thing expires. It just goes, because you’ve found and indicated it.

Be perfectly all right to just grab a meter, and—trying somehow or another, to get him to hold the cans—and just give him the standard sort of an assessment: “Did somebody run an engram too late on the chain?” you see? “There’s a more basic engram run? Oh, clang. That fired. Ah, yes. Well, somebody was running an engram on you and there’s an earlier engram.”

“Oh, is there? Yes, you know, yeah.”

Where’s all this rage? Well, you see, the rage is an automaticity. And I have told you often, often, often, often, often, the tenuous character, the extremely delicate, balanced character of neurosis and psychosis (and such other nasty words) makes it almost impossible not to undo it. Because it is incapable of continuation. at is set up in such a delicate balance that almost anything can make it slip, if it’s effective. You understand that?

You see, some guy is down in a padded cell someplace, and he’s a “raving gamaniac” and he is screaming away and throwing stools at the warders and so forth. And although I don’t blame him for throwing stools at these blokes, this is the point: His condition is not a condition of terrible, difficult, hard, mean, impossible-to-reach, go-on-forever dramatization, see? That is not true. Actually, the difficulty of maintaining such a state—it’s almost impossibly difficult. You can make it go bzzzt! And all of a sudden it no longer hangs in balance and can’t go on dramatizing.

You’ve heard me talk to you before about the slip: old ARC Straightwire, the way you can knock apart a neurosis—the difficulty of maintaining a neurosis. Old ARC Straightwire has broken up more neuroses than you can count. Its too difficult for the PC to go on being neurotic on this particular point.

And this, of course, is at wild variance to the commonly held belief. The commonly held belief is a person is psychotic—well, that’s it, they’ve had it, you see, and they’re psychotic, and that’s all you can do about it. You can’t do anything about it, you see, because it’s a very tough, vigorous, dangerous, enduring condition. See, that’s the commonly held belief. They believe that a neurosis is a fantastically arduous thing.

Read a funny story: People send me clippings all the time. I get lots of clippings (appreciate them). And one of the clippings I got the other day was a yap-yap about a psychiatrist; it was very funny. It seems like he’d been treating this fellow—he’s telling his story, you see? And he’d been treating this fellow for four years at an hour a day. He’d had a tremendous success, the psychiatrist was saying, because when the fellow first came to him, why, he just felt terrible all the time, because—he just felt terrible all the time because he just had this urge to kill somebody. And so he gave him an hour’s treatment every day for four years, and at the end of that time, why, the fellow walked into the office, and the psychiatrist knew he’d had a wonderful success because the fellow said he just felt wonderful, he just felt wonderful, he’d never felt better, and so forth, and that neurosis that he had been working with, that always used to make him feel terrible, now made him feel wonderful. And as the fellow pulled the iron bar out of his pocket, the psychiatrist said . . . And that was the end of the story.

In other words, there are two things, you see, that argue in favor of a lie in this direction: One, the absence of technology and the absence of understanding of these states combines with the professional need of tough cases.
 
You see, if psychosis wasn’t unsolvable and very tough and very enduring and very terrible, you wouldn’t find the U.S. (ha!) government shelling out sixteen billion quid (or bucks or whatever they’re using these days) to build themselves up endless numbers of sanitariums, and ten research centers. They’re going to build ten research centers and so forth. And they might even get up to prenatals in these things, you know, because they’ll probably use our work. Man, look at the kitty! Sixteen billion, see? And that’s just the initial appropriation. That’s going to cost five billion a year afterwards. The armed-forces construction program of the United States is only 1.6 or 1.8 billion. Give you some weird perspective? That is fantastic.

Well, look at the vested interest in psychosis being incurable. These nuts that are in charge of the nuts will never do anything, of course. It’s worth too much to them not to. Somebody comes along and said, “All you have to do is find and indicate the bypassed charge and the person go OT! and he’s sane.”

“Oh,” they’d say, “take that nut out and kill him, ha-ha-ha-ha! He’s about to cost us sixteen billion hard-earned legislative bucks! Ha! Shoot him.”

It’s not for nothing the FDA is mad at us. You see, they don’t for a moment believe any of their charges. See, they have made a comprehensive, thorough investigation all up and down the land, and they haven’t found one single human being who ever was told that an E-Meter would cure anything. But they’ve invented the statements. Why? Well, we constitute a fantastic threat to a fantastic vested interest.

These are not men of good will. They’re caved-in dramatizers themselves. Never make that error. You can very easily make that error. These guys are dramatizing. I don’t know—much care what they’re dramatizing, but they themselves are doing a heavy, hard dramatization, by which they say, “We can do what we do without conscience, because man is after all an animal and is nothing.” See, so they spread the plea that man is an animal and is nothing as an effort to get over committing overts. So this hangs them with being an animal and being nothing.

I imagine that if you took thirty psychiatrists—I know it’s unpopular to talk about these people, but if you took thirty psychiatrists at random, at least one of those thirty would be sitting there barking. If you just called on thirty in a row.

You think I’m kidding—try it sometime. I’m not kidding. These people need help probably worse than their own patients. How would you like to be able—to be up against something that you advertisedly considered incurable, totally damaging, nothing could be done about it, and you’re collecting money right and left to do something about it? Krrrrr! That’s a pretty nasty position for anybody to work himself into.

Now, we probably cut those blokes off by my continuous saying this and that, we probably deny them help one way or the other. But every time I have ever tried to work with any group of psychiatrists or anything of the sort, the only thing they’ll send me is one of their number who has already gone potty. This bird’s around the bend or something like that. And I’ve never been able to teach them anything. And they actually have worn out their welcome with me, that’s all. But I would still help them today.

That’s beside the point. The point I’m making on the thing is that you can work yourself into a position where you consider an ARC break unremediable, terribly powerful and overwhelmingly destructive, so that you will label certain PCs as ARC-breaky PCs. You can fear this ARC break, you see? You can become afraid of these ARC breaks occurring. And that can make you unwilling to audit, or if you don’t even go that far, will rough you up enough to do a stinking auditing job, which of course causes more ARC breaks. You got that?
 
So unless you corral the ARC break unless you yourself get a good reality on handling the ARC break, unless you understand this one and you develop the skill necessary to find and indicate the bypassed charge—that’s the only skill you’ve got to develop—you’ll Bet into a position where you’ll audit for a while and then feel like it isn’t worth the candle and man is no good, and go the route, man! Another half a century you’ll be telling Congress, “Well, we need sixteen billion dollars because—to handle the nuts.”

You see, what you’ve got to break through with you is, one, a condemnation of ARC breaks. They don’t mean anything; they’re not diagnostic in any way, shape or form. They’re not diagnostic, that’s all. They don’t tell you the ease with which a PC runs or the unease with which he runs. They tell you nothing. See, the PC who runs like a well-oiled player piano may ARC break all over the ceiling. And some PC that you couldn’t get a gain on with a building jack never APES breaks at all. So, you see, it’s no indication at all. There’s no index there.

The PC who is very easy to audit very often is the PC that is very hardest to get a gain on. And the PC who is very difficult to audit very often gets the highest gains. So, you see, these are not coordinated factors. So this is something that should tell you that temporary or permanent conditions of misemotional stress are something that you have to face up to as an auditor or just get out of the auditing chair. It’ll catch up with you sooner or later, man.

I catch myself every once in a while in some kind of a session: PC says, “Row-row, row-row-row-row, row-row-row-row-row.” See? “You just ask me for one more of those suppresses on this RI and I’m going to blow! Because there aren’t any suppresses left on the RI!” You get that kind of an approach?

I say to myself, “This PC’s trying to convince me that I mustn’t take the charge off the RIs. This PC is in a big sell.” See?

Well, actually that would be the inevitable effect of it. I eventually would say, “Well, all right. And all right, that rocket-read,” you know. “It rocket read,” and so on. Get the next one, the next one, the next one, and so on. “All right. Yeah, you’ve finished the bank. To hell with you,” you know? See?

You’re doing the very thing you must have done in the first place that caused the ARC break. And you got to get some wins on this, auditor—you got to get some wins on this. This one you got to get wins on.

I want you to get a confidence that when a PC goes row-row-row, that you can find the bypassed charge, either just by knowing what it must be or by glancing over—because it couldn’t be anything else because you weren’t doing anything else, don’t you see?—and checking on a meter, or going into a full-dress parade of assessment to get the bypassed charge, however you get that bypassed charge, find it, and then by indicating it to this PC, realize the tool that is in your power. By the fact that the mere indication of it turns off the ARC break, right like that. You didn’t do a thing about it except indicate it.

How do you indicate it? You say to the PC whatever you say to the PC that indicates it, that’s all. I mean it’s as elementary as that. There isn’t any hidden magic here. It’s not like that if you—if I can teach you now how to make gold. And the way to learn how to make gold, the way to make gold is to go up at twelve o’clock on a night of the full moon, and sit down on a punky stump with two pounds of lead and one pound of Arsenic. Rub these two together, and if you don’t think of the word hippopotamus you will find you have made gold.” See? Impossible completely impossible assignment.

Now, this—this is not an impossible one. This lies well within your reality, your action, your ability and so forth. There isn’t anything else spotted here, see, that is esoteric or outside. I didn’t mean to degrade your reality or anything like that; I’m saying, just, it’s something that you can have a reality on right now. The only times you’ll miss on this, you very often will pick it up a session or two later. You had an ARC break, bow! and you couldn’t find anything to—and then nothing happened, and you couldn’t cure the thing, and blood! and you couldn’t do anything about it. And two sessions later you find out—my God, you had passed a whole GPM. You all of a sudden remember, “Hey! Two sessions ago when I jumped that bank, you know, I got that next goal, and—ha-ha! And we just found out that in between there is the goal ‘to spit.’ Hey, what do you know. Ho-ho!”

And you say to the PC, “Hey, what do you know about that.” And the PC gets very calm all of a sudden.

You very often find out a couple of—some time afterwards what the bypassed charge was, and that will make you very enthusiastic on what I’m saying just now. You’ll get more enthusiastic than that, because you find out it’s an invariable fact. It doesn’t vary. Why didn’t you find the bypassed charge at the time the charge was bypassed?

Now, the rest of it is, you actually shouldn’t let an ARC break endure more than two or three minutes, because ARC breaks multiply by the square. See, they’re not a lineal development. You let an ARC break run one minute and it doubles. You let it run two minutes and it quadruples. You let it run three minutes . . . You get the idea? There it goes. This thing is developing on a very steep curve. And you actually owe it to the PC—not because you’re afraid of it, but because you’ll have more trouble and waste more session time—you owe it to the PC to get in and turn it off fast.

Now, you see, a whole government can be intimidated by a riot. The United States government is actually being conducted today by riot. The only people who get any attention or get anything passed are those people who riot. See? The Japanese government went by the boards because there was a riot. Somebody went down and slipped a few yen to a few students and they went up and went yow-yow-yow, and Eisenhower was unable to visit the country, and so forth (because, after all, students are pretty dangerous, you know?). And can’t have all that shouting, you know, and so forth, and the government fell.

This government—my hat’s off to this government. They “Ban the bomb,” you know, and the police go out and pick them up and put them away. And they “Ban the bomb,” and the police go out and pick them up and put them away. And I don’t think there’s been a ripple in Parliament. I don’t think Parliament has even heard about it. It’s very, very remarkable. They’ve gotten used to that over here, see? So they’re not being run by riot. Get this as a method of government: running a government by riot.

There are many methods of government which I have studied from time to time and been called to my attention, and so on, which aren’t in the civics textbooks. You know? You elect the mayor, and the mayor does this and the aldermen do that and all that sort of [thing]. These aren’t in the civics textbook, but they are basic methods of government. Government by assassination: There are many texts on this subject. Texts!

The government of Japan, for some vast, vast, vast period of time, was run by the Black Dragon Society.

Some bird dramatizing the Helatrobus implants. I think they’re called the Sharif Mohammedans or something like that, they were at the time, from which you get the word assassin. Old Hashshashin, the Old Man of the Mountain, used to kidnap young fellows and tell them that when they got killed they could come back to paradise. He’d give them a few days in paradise, you know, and he’d get a lot of good-looking dolls and rivers of milk and honey and all that sort of thing, and the guy up there—that’s where you get the word hashish too. They’d get this young fellow in some cafe and feed him some hashish, take him up there, and these babes would chuck him under She chin for a few days, and then the old man with the false halo would come around and say, “Now, son, the way you get back here and live forever in perfect enjoyment is to do exactly what we say.”

“And what is that?”

“Well, go get yourself killed, of course.”

“Well, how am I going to let myself killed?”

“Well, you have to assassinate the sultan of Persia.”

Well, the young fellows look at these girls and all the curves, and he’d say, “Tsk, tsk! Why not?” See? And the next drink of wine they slipped to him, why, it’d have some more hashish in it, and he’d wake up in the capital of the shah. Next time the shah walked through the streets or rode through the streets or something like that, there he was and off went the shah’s head, see? Of course, the guards would kill the fellow, but that was exactly in the plans. And a lot of young fellows got surprised by not being able to find the top of this mountain again, and there they were.

But that was government by assassination. And all the Old Man of the Mountain ever had to do was just indicate to the Chinese head of state that he’d like a couple of camel loads of gold, please, and they would be on the way at once. Everybody was terrified of this person. Government by assassination. Any policy could be laid down, anything else, because of this fear of assassination.

This lasted a couple of hundred years, by the way, and it’s oddly enough, a direct dramatization of the Helatrobus implants.

The Helatrobus implants didn’t have that as a purpose. They just had a purpose as doing you in—it was far more elementary. That’s why they’re so easy to deal with. They’re so monomanic on the subject. You were supposed to be human, have a body, not By around anymore, not trouble anybody. And then you were supposed to have such diverse purposes that you could never unite on a single cause. Easy to govern. Yes, I must say so. But, of course, the Helatrobus government never got around to establishing the government they had then set up. Rest their bones, rest their bones.

They must have had the whole galaxy laid out for a total conquest. And they were too covert to ever take over. See, their conversion became the order of the day, you see? And they could never assert dominion of what they’d set up. Interesting. Interesting point. I see that that saddened you. Don’t worry about it, don’t worry about it. We can straighten that up.

Anyhow, getting back on this other: You realize that if you governed all of your actions by reason of ARC breaks, you’ll get a government of Scientology by ARC break. And you as an auditor, in your auditing actions, will be governed by ARC breaks. Do you see that? Do you see that? That’s why I was taking this political excursion, just to show you there that it is possible to have your actions governed by that.

You are never governed by that which you can handle with ease. So therefore the greater the facility you develop in handling ARC breaks, the less you are governed by ARC breaks, until you’re not governed at all by ARC breaks. It just becomes another phenomenon. PC’s nose is running or he starts tears leaking out of his eyes, hand him a Kleenex. Has an ARC break, why, locate and indicate the bypassed charge. Bang-bang, you see? And keep on with what you’re doing. You got it?

Now at first, at first in developing these activities, you will make mistakes as to what the bypassed charge [is] on, and your faith still quiver and grow faint. And you’ll say, “The ARC break must be caused by something else, because look, I found and indicated the charge and the PC still has an ARC break. Therefore there must be something about this that Ron did not tell us.”
 
No, there was something about it that you didn’t hear. You have to find and indicate the right bypassed charge. There are only a few of them, but you have to find the right one. And the ARC break vanishes at once. Therefore, there is no reason under the sun to have ARC-breaky sessions. No reason to keep a PC ARC breaking.

Now, those PCs who have continuously ARC-broken sessions can be run on a process which is the three-way ARC break process. I’m not talking now about they have an ARC break, you run this process. You get that one wrong way to and I’ll get cross, because we used to have processes to handle the ARC break. But they won’t handle the immediate ARC break, you understand? We’re not interested in a process that handles the immediate ARC break. We got that technology and it’s much faster than a process.

But somebody whose bank is mixed up because of ARC breaks has this other ARC break process. And an auditor who has gotten himself stuck around and messed up because he has just run too many ARC-breaky PCs, with this run on him, finds it all stripped away. “In auditing,” you know, “what attitude has been refused?” You know, the “In auditing, what reality has been rejected?” “In auditing, what communication has not been acknowledged?” It’s that trio. And they’ll straighten up, using “in auditing” as a prefix, more auditing than any quantity of mid-rud buttons.

I’ve gotten a repetitive process which upscales this. We needed a repetitive process at this time for many reasons. But there is a doll, because this one even runs an implant. You see, we have good history on this process, because this is old ARC Straightwire. Nineteen fifty-eight, the only thing that’d go into implants and open them wide open was ARC Break Straightwire. Remember that process, 1958? All right, this is the immediate successor. And here’s one of the most worked-over areas of repetitive processes known. It’s based, of course, on the whole technology of the ARC triangle. Now I’m giving you the rest of the technology.

Why does it work, you see? Because it does nothing but spot bypassed charge. That’s how I redeveloped it and redeveloped it, you see? And I got it redeveloped along this line. And there’s trick ways of clearing the auditing command and so forth I’ll put into your hands so that you can do an assessment on certain words, so the PC has a complete understanding of what you’re doing. And this is a doll. It isn’t any too-little, two-bit process.

Well, what I’m getting around to here is your attitude on the subject of ARC breaks must never be one whereby you’re driven by the ARC break. Because you’ll be driven, man, into not getting the items clean. You’ll be driven into taking the PC’s orders, because a PC ARC breaks just for so much time and then starts to issue orders because his duress is so great, and those orders are the direct result of dramatizations. So, the orders are the significance. See, he’s dramatizing the significance contained in what you just put him at the effect of. See, not only is he capable of dramatizing the emotion of the bypassed charge, but he’s also capable of dramatizing the significance contained in the bypassed charge. And therefore it’s a very dangerous thing to take the orders—it’s very dangerous to the PC to take the orders of a very ARC-broke PC. Very dangerous—to the PC, not to you.

So what’s this add up to? This adds up to two things: that you should learn to handle bypassed charge, and be good enough as an auditor not to ever bypass charge! Period! How do you do that? Well, just get hot, man.

How can you bypass charge? You can bypass charge by not finding any. You get a PC who is on suppress, suppress, suppress and is all upset and going sideways, and you try to find the nest goal. You’re pressing on with the session in the teeth of some kind of a weird, apathetic ARC break or a low morale, see? So you do this list, only he never puts the goal on the list. He puts some other goal three goals down the bank on this list. You take that goal, you see, because you can’t do anything else and so forth, and you just really can’t do a good job on it. So you take this goal and you bypass a couple of GPMs. Now, brother, you’re going to have a picnic.

See, you were driven into auditing somewhat carelessly or apathetically or defensively or something of the sort, so you did a bad job of auditing and then you laid in more charge—bypassed, see? You didn’t lay in more charge, you bypassed more charge. See? The harder you are driven into doing a bad job, then the more charge you bypass. So then you try to find the top oppterm of this new one you found; it doesn’t fire. Got two GPMs ahead of it. Or you try to find its terminal, and that takes you two sessions.

What do you think the magnitude of built-up charge is by this time on the bypassed charge? The bypassed charge is always prior to the charge you were working, you see—always prior. What do you think this does? Well, it just confirms the bypassed charge.

The reason you can’t get any place with what you are doing is because you have bypassed charge. And therefore look on the ARC break as a blessing in disguise. It tells you, even more accurately than the meter, that you have bypassed some charge. Well, it tells you haven’t got basic on the chain of the engrams, regardless of the meter. Meter sometimes—”Is there a more basic incident on this chain?” The meter doesn’t do a thing; it just sits there and does nothing. If the PC ARC breaks, well, brother, there is a more basic incident on that chain. In other words, he can look deeper than the meter, see?

You’ve said, “All right, now let’s pick up the first incident. Good. What are you looking at?”

“Oh, I’m looking at the clouds going by here.”

“All right. Good. Now, see anything else around you?”

“Yeah, I see this black cord that seems to be coming down from the sky.”

“All right. Now go to the moment just before that black cord reaches the ground or reaches toward you.”

PC ARC breaks. Well, you say, “Well, I’m—I was just sitting here trying to run the basic engram on the chain, and it said on the meter that it was the basic engram, and . . . and . . . hu-uh-mm-mm.”

Don’t feel so damn pathetic. You ask him to go to the beginning, so that restimulated it. And then he didn’t get there, and he saw a picture that was the fifteenth incident. And you started to run the fifteenth incident; there were fourteen before it. So the PC ARC broke.

Now, you say, “Well, I’ve got to run this incident, because I can’t get any trace of the earlier incidents unless I run through this one once. So therefore I don’t dare run through this one once because the PC will ARC break.” Not unless you haven’t heard a word I said in this lecture. See, you won’t be able to if you haven’t heard a word I’ve said. You will always have to run the basic and, of course, it’s not available. It’s seldom available till you’ve peeled off a couple off the top Of it. Look at the trouble you’re having trying to get the first goal on the first series. Look at the trouble you’re having. Why are you having trouble? That’s because you’ve got to audit a few later ones to get the charge off enough to find the first one.

Well, all right, isn’t that automatically bypassed charge? No. It’s bypassed charge, but you’ve already cured the ARC break. How? You told the PC, “I can’t find the first goal right now and it’s undoubtedly there; we’re going to run the one we’ve got our hands on.” So you’ve already found and indicated the charge. So the PC won’t ARC break, of course, because he knows there’s charge up ahead.

All right. All you have to do is find and indicate the basic—the fact that there is a basic on the chain. Well, the PC ARC breaks start to run this chain.
 
You just try it on for size. You say, “Well, you know, the engram that we’ve just started into here, that’s evidently late on the chain, isn’t it?” And you look at your E-Meter and it’ll fire right about that time, because you said, “Now, we’re going to run the one we get through so we can get back earlier.” “Oh, well—oh, yes? All right, fine.” And the PC’ll go right through it.

He’ll run the eighty-ninth on the chain, as long as he knows not even that it’s the eighty-ninth but that there’s an earlier one on the chain. It’s that elementary. It’s that elementary.

Now, why does a PC ARC break when you’re putting in rudiments? Well, the rudiment is out in the incident that you are running, and of course that’s prior to the session. You try to put the rudiment in, in the session; it is out in the incident, so of course you’ve bypassed the charge, so therefore the PC ARC breaks and said, “All you’re doing is sitting there running mid ruds and mid ruds and mid ruds, and you’re mid-ruding me to death.” See, that’s just another case of bypassed charge.

PC ARC breaks in mid ruds, you don’t have to find it. In fact, you better hadn’t. There’s probably a suppress in the incident. See, you’re running suppress and the PC ARC breaks. You say, “Well, in the incident we’ll probably run there’s probably a suppress.”

And the PC—”Oh, yes!” That’s the end of the ARC break. You understand? You get how many ways this cookie crumbles? See? It’s the number of ways this pie can be cut. It’s always bypassed charge.

And what’s that make you for chickening off on cleaning an RI? What’s that do, when because the PC is so ARC breaky and restive that you don’t get all the charge out of an RI? What does that set up? What does that set up for the next two or three RIs? Learn to think in those terms. It sets up an ARC break, of course. Because you didn’t get the charge off the RI, the next RI now has bypassed charge behind it. Least that’ll happen is your PC’s morale goes down, and you can’t get the charge off the next one. And you get a cumulative error. See? But, of course, you are so protective of your skill as an auditor you never say to the PC, “Hey, I don’t think I’ve gotten any of the charge off the earlier incidents in this bank.”

And the PC says, “Oh, no? Haven’t you? Well, careless of you.” And that’s the end of that ARC break.

Look at the cumulative error. Item one: you got it to fire; it fired over a sixteenth of an inch, sensitivity 128 on the meter. “Well, that’s the end of that one. All right, what opposes it? ‘Nix scrambled eggishness.”’ You know? “All right, that fired a sixteenth of an inch.” So you say, “Good. All right, let’s take the next one, number two. ‘Absolutably scrambled eggishness.’ You know? Well, that ticked. Well, that’s good enough. There probably wasn’t any charge on it. Probably the speaker was out that day. So let’s get the next one. ‘Nix scrambled eggishness.’ Hm-hm. That fell slightly.” (Tone arm went up so you got “tone arm action” on it!) “Oh,” you say, “well,-I better get industrious. ‘Perfectably scrambled eggishness.’ I better get industrious and I’ll really clean this one. This item been suppressed? Anything in the session been suppressed? protested? upset? Anything—anything been upset? Anything protested? upset? invalidated? ‘Perfectable scrambled eggishness’—anything been perfectabled?”

And you’re sitting there looking at the wildest ARC break you ever heard of. “Where did it come from? Just because I’m trying to put in a couple of rudiments on ‘perfectable scrambled eggishness,’ this PC is ARC broke because he doesn’t want me to . . . “ Looks mysterious, doesn’t it? Well, it comes from nix absolutable, absolutable nix, and the top oppterm.

Want to set up an ARC break? You can set it up perfectly mechanically. Just start going down the list, just drop one just drop an RI. See? Notice the PC is a little abstracted and say, “Give me number thirty-one.” Ticks. You say, “All right, that’s fine. Give me number thirty-two.” This PC will get a weird look in his eye. And certainly by thirty-three, thirty-four or thirty-five, you will have a God-awful ARC break on you. And then you say, “I didn’t take the charge off number thirty-two—number thirty-one. Didn’t take the charge of it off.”

“Oh? Oh.”

I wouldn’t say you’d do this to any PC, but you actually could. And it’s just as predictable as that. One, two, three: You bypass the charge, keep it a secret, ARC break.

Now, you start struggling around with a PC and ramming around of one kind or another and harassing the PC and chewing the PC up, after you’ve bypassed two and three-quarters banks full of no blown charge, and what do you think you’re going to be able to do with this PC? Exactly nothing. You’re going to get nothing to discharge, you’re not going to be able to run a session and so forth. Well, what’s your remedy? Your remedy ordinarily is to find an earlier goal and run it well.

What if the PC is so bogged down by this time that you can’t get up to an earlier goal? Well, run this ARC break recall process for half a session, your PC will be able to find some earlier goals. Yeah, well, that’s a crude remedy.

Any trouble you have with Routine 3 today is caused by bypassed charge. Any ARC break that you’re- having is caused by bypassed charge which has neither been found nor indicated. It’s all under the heading of bypassed charge. bet a reality on it. How many ways can you bypass charge? Then you’ll be able, not only to run a smooth session, but you’ll have everything blowing, left and right, all the way on down.

There are numbers of ways to run charge off of RIs—numbers of ways to do it. But don’t take the charge off of a GPM, your next GPM isn’t going to fire. Don’t take the charge off of four or five consecutive RIs, the sixth isn’t going to fire. That’s all.

Now, don’t yammer at the PC on the seventh, trying to get it to discharge. Well, that’s nonsense. How can it discharge? PC is all of a sudden—his morale’s down, he’s ARC broken and so forth. The perfect way to keep these implants from running is to bypass charge. Then you’re not going to get anything to run.

I’ve even given you a weapon that puts the PC back together again so you can bypass the charge you’ve left on the bank. And that’s your ARC break process, and that’s marvelous anyway. The only thing known that’ll cut into an implant like a band saw. Good Straight wire process—sit there and run it for a while, PC’s that upset. But find out the charge reason first. Cure these ARC breaks before running a process.

Now, there’s the trouble “you is having”—if you have any trouble—with PCs, and if you have any trouble running banks; it all comes under that one heading of bypassed charge. You’re going to have ARC breaks and no rocket reads. Everybody was sitting marveling at the big rocket reads I was getting on that TV demonstration. Well, it might strike you as very interesting, that was one of the most difficult sessions I have given for a very long time and those were the smallest rocket reads I have had for a long time, because it was very difficult. The PC was very restimulated by the amount of electronic hum on the television cameras, because he was going through an electronic implant that hummed. Therefore wasn’t firing very well. And I fought that on down the line and there was a bypassed charge of a cognition, and which almost caused an ARC break, and finally gave you the cognition, only it had been bypassed. And then you saw some rocket reads that were really rocket reads. Because you saw a lot of rocket reads; those things were clean.

There’s many ways to blow RIs. This is not a lecture on how to blow RIs.

But let me tell you that if you start bypassing charge early on, you’re going to find no charge later. And let me tell you something else: Don’t buy an RI that doesn’t rocket read a full dial. Got it? Just don’t buy them. Lets see that thing fire man! Lets see them really fire. There is a PC made that won’t give you a dial rocket read per item. Now how much charge do you think you’ve left on the bank? How long do you think your PC will remain ARC un-broken?

All right. Now, I told you you would like this lecture, but there it is.

Thankyou very much.

ARC BREAKS AND THE COMM CYCLE

A lecture given on
24 July 1963

Thank you.

Well, you’re going to get some demonstrations before we’re much older. And I’m grooving in Model Session a little bit better. Couple little bugs these days in Model Session.

“Do you agree that’s clean?” can cause an ARC break. What you want to communicate to the PC is did the PC have anything to say about it? You, after all, have asked a question, and you inform him of the state of the needle and ask him if he’s got anything he wants to say about it. But I haven’t quite got the pat wording for that. But it’s interesting that there are two, three little changes—they’re just little refinements, make it easier on the auditor.

We’re using mostly the 3N Model Session and in actual fact have not used the old, original, long-drawn-out beginning ruds-end ruds Model Session for some time. And it’s a good training ground, maybe, but in actual fact, the since mid ruds are enormously better. Since mid ruds and pull missed withholds are enormously better than any beginning rudiments we ever had. And an ARC Break Assessment at the end of session, just whether there’s been an ARC break or not, is enormously superior to any end rudiments we ever had. Don’t you see? So you just clean every line of it. You don’t do an assessment by elimination. If you got a tick, find out what it is. And just clean that up, and your PC comes up shining.

So it actually makes Model Session pretty easy to do, but it’s still a very precise activity. We’ve now got the body of the session, we end the body of the session, you know? Goals and gains, all that sort of thing. Everything is there—you know, we adjust the PC’s chair and ask if it’s all right to audit in the room and get a can squeeze and put in the R-factor and start the session, you know? Same thing. Get the goals and roll right on through. Get the PC’s goals, and [ill PC’s needle is a bit agitated, your tone arm is higher than it was the last session, we put in our since mid ruds and see if there’s any missed withholds, and carry right on through into the body of the session, and do whatever we’ve got to do. Come right on up to the end of the body of the session and chatter with him a little bit before we tell him that’s the end of the body of the session—that’s very informal but still there. Then we get the PC’s.. . ARC Break Assessment—usually omitted, if the session’s quite happy and the PC has had a big win in the session; we certainly don’t harass him with an ARC Break Assessment.

And then we take our goals, and eve take up each goal. I notice some not quite doing that, maybe. And actually, those are written on the auditor’s report, diagonally across the goal. See, we just write “yes,” you know, or
 “maybe,” see, across each goal. We don’t write down another section here that says whether or not he made his goal, see? “To have a good session”: Well, we give him that goal, you know—did he make it? He says yes, we write “yes” diagonally across that top there, see? So we can see what his goals and gains were just by looking at that one block. And it’s easy to review, see?

If he’s got all that, we don’t keep pestering him, we just read it to him, did he make them or didn’t he make them?—then we thank him for making his goals in this session, or if he only made part of them, why, “Thank you for making some of your goals in this session;-I’m sorry you didn’t make all of them.” Then we ask him for his gains, and we take down the gains. And we don’t keep bleeding gains. We don’t keep asking the question “Did you make any gains for the session?” We just take what he’s got, see? We make sure that he’s answered it to his satisfaction—and remember he’s pretty foggy, so sometimes that’s a little difficult to get closed out. You’re still trying to end the session, he’s still trying to give you gains, you know?—long time to answer the question or something like that. Well, let him answer it to his satisfaction, but don’t you keep pounding with the question about gains for the session. You understand? You can over-ask him, see? And next thing you know, he’s giving imaginary gains that he never heard of.

When he’s got those you say, “Thank you for making these gains in this session,” or, “Thank you for making some gains in this session; I’m sorry you didn’t make all of them.” And (“Sorry you didn’t make more gains,” rather), and close that out.

And then we just get a can-squeeze test, run any havingness that we have to run if the can-squeeze test was less than the beginning of the session, and simply ask him, “Is there anything you want to say before we end the session?” Let him say it. Then we say, “Is it all right with you if I end the session now?” and get a yes on that and we just end the session. That’s it. And “Tell me I’m no longer auditing you.”

All of these various lines we’ve had before—those little courtesy lines are in there. The only additional ones: thanking him for his goals, then thanking him for his gains. And that is the form of a Model Session these days. But it still requires a precision, don’t you see? It is still a Model Session and its wording is very fixed for each one of these points.

Before I gave you a demonstration of this Model Session brought up to date, however, I wanted to get that business of what do you say to a PC? What is exactly the best thing to say, you know? “That didn’t read.” “Do you agree that that is clean?”—that type of approach can cause ARC breaks.

I myself have felt like saying, “Well, I don’t have to agree that it’s clean. To hell with it! “ you know? “What are you trying to do, force me to say there are no more answers on this question, ‘In the last trillion trillion years is there anything you have suppressed?’ Hell, I know it can’t be clean. It’s clean for the purposes of the session, maybe, but sure isn’t clean!”

That’s why, when you heard a demonstration I was giving on that tape a short time ago, I was slipping that. You saw I wasn’t using it very much, and fumbling around with it. I was still trying to find a proper wording. Soon as I get that taped, why, I’ll give you this new one. It’s almost exactly the same one that you’re using now; I’m just giving you these little refinements. All refinements these days are just in the direction of causing less ARC breaks and getting more auditing done.

The reason you have rough needles, however, has nothing to do with your Model Session or your rudiments or anything else. The reason you have rough needles is you miss on TR 2 or TR 4. You miss TR 2 and TR 4 and you got a rough needle. That’s it—bang. Just like that. Comes back to auditing cycle.

If an auditor’s PC has a clean needle consistently, you know that this PC is
 either phenomenal or this auditor has very, very good TR 2 and TR Every good TR 2 and TR 4, see? And if PC has a rough needle, not all the rudiments in the world will put it together if the auditor’s TR 2 and TR 4 are for the birds. See? That’s a big point. That’s a big point.

Now, I invite you sometime to just watch this. Any auditor will have this happen to him. It happens about once a session. Sometime in the session you got a clean needle, it’s flowing along here very neatly and very nicely and smoothly clean needle, everything going fine—and all of a sudden you got a dirty needle. You immediately assume PC has a missed withhold. If you were to take a tape of your auditing session, you would find out very rapidly that your TR 2 went out or the PC originated and you did something about it. Something happened there between TR 2 and TR 4, and immediately your needle was rough.

Be very revelatory to you if you had a tape of the needle—we’re trying to accomplish this technically; a very hard problem—if you had a tape of your needle in your session and you could play it back sometime, you’d learn a lot. And its quite intriguing. And you say, “What the hell gets into me?” you know?

PC said, “I had an ache.”

“Oh yes, where was it? Oh yeah, hm-mm? Have anything to do with the process we were running?” Dirty needle. Just like that. Bang-bang!

“Uh . . . well, I feel better now.”

“Well, you don’t have to worry about that. We’ll get you into another . . . [inaudible]”

But you watch the coordination between auditing cycle and dirty and clean needles, and you’re going to be fascinated. And whenever you look around and you see an awful lot of PCs have dirty needles, you look around, you’ll see an awful lot of auditors have dirty TR 2 and TR 4. You clean up the TR 2 and TR 4 and you’ll clean up more needles than you can shake a stick at. It isn’t the significance of it, you see; it’s the calm flow of the auditing cycle.

Well, I didn’t come in here to give you a lecture on this today. I’m going to give you a lecture on the subject of ARC breaks, so I might as well start this lecture.

This is what?

Audience: July 24th.

24 July, A.D. 13, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. And here is a lecture on the subject of ARC Break Assessments—one which you need. You need. You need this worse than you think. ARC Break Assessments.

Now, I’ve just been rattling along here and talking about sessioning in general, which is of course a very applicable part of this lecture. But you normally consider a dirty needle, you see, as a withhold or something that the PC has done. And you seldom look at it as something that the auditor has done.

Well, let me point out to you that there are two communication cycles in an auditing cycle—two communication cycles in an auditing cycle—and either one of those two communication cycles can be active.

Now, number one is auditor to PC. Number two is PC to auditor. Now, either of those can operate independently. And one of those cycles goes this way: “Do fish swim?” see, and the PC hears it and understands it, see? And that is simply cause, distance, effect. So that’s a communication cycle, see? Cause, distance, effect.

Now, PC says, “Yes,” and auditor hears it and understands it. Now, that’s cause, distance, effect.

Now, you’re used to all this, of course, but you probably haven’t looked at it in the degree Of separateness which it deserves, since either one of them can
 exist independent of the other one, and both of those communication cycles have to be perfect or very acceptable before you have an auditing cycle. An auditing cycle is not made up, then, of auditor command, PC’s reply, auditor’s acknowledgment, see? That is a very, very loose look at an auditing cycle.

An auditing cycle can exist, frankly, on either of these independently. The PC doesn’t have to say a thing and yet be perfectly satisfied. Do you see—a communication can exist from the auditor to the PC.

What’s your R-factor? That’s a communication from the auditor to the PC, isn’t it? PC understands it. You ever hear a PC say very much to an R-factor? He doesn’t even have to signify he’s heard it: There’s nothing in the books that says he did. But he has to understand it. He doesn’t have to say anything. “Okay, all right. Well, I agree that is the R-factor”—you don’t expect the PC to say that, see?

Similarly, you’re going along in an auditing session, the PC suddenly says, “Hey! I just realized that dirigibles aren’t airplanes, see? You know, it’s a fact!” And you haven’t even been auditing dirigibles or airplanes or anything else. This very often takes you by surprise. It can be close or far from the subject of the auditing session—that has nothing to do with it—but it’s an independent communication cycle. An independent communication cycle.

Now, you’re so cheerful on the subject of getting your TR 2 in, just right, in answer to the TR 4 that you don’t sometimes look at the fact that TR 4 doesn’t depend on TR 2, not even vaguely. That’s why it’s TR 4. It’s up—upnumbered. What is this?

Do you know that some of the most successful origin handlings I’ve ever done had no acknowledgment connected with them. Although you can say the auditor is supposed to understand and acknowledge the thing—receive, understand and acknowledge the communication, all that sort of thing—you can go into that kind of thing and try to explain what this is; in actual fact, look at this in its most naked form. This is just simply a single communication cycle, originated by the PC and received and understood by the auditor. And if you look at that, not with any tricks or gimmicks around it, all will suddenly make sense. Just as the auditor is emanating and originating his auditing cycle as a one-way communication in its first step, and just as an auditor can originate things which the PC doesn’t have to respond to at all, so can you get the reverse thing going in a session—which is to say, the PC says something. And that’s a communication cycle. And the only thing you’re trying to do is signify that it exists. You’re not trying to do TR 2 or anything else. I mean, the PC originates: he says, “Dirigibles are not airplanes.” He’s had a cognition of some kind or another.

One of the ways to knock him off his base is to give him a very artificial TR 2. Did you ever have an origin knocked off its base by having the auditor say “Very good. Thank you”?—get a very artificial piece of stuff back in your teeth. You’ve just said something that was important to you.

Very often in auditing I’ll handle an origin with a facial expression or a head nod, because it’s a one-way cycle. And only a ghost of the thing the other way needs go, and actually needn’t really go at all. If you’re really good at projecting your think tank, you could sit there with the face of a wooden Indian and do a perfect TR 4.

I know that sounds utterly incredible. The way not to handle a TR 4 is to make it obvious that you haven’t understood and that you have received the communication. “Thank you.”

“I suddenly . . . I suddenly realize,” the PC says, “I suddenly realize . . . I suddenly realize my migraine headache’s gone! I had it for years! Gone! Hey, what do you know! Ha! It’s gone! Gone!”

“Thank you.”
 What the auditor has done in that particular regard is make a mistake of thinking a PC runs a reverse auditing cycle. See, he thinks the PC is now going to audit him. The point here is you audit any little kid on “Touch that table” or “much that chair” for a little while, and nearly all of them will suddenly start diving the command to you. They get their flow going so far, and you’re a fool if you don’t do them, too. And you touch the table and touch the chair, and the kid’s all satisfied and B0 forth. And they’re perfectly willing for your next command, see? It’s quite a game they play. They go into a very complete duplication of the auditing session. A good auditor of children and B0 on is quite well aware of this and doesn’t refuse to execute the auditing command. It throws a kid completely out of session. Kid is overwhelmed. That’s the kid’s effort to be right, don’t you see?

All right. But in handling an origin, the PC has not started to audit the auditor. That’s a different kettle of fish. The PC doesn’t expect anything but a comprehension. That’s all the PC expects.

Now, how do you signify a comprehension? Well, I know your telepather is kind of busted; it’s been busted for quite a while. I know mine has been, to the degree that it might be. I sometimes look back at what telepathy once was, and a guy is two thousand yards away and you hear all of his thoughts with a crash, don’t you see? That’s OT stuff. You can also have obsessive telepathy where you hear everybody all the time. This is sort of out of control. But we’re not asking for anything that is that marvelous. We’re asking for pure and simple, an ordinary response to a communication.

Now, how do you signify that you comprehended? Until you can answer that question well—till you can answer that question well and pleasantly . . . To yourself, see—l mean, not pleasantly but satisfactorily.

Well, you’re sitting there right now. How are you “comprehending” to me that you heard what I said and understand it? Yeah, I look at your faces and you’re all doing it beautifully. See? Perfect.

Now, that is an origin, handling of. And that’s all there is to handling an origin. PC says something and you understand it. Now, we say “and acknowledge it,” but we’ve gone too far because we’re tending to put it in a thing. We let the PC know we’ve understood it. For instance, once in a while I’ll just laugh like hell, see, you know? PC has said something that’s very funny to the PC, you know, and seems funny to me (I won’t laugh if I don’t think it’s funny to me; l won’t corn up the emotions on it), and I’ll just laugh, you know. PC’s perfectly satisfied. That’s because there’s no auditing cycle involved. That’s just a communication cycle. That’s all there is to it, see?

Now, there are a bunch of processes which require no answer from the PC but do require a response from the PC of some kind or another. But they are concept processes—the old concept processes: “Get the idea of . . . “ Well, the PC can sit there and get the idea and never really say “Yes, I . . . “ No nothing to the auditor. You know he’s done it. Well, how did you know he’s done it? Oh, you look at his breathing and that sort of thing, you take a look at him and so on.

You get into this trouble in R3R. How do you know the PC has moved to the beginning of the incident? See, that’s an interesting little hole. Because you didn’t say “Move to the beginning of the incident at approximately . . . and tell me when you get there.”

In the first place, that would be very sour, because it’s two auditing commands, they’re already complicated, he’s in too much trouble already; and once in a while, any auditor will get dopey and have moved the PC to the beginning of the incident and then not move him through it. You know, forget. The PC will sit there for a while, finally look at you kind of hostilely and say, “Well, when are you going to move me through the rest of the incident, you
 knuckle head?” See, any auditor is liable to do this, because he’s all busy with his computation of where the beginning of the incident is and how many—time it was and so forth. And the PC’s been taking quite a while, let us say, to get to the beginning of the incident. And so he moves him to the beginning of the incident and then all of a sudden wakes up to realize at last that he hasn’t moved him through the incident.

This can happen—not to you just once or twice because you’re new at it; this will probably continue to happen to you, embarrassedly, now and then, from here on out. Because you’ve got an incident that’s a trillion years long, or something stupid like this. And the PC’s at the end of the thing and has had an awful time trying to find the beginning of it anyhow. And you say, “Move to the beginning of the incident at approximately wumpty-wump-bump trillion years ago.” And you decide, “Well, while he’s moving to the beginning of the incident I’ll just catch up on my note of what he’s just told me, because I didn’t want to slow him down,” you see? And you’re busy writing anal writing. You get interested in what you’re writing, you know?

Well, actually, the PC wouldn’t be upset with you if he didn’t notice that your attention was on something else rather than following through the auditing command. PC usually forgives this; doesn’t cause any ARC break. But ordinarily, you—PC says, “Well, I’m there. So what?”

And you say, “Oh! Uh-ho-hah-ho. Oh.” The exact auditing command that follows that, of course, is “Move through the incident to a point (duration time) later.” That’s the exact command that should be given him at that moment. And he’ll go ahead and happily carry this out.

Well, this is a point where, if you’re on the ball, you say, “Move to the beginning of the incident”—and if you keep your eye on your meter it’ll Rick sooner or later. You don’t have to ask him “Are you there?” That’s terribly bad form. You want to ask him “What are you looking at?”

“Well, so-and-so and so-and-so.” And I wouldn’t spend much time asking him what he was looking at either. As soon as I had any inkling that he was at the beginning of the incident I’d move him on through, because you can’t make any real mistakes there anyway.

Point I’m making here is the PC doesn’t have to tell you he’s at the beginning of the incident; he simply executes the auditing command. Causes a little bit of embarrassment sometimes, when you don’t realize that he’s executed the auditing command. But it is a communication cycle. It has taken place. The auditor said something, the PC’s done it. That’s all you expect. That’s it.

All right. Now, the PC says something. It’s a communication cycle. He’s not auditing you. It must be, therefore, a communication cycle. He originates, see? And he originates something to you, and you receive it and understand it: that is a communication cycle. Communication cycle complete, right there. Now, to make it an originated cycle, you should signify to him in some tiny fashion that you have received it and understood it.

Now, if you try to phony this up and he says, “Lugulala blou-uboog,” and you say, “Hm-mm, hm-mm, hm-mm ‘ and you don’t know what the hell he’s talking about, there is some mystic influence sets in at this point which you will see go on the meter. He knows damn well you didn’t understand that—half the time because he didn’t.

Now, the auditor who specializes in this phrase should be stonewalled: “I just don’t understand what you said,” see? “I didn’t understand you.” “I don’t understand what you are saying.” “Don’t understand.” In the first place, that’s lousy—a lousy approach—from the basis that it uses a very, very powerful word. Understand is the crossroads of A, R and C. And you say “don’t understand,” you’re just asking at once for a complete ARC break. But more
 importantly, you have said to the PC to communicate the same thing again.

If you’ll notice, he said, “I have a pain in my back.”

And you say, “I just don’t understand what you said.”

And the PC will only say, “I have a pain in my back.”

And you say, “I don’t understand that.”

And he will say, “I have a pain in my back!” See, we’re all of a sudden seeing the buildup of the ARC break, see?

And you say, “I just don’t understand that.”

“I Acre a pain U1 my back!!”

You can build this up. But do you notice that the PC is saying the same words over and over and over? It’s a peculiarity of Homo sap. If you indicate that you don’t understand what he’s talking about, he says the same thing again. He says the exact same thing again. He never varies it. What you want him to do is vary the explanation. What you’re asking him to do is to help you get this, if he’s got to say something more. What you want to indicate to him is he should tell you a little more broadly what he is tallying about so that you can get a very good grasp of it. And if you are very clever—and there’s no substitute for cleverness; you can’t give anybody a pat phrase with it because they vary all the time—if you’re very clever, he will explain it to you in a half a dozen different ways. And then he understands it and so do you. But it’s mainly you that’s got to understand it.

Now here, basically and elementarily, we get the basis of an ARC break. I don’t care what kind of charge is bypassed, the thing is a bunged-up communication cycle, whatever else it is, see? It’s affinity, reality, communication —these things are all out. It’s a bunged-up communication cycle, but what in it is bunged up? Detected and understood—those are what’s bunged up in it.

How can you have a communication cycle where the communication is not fully detected and is not understood? How can you have one? It isn’t a communication cycle, became the communication cycle is cause, distance, effect, with duplication occurring at the effect point of the cause point. That’s a very pure, accurate definition. Not over all the years has there been any shift of that.

But look at this. Are you going to call this a communication cycle: cause, distance, alter-ised effect, no comprehension? You said, “Good morning,” and she thought you insulted her. How did that come about? Well, it just came about by the nonexistence of a communication cycle. It was imperfectly detected and it was not understood.

Now, of course, it’s not understood because it’s imperfectly detected. I mean, how much more elementary can we get? Somebody rolls a lollipop in your direction, how can you detect what it is if you don’t receive it? Oh yes, it can arrive within four feet of you, and you can look out there and see a lollipop. See? Then you could detect it without receiving it, which is another thing. This would also be an ARC-breaky situation. It’s detected, but you didn’t receive it.

Usually you’ll find TR 4 breaks down at this point. It’s detected, but not received. PC says, “I don’t—I . . . I . . . I don’t think you have to keep . . . keep the session going much longer; I feel fine.”

You say, “Well, we’re going—we’re going to keep it going as long as is necessary to fill in this particular period.” You detected he said something, but you didn’t receive it. You’ve said you didn’t receive it because you didn’t do anything about it. You said it should be something else before it arrived at you, and you have therefore busted down the communication line between the PC and yourself.

Now, that was a very pleasant origin, wasn’t it? Do you know that you could so work on that origin that you would have that PC—I don’t care what PC, or how calm this PC normally is or how splendid and pleasant this PC is—
 you could get that PC into an absolute screaming fit, just on that, by just continuing that. Just continue it and continue it, and if you ever want to see an ARC break, man, just rig one of these things 90 that you don’t receive what the PC says. And that can be done to any PC.

Some PCs are really a bit below spitting in your face, but you can just see them go blyaaahhh. And they just sort of pass out right where they sit. But it produces a fantastic effect. A fantastic effect.

Now, an auditor must realize that that is a primary effect, and that is a primary cause of ARC break. That is not one of the causes of ARC break. That is your textbook, perfect example. From the PC’s point of view, there is cause, and there’s distance; the distance is not covered, or the communication cycle does not complete. And that’s it. That’s it.

I don’t care what PC you’ve got, you can reduce a PC to a screaming fit, no matter what this PC has said. You can just get the PC gibbeting. A PC will just be shaking and exhausted in a very short space of time. And that’s an ARC break. Well, why is it an ARC break? That’s because both A, R and C are out. The combination of A, R and C equals understanding, and the understanding is out.

The intention is cause, distance, effect, and the progress of that cycle is prevented so that the communication is actually not fully detected. See? Not fully detected. This is a very, very interesting point in ARC breaks. That forms a woof and a warp of all ARC breaks. Not fully detected—partially detected but not fully detected. Nobody’s going to ARC break going out here and yelling at a rock. You could go out here and yell at a rock all morning. You can say, “Oh rock, I hate thee,” or, “Oh rock, whither dost thou comest?”—anything you want to say—and you will go out and yell at the rock and talk at the rock and speak at the rock and so forth, but your expectancy of what’s going to happen at the rock never does get quite up to expecting the rock to give you a TR 2.

So therefore, your estimate of the detection is not at fault. The rock isn’t going to detect the communication to it, so you then don’t expect anything to happen in the communication cycle, so therefore you do not ARC break. See?

Ah, but the PC is under a very, very definite detection cycle. The PC expects the auditor to detect the communication from the PC and understand it. And when that is thrown sideways—because understanding has entered into it, because detection has entered into it, because only partial detection or no detection has entered into it, in spite of the expectancy of its being detected—you can reduce a PC to an absolute shaking mess of jelly.

I’m not kidding you now. I see from your silence that you’re either accepting this as too grim to confront, or you think I may be exaggerating it. This is not so. This is not so.

You can take the most common statement, such as “I feel pretty good now,” refuse to detect what the PC is saying, don’t duplicate it (don’t understand it, in other words), and keep giving the PC evidence that you haven’t understood it, and have that PC—I don’t care how calm, cool and collected that PC has always suspected himself—in utter amazement at having been a shuddering mess of jelly, because he eventually will start screaming. “But I was just trying to tell you I feel perfectly good now,” see? And it goes up, up, up, up, up, scream, scream, scream, and he’ll then break down scale. You can see him go down the scale. “I was just trying to tell you . . . !” And he’ll be crying, you know?

He gets on the same line—the stuck flow of his communication on the thing, and he can’t get it through, he tries everything under God’s green earth to get it through, and eventually he stark giving up and you can see his whole emotional Tone Scale follow this, then.

Well, that is a basic ARC break That’s fundamental. Now, you expect me
 to tell you there are many other kinds of ARC breaks, but there are no other kinds of ARC breaks. These mechanisms are all based on the communication cycle.

I don’t care what the devil happens with the rest of the bank, the whole definition of bypassed charge is “partially detected.” Now, it wouldn’t become bypassed charge unless it were at least slightly detected. You understand? Somebody had to drag a magnet within a few feet of it. It had to be stirred up one way or the other for the thing. But that is a communication line which begins.

Going to restimulate an engram in the session. Let’s take this as a bypassed-charge source, see? The auditor does this, knuckle-headedly.

You want to be careful in R3R, in selecting incidents, using things like “the first incident,” “the earliest incident.” Cut your throat, man! What are you talking about? You want “an earlier” incident, “the next” incident, not “first” and “earliest.”

Why? What are you trying to do? Life’s so dull you have to have an ARC break? Well, how are you going to get this ARC break? The PC can’t give you the earliest incident on the chain but could give you the earlier incident than the one you just had. But you ask him for the earliest incident and you will kick in some earlier incident which he then doesn’t reach. So, he now partially detects. And you have partially detected. Both of you, now, are guilty of partial detection of a started communication. And somewhere down deep it follows the same cycle as a communication cycle, right there—bang-bang-bang. It’ll go all to flinders, just like that—bang-bang-bang. The more you scrape it up and the less you detect it, the more ARC break you’re going to have. And that’s all there is to it.

If you considered the time track a series of mines—nah, I shouldn’t do this; some of you girls are timid enough when it comes to approaching some of these things. But let me give you this anyway. Supposing we consider it a bunch of mines which were activated magnetically. All you had to do was drag a magnet somewhere near them and they’d explode, see? And you want mine number four, and you’re all set to sit on it and pull its teeth and not let it explode, see? So you throw a magnet down to mine number eight and then start to prevent mine number four from exploding—and you wonder what that shattering roar is! Well, you see, you just miscalculated on what one you were going to explode.

Now, a time track isn’t quite that dramatic, but it gives you an example, see? You want mine number four, 60 you activate mine number eight. Now, what in actual fact is that?

Well, it’s a bum origin as far as the auditor is concerned, but actually, the communication cycle is reverse end to. Somebody has told mine number eight to speak, accidentally. And mine number eight speaks, and nobody detects it, quite. See, it’s partially detected. But it is activated and being partially detected now, will follow that same incomplete communication cycle. Nobody understands it, see? It isn’t that that has life in it which is capable of doing that at all. It’s just that a communication cycle, once begun, must go through. And if there is any type of thing that you want . . .

A big truism—a big truism: A communication cycle once begun must go through. If that communication cycle isn’t permitted to go through, there will be upset somewhere, sometime, someplace.

In fact, most of the difficulties of mankind, if you wanted to lay them out, are simply begun communication cycles which are not then detected. You know, they’re only partially detected, let us say. There it is, see?

Let me give you an idea. The president of the United States says, “I want all Of you bums and all of the indigent and the poor and the pauperized
 characters—I want all of you to write me a letter and tell me exactly what I can do to help you personally, individually and personally.” Gluck! Nobody would see in this the eventual revolution. Do you see what’s going to happen? The guy’s got no technology for handling the communication cycle at all. To say something like that would be weird. And yet the politician in a democratic country has always got this as his stock in trade. He’s a glad-hander tell-me Joe, you know—this kind of thing. Eventually it starts exploding in his face. We are very adventurous in that I go ahead and do something like that.

Remember, there’s a slight difference here. Slight difference here: You know how to catch the ball. We can catch the ball, we know the mechanics of this sort of thing, and generally the communication cycle doesn’t have that as a source. I mean, it isn’t that communication cycle that’s at fault. It will have been somebody audited somebody, and they got into an ARC break and they bypassed some charge, and then the person wouldn’t admit that they had bypassed some charge, you see, on the PC, and then the PC gets more and more disturbed. And eventually they go to see somebody in the area, and eventually the HCO Sec. And then the HCO Sec tries to handle it one way or the other, but it misses there one way or the other. And it slides sideways and slips around and so forth, and I’ll eventually hear about it.

And once in a while I drop a ball on these, and I only know of one case extant right now where the ball has been dropped forever, as far as I’m concerned, because he got into the hands of a psychiatrist. Incomplete communication cycle was the immediate and direct cause of that particular action. He already, let us say—we know this—had a tremendous number of overts on the organization and everything was gone to hell, and he’d been in a mess for a long time, see? But a communication cycle—I didn’t pay attention to it just as a communication cycle, just directly didn’t. And the character sprung sideways, and there wasn’t any way you could pick up the ball after that because there was a psychiatrist standing there. Haven’t done anything to the guy— apparently some psychiatrist that doesn’t use icepicks in the morning, only the afternoon. I only know one that’s extant like that.

Well, that’s a pretty good tribute to us, and it doesn’t say, then, that the situation isn’t dangerous merely because it’s being handled. But look at this: It is a situation which is pretty doggone violent if it is not handled.

And if you’re unaware of this . . . You realize that gunners and that sort of thing are always chucking around live ammunition, and they’re not spooked about it at all. And you’ll see people that work in oil-well districts blowing out oil wells and so forth: They’re always walking around with a pint flask of nitroglycerin in their hip pocket. They just couldn’t care less, don’t you see? Well, why? Those guys don’t die and get splattered all over the place all the time. They’re handling very dangerous materials. They’re just familiar with their material. They know what that material is, see?

Well, how would you like to be handling, on a totally unknowing basis, the way everybody else does in the community, see?

Have you heard any conversations amongst meat bodies lately? Have you? Have you? I’ll give you an assignment some time: Go around to a tea break in a construction works and listen to them. That isn’t so bad as a cocktail party. A cocktail party is armored, on this basis: They don’t expect anybody to hear them, so it’s never partially detected charge.

But this becomes pretty idiotic, pretty idiotic. You just stand there and watch the number of dropped communication cycles. And you don’t wonder at all after a while why these people tear each other’s throats out all the time. They’re always partially detecting that somebody has spoke. And of course they get a blowup.

You see that you can handle the dynamite of the reactive mind . . . This
 stuff, you know, this stuff is not very dangerous. I don’t mean to minimize it, so on. Frankly not very dangerous. It requires understanding. It never has been very dangerous.

But look how desperate it has made practitioners of the past. Look how desperate it has made people. Look how desperate a problem it is and look how frightened people can get if the United States—whatever you call it—is appropriating sixteen billion bucks to let psychiatry figure out how to give quicker and faster prefrontal lobotomies to more people.

Oh, I tell you, man, they must be worried! That worry must be proportional—at least one third as much worry invested in that as they have invested in the Russian situation, because that’s about the proportionate amounts of appropriation. I think that’s fascinating. You mean, they’re so worried about this problem, they’re so worried about the mind, that they invest treasure to this extent? They must be frantic to put it in the hands of the people they put icing too.

I don’t exaggerate. If you’d talk to most psychiatrists yourself, or if you were head of a committee or something like that and you called in two or three psychiatrists or something like that to get testimony from them as to how to handle the community mental health—if you were just an average citizen— you’d probably wind up with your eyes like saucers. Police listening to these fellows testify in courts, and that sort of thing, have become confirmed in the fact the psychiatrists are always crazier than the patients.

Well, look how desperate the situation must be if it’s put into the hands of PC who put up forward a mock-up of franticness to that degree, see? Let’s just look up these coordinative factors, see?

Well, a psychiatrist, of course, is himself frantic. And if we didn’t give him a hand to straighten out, he’ll just never make it. And I don’t think we’ll ever help him.

Any way, the point I’m making here is this factor of the ARC break. This factor of the explosive character of interpersonal relationship, this factor of explosive nature of social or any other type of personal contact, is looked upon in quite another way by other people than yourselves. See, it’s looked upon as just “Huuhhrh! Well, everybody is dangerous,” and “Everything is dangerous,” and “Oh, my God,” and it’s all on an emergency basis, and “Huuuhh!” and figure-figure-figure, you know? It’s fantastic.

Very few of you would say, “Well, you can’t talk to him about that.” Just show you that you’ve arrived someplace else, you see, than in that state of mind. Very few of you would be convinced you couldn’t talk to anybody about anything. After you talk to them for a while you know you can handle the situation to some degree or another and so on.

Well, that’s not the general state of mind with regard to this sort of thing in the society. “Talk to somebody about something? Huuuhhh!” See? “impossible! Hu-ooohh! Dangerous!” Well, what are these characters reacting to? They’re reacting to a communication cycle. So the communication cycle is itself the most deadly thing, if mishandled, that interpersonal relationships has, and the most valuable if it can be handled. The reason you can’t fish the ants out and straighten them up is because you can’t talk to them.

Desperation enters in only when communication goes out. Just remember that. You only get desperate—you can look back on sessions you’ve given: the only times you’ve been worried and desperate and that sort of thing is when you actually had the communication cycle go out, one way or the other. You want to say to this PC, “What the hell is the matter with you?” See? “What’s the matter with you? I mean, I’m asking you a perfectly simple question here, you know? And you poor sod! If you can’t answer that question, get some tone arm action, you’ve just about had it, man!” You know? You know this, sitting
 there, you see, and you sit there and you get tied up in the situation.

After a while you find yourself kind of peeved with the PC. PC isn’t responding correctly. Then you get all right when you do get the PC at some level that the PC is responding all right with communication; you find out that, much to your red face, that you had eight wrong dates on the case and that’s why the TA action wasn’t moving—something like this. You get these things straightened out, you notice the situation evaporates.

In other words, your response to the PC ebbs and flows to the degree that you can put a communication between yourself and the aberration that’s bothering him and straighten it out and see the evidence of its discharge. Don’t ever think you worry about a case for any other reason. You don’t. It’s that basic thing. You’re having an effect on the case, the case is responding and the case is coming along, and that is what you expect to have happen, and therefore that’s happening and all is well. And when that ceases to happen, when your breakdown comes in, and you can’t seem to reach this PC with an auditing command, you can’t seem to reach this bank with a communication of any kind whatsoever, you can’t seem to untangle this knot by speaking at it or into it, you start getting worried and you start getting upset. And that’s when you as an auditor become upset, and that’s when you as an auditor become worried about your PC. And it’s off . . .

There’s no reason for me to give you some pat answer, because there isn’t a broad, pat answer to it, because cases have these various bugs and complications of which you’re aware and which you get around eventually. But you look it over and try to find out what communication you’re not getting home to the PC, and you as an auditor will feel better.

Now, if the PC is feeling like the devil, PC’s feeling miserable about an auditing session or auditor, or something like that, you can just be sure that a—not his communication cycle; now, don’t get this one awry. His—as an auditor, it’s always your communication cycle that is awry, from your analysis of the thing. You want to improve something, you improve your communication cycle. But from a PC’s point of view—a PC is very much the effect of very heavy and strong processes—and from the PC’s point of view, a communication cycle is awry, but it can be awry in various ways.

It’s awry. The communication cycle is awry. A communication has started, it hasn’t been fully detected and it certainly hasn’t been understood. And where a PC is going awry as a PC—you want happy PCs, you just listen to these little words and don’t bother about anything else, and you just start figuring out exactly how you apply these to any case that you’re auditing that you want to make a happier case one way or the other, and it’ll work. And that is, some communication cycle has begun, it hasn’t been detected—fully detected, you see; has to be slightly detected or it wouldn’t be active—and it hasn’t been understood. Now, if you put that in a nutshell as to the basis of low ARC or ARC breaks in PCs that you are auditing, you actually never need another line of anything. You need the mechanics of how to detect these things, you need a list of how many things these can be and so forth, but I give you that as a basic principle.

And you go at that as a basic principle, and you figure out the PC you’re auditing has that as a basic principle, even when the PC doesn’t have an ARC break. You know, there’s no reason to figure this out. Now, get this: there’s no reason to figure this out at all. Go ahead and figure it out and you all of a sudden will understand something about your PC that you haven’t understood before. You’re going to find a communication cycle out. I mean, it doesn’t matter what PC, you see, where. You’re always going to find a communication cycle out. What’s the evidence? He’s not OT.

For instance, he’s always missing the telepathic communication cycle;
 see, he’s always missing that one—that’s always out.

Didn’t go out in a session I was in last night. The auditor and PC practically blew each others brains out by having exactly the same communication cycle on a telepathic wave hit midway and almost blow up in the middle of the session. It was an incomplete communication cycle had taken place in the session. Both auditor and PC thought of it simultaneously and almost went around the bend trying to figure out which one had thought of it first so as to unbalance—so as to unbalance this sudden ridge that had appeared in the middle of the auditing session. Quite an amusing situation.

Missed a goal, back in the session; you know, one of these skitter-scatter sorts of reviews of putting things back together again, re-dating and that sort of thing, and just up and missed a goal. Didn’t realize any goal had been missed until the end of session, then all of a sudden thought of it. Either the auditor thought of it first or the PC thought of it first. The immediate result was a telepath on the subject, and it . . . ! It was pretty weird. You watch some of this stuff you haven’t seen for a long time, you know, you get tremendously intrigued. You say, “Huh! This stuff can exist,” you know?

Anyway, we had quite a ball on that. But that’s just a communication cycle of some kind or another which is completing. There are all kinds of communication cycles

Now, what do you think of a PC who isn’t receiving the auditing command? And what do you think of the auditor that goes ahead and gives auditing commands the PC is only partially detecting? Hm? Now, does this explain why you can run a touch process on an unconscious person, particularly if you’re monitoring their hands? You say, “Touch the sheet. Touch the pillow.” You say, “Touch the pillow,” and then you have them touch the pillow, and now they know they’ve received the communication. You understand? You see that as a surety? So it even works at the level of unconsciousness. It’s quite interesting.

What do you think an auditor is going to walk into who keeps saying, “Squizzle-wig the ruddy rods. Thank you. Squizzle-wig the ruddy rods. Thank

you.”

And the PC keeps saying, “Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.” What do you think the assessment at the end of session is going to look like? There’s going to be a communication cycle missing. It happens to be the auditory originated communication which is only partially detected by the PC and never understood. Now, what do you think’s going to happen in that session? It’s going to blow in some weird direction and there isn’t going to be progress, and things are going to go to hell in a balloon one way or the other, and it’s all going to be very hard to detect. You see that?

All right. Now, let’s look at another communication cycle. The PC is—I’m not trying to tell you all ARC breaks are based on the communication cycle. You understand, the communication cycle is primary but goes awry at the point of detection and understanding. Understanding throws it into A and R. You understand? There are the affinity factors and the reality factors are what tend to make it not understood. This is why it’s ARC. But still you can analyze it head-on on the basis of communication, you see, and it’ll fall into that category. It’s the reasons why the communication cycle didn’t complete and was only partially detected when it should have been really detected, see?

Well, let’s say the auditor has never cleared the auditing command with the PC. The PC has gone on answering this endlessly. Well, of course, you’re going to get into trouble. What’s the primary source of trouble? The fact that a communication cycle existed and the communication cycle was only partially detected, only the communication cycle didn’t cycle. It didn’t get all the way through. It was partially detected and it was not understood. So of course you’re going to get into trouble.
 All right. Let’s take another look at the situation. We try to get engram four and we trigger engram eight. Well, we’ve started a communication cycle, don’t you see, of engram eight without knowing we started engram eight, and we suddenly hear an explosion someplace and we can’t quite detect where it came from. We look it over, and we find out the communication cycle was that we accidentally got the response of engram eight, but then we abandoned that somehow or another and we got four. So actually the communication cycle was not completed. Was directed to eight, was not received at eight, don’t you see? It was received at four instead, 90 therefore you’ve got a partial detection, and the PC didn’t find it out, really, and the auditor didn’t find it out, so there it remains as a sleeper, don’t you see?

There was something that didn’t go through. That’s all you’ve got to figure on the thing, if you left all of your lists home. Something didn’t go through. Well, it’s only a question of how many things won’t go through.

Well, the basic things that won’t go through are affinity, reality and communication. And the basic things that those three things face are time. Time—matter, energy, space and time. It’s ARC versus time. Don’t you see that the livingness of the individual consists of ARC and he faces the material universe which consists of M-E; S-T. So you have the factors of M-E-S-T and you have the factors of ARC. And these confront each other. But this basically takes up the communication cycle. The individual communicating with time, or time communicating with the individual, goes awry. And as a result you get an incomplete and a partially detected communication cycle.

All of these things end up in what you call an ARC break. This ARC break results in all sorts of violent emotions which actually could not be exaggerated in their violence. Its just an ARC break amongst nations that causes wars. And yet here’s millions of people strewn out across the battlefields causing all kinds of work up here at the between-lives area. (Poor fellows—I bet they even have to work overtime. Let’s hope they don’t belong to the union or anything like that. The boys must have an awful time.) Well, that’s an immediate, direct result of ARC break. Communication breakdown of some kind or another, with the affinity and reality attendant thereunto.

So don’t think that because these factors are very simple and very easy to handle and very easy to detect that the results of not detecting them are not severe, and that the severe results that you see in life, interpersonally and in auditing sessions too, as well, are not catastrophic, or think that these results do not stem from this very simple little factor. Because it always does. An incomplete communication cycle results in bypassed charge—always.

The common denominator of an ARC break is bypassed charge. There’s charge someplace.

But what do we mean by charge? We mean—well, of course, ergs, dynes and all the rest of it. But we apply it to the communication cycle and we mean that a communication or a charge has been excited and was channeled to go in a certain direction, and then was not detected and not understood, and that charge then explodes in a dispersal of some sort or another. It goes blooey. Don’t you see? This is elementary. Bypassed charge is something that originates as the beginning of a communication cycle, and then not having been wholly detected or understood, remains then as bypassed charge. And it’s very often not detected by the auditor or the PC. And you have a session sort of running at a low gear.

Now, don’t think these things are just explosive either. PC just isn’t feeling so well lately, so forth. Well, you’ve got some sleeping bypassed charge of some kind or another you didn’t pick up, that’s all. Bypassed charge, we mean we bypassed getting the completion of the communication cycle, or we carelessly started a communication cycle which didn’t get completed. That’s all.
 Accidentally did so. It’s very easy to do. We say, “Give me the earliest engram on this chain.” Little while later, PC has an ARC break. We say, “Let’s see, did I miss an origin, or what did I do? What happened?” Then you hit, finally, “an earlier incident was restimulated.” This usually settles it away one way or the other, particularly if the PC spots what was restimulated. Bang! There goes your ARC break.

It’s attended with great magic. But the magical look at it is the fact that we have the anatomy of this tremendously explosive stuff—the explosive stuff of interpersonal relations. We know the magic of that. We know how many different ways a communication can be begun and not be detected and therefore become bypassed charge. It’s a lot of ways in which this thing can be done.

Well, knowing those things, you should be able to handle a session better. You should be able to handle a session better. PC says, “Oh, I . . . I don’t think we ought to go on too long.”

And you say, “Very good.” Just as your words By out the window, at least have the grace to realize that you are adding something into the communication cycle, if this then bears bad fruit. Just realize how come it came about. It’s a partially detected communication, wasn’t understood, far as the PC is concerned. You say, well, obviously that leaves you in a position of always doing what the PC says. No, it doesn’t.

“Well, good. I’m glad that’s the way you feel. All right. All right. Yeah, okay. Okay. Don’t want to carry on too long. All right. All right. Well, good thing that I’m perfectly fresh, and I hope you are the same, because I intended to go for another two hours.” We find that one cycle isn’t the other cycle, don’t you Bet! You’ve originated a new series of communications on the subject; you haven t slapped the old one in the head. You only get into trouble by slapping the old one in the head, don’t you see?

PC said, “I think you ought to go all over the track and restimulate all these engrams, because actually the best thing to do is to get to basic-basic, which is tomorrow.”

And you say, “All right.”

You take a look at this, you understand what he said. You may not understand why he said it, but you sure understand what he said. And you say, “All right. Good enough,” and go on and do what you’re doing. He still isn’t too upset about the situation. See, he only gets upset if you slap him in the face.

Therefore, you’ve got to be an expert in the detection of a communication that has begun. The better you are at detecting a begun communication—the better you are at this—the less ARC breaks you’ll have. But actually you needn’t worry about ARC breaks, because you can handle these things before they get catastrophic.

Now, that’s an ARC break. That’s handling the ARC break. These are the basic fundamentals stripped right down to rock bottom. Your ARC Break Assessment form is simply the number of types of communications which can be started and only partially detected by the auditor and the PC.

Now, some of you are prone to this (now, this can be done; so you are led astray by some wins): You can say, “Well, an earlier incident was restimulated in the session. That’s what’s wrong. That’s what the ARC break was about,” and the PC suddenly feels better. And if you go on that way, and you get wins, and you say, “Boy, this is the cat’s . . . There’s nothing to this. This is absolute magic,” right up to the point when you get the ARC break that you didn’t assess the right line for or you assessed the wrong list for or the PC didn’t quite know where to go to in order to look at and is still fubble-fubbled. You didn’t find it, even though it read on an assessment.

So therefore, there are several actions undertaken in the detection of one of these things, and one is to assess it on the form where the ARC break reason
 lies. That sounds idiotic for me to say something like that, but if the ARC break is in the session and you do an R3R ARC break form, you’re not going to find the ARC break, are you? And so forth.

So the right form, the right list—the right list comes as primary in this. And if you don’t find it on the right list, why, you better get another list. In other words, if you don’t find it, get another list. Your commonest error on these things is not now that the lists are not complete, but that the lists are in several pieces to save you time, so your commonest error is wrong list. You actually didn’t find the ARC break. You didn’t find the communication cycle that began and so left bypassed charge.

Now, the main mistake you’re making or could make in this, if you do make any mistake on it, is not making sure that it’s all straightened out with the PC. That’s the biggest common error. You say, “Well, that was an earlier incident restimulated. That’s all right. Okay,” and go on with the session. The PC’s sitting there frying. It wasn’t an earlier incident. Or he didn’t know what incident it was, and he’s totally baffled. The ARC break charge has not been spotted and laid to rest, see? It says right there in the bulletin on this that you better take it up with the PC and find out if that’s right.

Well, you can go to the point of dating all of the things which you dated wrongly and finding and locating and dating all of the bypassed incidents. In fact, it could become a total production which will go on for sessions, trying to clean up one ARC break. You understand? A good stunt in this regard is to find the order of magnitude of the bypassed charge. That doesn’t let you in for more trouble.

“An earlier incident was restimulated.” Yeah, but what? What? Who? What? Where? What’s? Which? Which? What’s? Which? It’s all you can find, is an earlier incident was restimulated. You don’t know what earlier incident was restimulated, you don’t know what the hell, and all of a sudden the PC says, “Oh, yes. And, yes, it must have been,” and so on. And, “I wonder when that was. Can you date that? Yeah, there it is,” and so on. “Can you date it?”

Good trick is just give it order of magnitude: “Is it hundreds of years ago, thousands of years ago, millions of years ago, billions of years ago, trillions of years ago, trillions of trillions of year—? It’s trillions of trillions of years ago.”

“No kidding? All right, that’s fine.” That’s the end of it, see? That’s a way of parking one without getting yourself all solidified in a dating. You know that the PC’s attention is still stuck on this thing, and he’s still trying to sort out what incident it was, and that sort of thing. Well, one of the ways to get rid of it is find its order of magnitude—not go ahead and date it and find its duration and run it by R3R when you, in the first place, were doing 3N. You understand? You can go that far.

But locating—locating it on the list—is where the semantic error turns up here. You don’t locate it on the list. The list only locates the type—the type of charge bypassed. In other words, the type of communication cycle that began and was never completed, never detected, see? That’s all. That just locates its type.

Now it’s up to you to take the additional steps of locate and indicate to the PC the charge. In other words, doing the assessment is really not locating the charge. The charge is not on the list, it’s in the PC. You get this? I’m not saying that just to be clever. The truth of the matter is, it’s only the type; the list will only give you the type of charge. And you haven’t accomplished the step of location. You’ve only found the type, see? People are saying “All right. Well, you locate and indicate. That means you do an assessment. Bang—that is located now, and we indicate it to the PC.” Well, the funny part of it is, this is so good that even that works. See, there’s where you get tripped up. You can
 short-circuit it to that degree and still make it work.

Well, recognize what you’re doing. That’s terribly short-circuited. You’ve only found the type of charge. You haven’t done the location step at all. So in some ARC breaks you are totally baffled as to why the ARC break doesn’t evaporate. You’re totally baffled. You say, “Why doesn’t it go away?”

Well, the primary reason is you haven’t done it on the right list. That, oddly enough, is the most Vagrant one. But you’ve never done the location step at all. The assessment is not the location. See? And an earlier incident was restimulated. You say, “All right, an earlier incident was restimulated.” Well, the magic of it is so great that occasionally. this works, and it gives you a—gives you a bit of a win, so you say, “Well, this ARC Break Assessment stuff—pretty good. Ha-ha! That’s it. Yeah, fine.” And it’ll work like that, and it’ll always work if you’ve got the right list. And you’ve produced this minimal effect on the PC and PC isn’t all coming apart now at the edges.

See, because that works, this whole system tends to get very short-circuited. You see, the assessment is not the location. That isn’t the way you locate the charge. That is the way you find the type of charge that you now want to locate. You go down this—pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa —and sometimes when you go over it you retrigger it, and your dirty needle turns off, and your next time down, why, it reads purely. See? You’ve had a dirty needle on the first assessment. Expect that as normal. Next time you go through and flick those off that were still in—bang—one is standing out there clean. Now you can say, well, it says so-and-so and so-and-so. “That’s an earlier incident was restimulated. Earlier incident restimulated—that’s what it says here. How do you feel about that?”

The PC says, “I feel lots better. Yeah, it’s fine.”

Well, let’s not plow up the field after it’s plowed, man. See, this is just handling ARC breaks as they occur in session. You know? No reason to go into this, stir it all up again, find some more bypassed charge, bypass . . . No, you had it handled—let sleeping dogs lie. Your assessment, location and indication all occurred in the same breath, see? Then you verified to find out whether or not it was okay, and obviously it all occurred in the same breath, so why are you going to go into any trouble from here on? Everybody’s satisfied, why are you going to any trouble? You’re just going to stir up more trouble.

But remember, you have done a very short-circuited, shorthand version of an ARC break rundown. That is very short-circuited. If you got the right charge, it can happen. But, “Earlier incident restimulated. Yeah, that’s what it says here. An earlier incident was restimulated in this session.”

PC says, “Ah, well. Okay now, that’s good,” and starts getting interested in something else, see? Ah-ah-ah, that’s all right. Nobody’s going to quarrel with him doing that.

But you say, “Well now, how do you feel about this?”

“Ah, maybe so, but . . . uh . . . Yeah, it was that earlier incident that was restimulated. Aorrwr-rahr! That earlier incident was restimulated!”

You haven’t found the charge, man. And the first thing you should suspect is not your assessment but that you had the wrong list. Reach for another list. Do you know that you can do 3N and inadvertently do some 3R—and be accidentally into 3R making ARC breaks of 3R? You can sometimes do R3R and get inadvertently into 3N, and your ARC break lies in 3N. Do you realize that? And if you have an ARC break on R3R and 3N, it is never the session ARC break list. But sometimes after you’ve cleared them up you then have to get the session ARC break that resulted from having had those out. You get the stunt here?

But remember that there is an assessment, a location and an indication, and it has to be all right with the PC. So there are four steps, always four. You could say five: Finding out that the PC has an ARC break would normally be the first one. But that is the score on your ARC Break Assessments. And recognize—recognize those steps, in handling the existing ARC break, actually exist to that number, and that the assessment is not the location. The assessment is just finding out the type of charge. You might have to go quite a bit further to find the location.

You say, “Wrong date.” You’ve done nothing the whole session but date, you see? The ARC break’s caused by a wrong date. Well, it reads well and it is a wrong date, and that is the ARC break, but the PC says, “What date is wrong?”

Well, you think that you now have to redate everything in the session, and so forth. Well, just call off a few of the dates you found and ask if they’re right, that’s all. Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang—do they read as wrong dates? That’s one way of doing it. Another way of doing it is “first half of the session, last half of the session.” There’s a dozen ways of doing it. I’m not going to try to teach you that trick. But you can go ahead and locate it right on down. Well, what as the right date for that thing? One of the ways of doing it is simply get order of magnitude. That makes the PC very happy. That causes it all to go back into place very smoothly.

You ran the goal “to spit.” You thought it was in the Helatrobus implants; you have a wrong date on the thing all the way along the line. And you find the goal “to spit” had the order of magnitude of trillions of trillions of years ago. It’s good enough. Not to go on to run the goal “to spit,” you understand, but to find out that you’d found the goal “to spit” and you want to get it out of your road B0 you can keep on with the goal “to spat,” see? Well, you find the order of magnitude for the goal “to spit” and it’ll move out of your road.

These are all just shorthand methods of handling the thing. But you are dealing with an assessment for type. You are dealing with a location. You are dealing, then, with indicating what that was, and then you are dealing with another factor here, is was it all right with the PC, does he feel okay now? And that’s what you were doing it for in the first place, so you’re a ruddy fool not to find it out in the last place. Okay?

All right. Well, because you can get away with it on the basis of do an assessment—bang—you say, “That was it,” and suddenly your location and indication take place just like that, see? You don’t, then, break them down and realize that there are that additional steps.

If you wanted to know a complete list of all types of ARC breaks in this whole universe, you would have to find all types of communication that could be partially detected when originated and all the things, then, thereafter that could be misunderstood. And you would have a full list of all ARC breaks. Because we’re dealing with the mind, we know the ones that are important, and we know what really causes the explosions and we include those. Otherwise, 150 million books printed, each one, to the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica, could not give you a partial list of the number of communications that could leave bypassed charge by being incomplete.

Okay?

Audience: Yes.

That’s the lot. Thank you.

R2H FUNDAMENTALS

A lecture given on
7 August 1963

What’s the date?

Audience: August 7th.

August the 7th, A.D. 13, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.

I’m going to give you a talk today which isn’t the official final rundown of R2H but which lays down the fundamentals of the process itself.

All right. R2H is one of the most satisfying processes that you ever cared to run. It is ARC breaks taken apart by assessment. It has a tendency to succumb to inexpert handling, and as long as you give a good thought to the fundamentals of the process, you won’t run a cropper. But here is one of the most interesting processes. This process is different than any process we’ve ever had in Dianetics and Scientology. Don’t think that you understand this process, because it’s quite different.

This process will run engrams and secondaries. It has tremendous power. And therefore it very well may be senior to R3R, in spite of the fact that it’s an R2. It very well may be senior. It may run more bank than these.

And the only thing it won’t run is a GPM. And to run a GPM you have R3M and R3N.

Oh, you’d forgotten R3M, huh? You wait till one day you run into a wildcat GPM, man! And you’ll thank your stars for R3M, if you know how to do it. Because that’s how you got the patterns in the first place, was R3M. That’s how you got 3N. That’s the Papa process.

Out of R3M can be borne patterns. 3N presupposes that you’ve got the pattern. You sit there and let the PC patty cake around and yap around and bark around and give you random items and you don’t see them rocket read, and you don’t know which end you’re going—standing on, and you let him hunt and punch, and keep sitting there at the E-Meter . . . I think the fashion is to sit there at the E-Meter as the auditor and just keep shaking your head, “No, it didn’t rocket read. No, it didn’t rocket read,” until the PC blows his brain out. Of course, he doesn’t need a brain. That’s . . . It’s a good thing.

But R3M will do a wildcat GPM, by which we mean GPM for which you have no pattern. And they exist all over the track, and you’ll eventually run into one, inevitably. Don’t think you can just go on running the pattern GPMs, because that’d mean your PC was never caught in a bind that was an oddball bind, see? He never got out to Arcturus and fell in that particular area that nobody else fell into, see? I mean, be very fortunate if he was normal and had only the normal implants, but that is never true. He’s always got an oddball one.

So you’ve got R3M, and that takes care of your offbeat implants. And the only change that I would make in it today—I wouldn’t ask the cross-question on oppose the way it’s asked. I wouldn’t ask “Who or what would oppose . . . ?” to get your next pair. I would say “What does the next pair consist of? Give me the oppterm of the third pair.” That’s the one I would use. I would use something like that. And then “Who or what would oppose it?” Yeah. And I’d use that as phraseology.

Now 3N, that’s a lead-pipe cinch. But 3N has this liability: On some PCs if you don’t random list—I don’t care if they had the item or not and if it rocket-read or not—you don’t get tone arm action. And if your tone arm action ceases, just up and random list. Just as easy as that. That gets all of your locks off. The RI with all of its locks—nothing has changed that, don’t you see? Even though you’ve got the item “absolutably cantankerous,” why, make him random list. “Who or what would oppose it?” And he gives you all kinds of things, and that blows the lock and your TA action may restore.

But the big thing that keeps 3N TA action down, of course, is having the wrong date and the wrong pattern. There’s nothing like having the wrong date for the GPM and the wrong pattern from the GPM to freeze the tone arm. That’s almost certain.

Now, if you add to that session a wrong or out itsa line—return line from the PC to the auditor—you of course have got it made. The TA simply goes up to the moon and sticks and won’t go anyplace else. You understand that, don’t you?

You’d be surprised how often you find a wrong date. And you’re running the Helatrobus implants—BO you think—and you go right into the next goal for which you’ve listed. And then you try to get “absolutably” and you can’t get a rocket read, and you say, “What’s happened? TA’s up and stuck. I’ve got this nest goal ‘to be a goof.’ It’s obviously the nest goal in line, only it isn’t here.” Shucks, man, you’re probably running a Bear implant. It’s probably shot back on the track Lord knows where, because the one thing a GPM won’t do is properly time. You can duration a GPM and you can time a GPM and you can get the date of a GPM almost endlessly.

Why? Because its primary basis is lousing up time. Those two opposing items fire against each other -sound like time to the PC, produces a no-change situation. So the GPM floats on the track and so it’s very difficult to time a GPM. So it’s just nothing to get the “next GPM in line” to run, and find out that it isn’t at forty-three trillion but at fifteen trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Embarrassing. Eventually you go back and start looking for wrong dates on the case, and you finally locate that “to be a goof” is not the nest Helatrobus GPM but a GPM which exists in the early limbo’s of nowhere.

Now, what’s very interesting is an exactly-the-same-looking hill with exactly-the-same-looking parking meters with exactly the same railroad track existed about trillions-four ago, which laid in an entirely different pattern which was far more aberrative than the Helatrobus implants, and which is basic on the Helatrobus implants. And I told you one day the Helatrobus implants are on the screens they show you in the between-lives. No, that isn’t. I’ve been making that mistake for about ten thousand years. Every time I put this thing up on the screen, why, it’s the wrong implant. They’re an early implant, and they had a hill there, unfortunately located in the same geographical area as the Helatrobus implants. And it looks to the PC just like the Helatrobus implants, only it isn’t. You’ve got a date error, then, consisting of trillions-four —almost trillions-four, you see: trillion trillion trillion trillion. Your date error. Of course, your TA action will cease.

So there’s a lot of tricks in running GPMs. And GPMs are what require special techniques. They require special techniques.

Now, nothing else that I know of requires a special technique, and you might even do away with R3R (this is a very adventurous statement) if you had a perfect R2H. R2H has the potentiality of running engrams and secondaries on the whole track with greater avidity and speed than R3R because it takes apart the restimulated and bypassed charges which exist in the secondaries and engrams. It doesn’t run the engram so much as it takes out of it all the bypassed charges and causes, of course, that particular segment to snap back on to track.

You probably have not looked at it this way, but you’re actually not trying to erase somebody’s time track. In the between-lives area they apparently are trying to wipe out your time track BO you don’t know who you are. Well, we’re actually not doing that. You’re not in actual fact working with the time track to knock out all the pictures everybody has. That is really not what you’re doing. You’re trying to take out of the time track the things which prevent a person from having his pictures. And after that, you can restore to him the right to have pictures or not to have pictures, as the case may be. You’re trying to pull his knowingness high enough up to a point where the individual does not have to have pictures to tell him who he is. Now, you got that?

Your first target is not to erase somebody’s time track. You’re liable to think that, because that is what a between-lives screen specializes in. It allegedly is trying to invalidate a person’s time track to a point where he doesn’t have any, and therefore can’t remember who he is because he has no picture reference. I spoke to you this way about it yesterday.

Well, you’re really not, then, trying to erase the whole time track, but there are certain unwanted pictures that he couldn’t handle and which he became the effect of. If you take the charge off of those pictures, then pictures become available to the person and he can have them or not have them as the case may be.

Now, the pictures which mostly louse up things are the GPMs. That’s the real mess-up. Because a between-lives implant has a target of invalidating all of your pictures and therefore wiping out your identity and memory. Because of this you might think—and I’m sure many people who are upset about auditing might think—that you’re trying to do this. You realize a Scientologist may be looked at with askance by certain areas and interests and so forth as though they were between-lives implanters, because they get some whiff of the idea that you’re going to erase the whole time track. And they might think we’re between-lives implanters.

I don’t know what would happen if we. . . I was toying with this this morning. (Let me give you a little bit of a laugh out of the side of this.) I was thinking of outer-space tactics and strategy. This is an interesting and vast subject, and I have come to the conclusion that the missing factor in it is communication, and that lack of communication is what causes all the trouble. All right, beside the point—that makes, then, very intricate and complicated tactics and strategy, you see? I wondered if, impishly, you couldn’t rise above this factor with a few curves of one kind or another by entering societies from within where you did have communication, you see? Well, how would you go about it then?

I was sitting there idly speculating about it over my scrambled eggs, and I suddenly realized still eating, I mean, I’m decadent—I suddenly realized that these between-lives blokes, the Marcabians, wouldn’t know what to do if they came down here and saw that they had a Marcab headquarters here. We set up their headquarters for them, and you put up their flag, you see, and so forth.

And look at the news story. I must have brought this news story on us, or had telepathically realized that somebody was going to call on us. The Mirror group w as calling on us today: “So many advances have happened in Dianetics and Scientology in the last three or four years that they had better be covered.”
 
We agree with them perfectly, but how they will cover them, God knows. That’s one of the biggest newspaper chains in England, but they also are the author of the death-lesson stories, and so we regard them with some suspicion.

But there is this pressure all the time of . . . We are, you see; we’re putting out fantastic . . . The stories involved here would make what’s turned out in university labs and the psychiatric blokes and this sort of thing—would stagger them, man. You see? I mean, there’s more story in any given week in Dianetics and Scientology, you see, than these birds. . . And the pressure— the pressure of this much data inevitably will produce some sort of a reaction on the surroundings, you see? And you’d find these guys sooner or later are going to realize they missed the boat. Instead of writing about “that cult,” they might write about “those people ‘ and you’ll see them swinging around to this sooner or later.

But look at the Marcabian press: “Here in this prison, in spite of all that has been done to them, they’re still loyal to their mother country.” God, you know, that’s touching, you know? That’s a tearjerker. And I sort of sat back and I said, “Well, Ronnie, you’re a dangerous man.”

But the reaction of earth population, all of which has come down through that channel, to these symbols might be something approaching the most fabulous thing you ever saw. It might be utter frothing, see? Might produce widespread riot and chaos. I don’t know. But it was an interesting thought, anyway, as I think you will agree. Not that we’re going to do anything desperate like that—at least this afternoon.

The point I’m making here the point I’m making here—is that if you tell the PC that you’re going to erase his whole time track, why, he’s liable to go into a sort of an anaten propitiate, because this happens to him every sixty or seventy years to such a degree, you see, that he doesn’t quite know whether he’s coming or going. But you tell him you’re going to give him back his pictures and you might entirely change your identity, as far as he’s concerned, as an auditor.

See, he’s got certain pictures that make it impossible for him to get back his pictures. That’s the condition he’s in. And you’re in actual fact trying to return him to Case Level 2. And oddly enough you have to move him to Case Level 2 before you can move him to Case Level 1. That’s what’s very interesting about it. And your PC, in spite of all your erasure of pictures, is going to wind up with pictures. Man, he’s going to have pictures! He takes them all the time, they just aren’t available. Some of these pictures aren’t too pleasant, some of them aren’t too unpleasant, but the point is there is no dearth of pictures. What’s the matter with him is that he obsessively makes pictures of everything without discrimination. He’s something like a garbage collector, see? Any old picture is good enough, you see?

But he gets some of these pictures, like GPMs and jails and things like this from between-lives implants, and they then hit him every time he tries to see his own pictures, you see? And he sees these, and of course they’re his pictures, too, but he never realizes this. They’re so hostile to his future and his mental health that he disowns them.

I’ve just gone through a phase of disowning my whole track—out of disgust, you know? Had a beautiful case resurgence for about—oh, I don’t know, must have lasted for an hour or two. Then of course it collapsed. But what I did was go through the consideration of track, and track became artificially, you see—the artificiality of it became less and less real until the track itself disappeared. And now the track is appearing with total reality, you see, and good knowingness. It’s an interesting, through-the-knothole experience. You know, “I wasn’t. I don’t know who the hell I am. I . . . “ You at least got up to the point of where you didn’t need a picture to tell you who you if there were just other beings, it’d be a telepathic ball and that would be that. But when you talk to Joe, you’re actually talking through MEST to Joe, no matter how you’re communicating with Joe, unless your ARC is so much on the ball that you can telepathically communicate.

And by the way, your ARC doesn’t have to be very high to telepathically communicate. That is quite interesting, that man is, at large, below this level of telepathy, but it is paid attention to in some civilizations to the degree that—oh, they set up—you’ve got a three-way communication. You got a conference with other departments or ship commanders or something—it wouldn’t matter whether it’s a business or a unit of some kind or other—and you set up a box. You set up a box. And the thetan briefing them briefs them through a box which telepathically retranslates his thought onto an endless banner, and puts it out with sound also. In other words, telepathy sufficiently strong that it can be mechanically reconverted. A device no more difficult than the vocotyper that the IBM keeps trying to make. You talk to the typewriter and it types, you know?

Well, this is telepathic vocotyper. I’m not talking to you out of Popular Mechanics. In other words, the telepathy factor is strong. It is something you have to deal with.

They have anti-noise campaigns in New York City. Well, I imagine in a boardinghouse, a bunch of thetans would have an anti-telepathic campaign, you know? Can you stop shouting telepathically all night, you know? Telepathy is a very heavy, hard-hitting force.

Some of you will be going through an implant, or something like that, and you’ll pick up off the track what you think is your postulate and then suddenly realize it isn’t your postulate, that somebody thought it in your vicinity. You sometimes can pick up the thoughts or fear of some thetan down the line who is also being implanted. This stuff will sometimes kick back into an implant. It’s quite valid. There’s nothing to worry about with that.

Now, this isn’t any lecture about telepathy; it gives you an idea of how low ARC can go without disappearing and how high it can also go, because the birds I’m talking about that use telepathy for communication aren’t even, by your chart estimates, in very good shape. See, they’ve had the Helatrobus implants, too, but they just aren’t getting their lives wiped out every sixty or seventy years, see? That factor is missing—the only factor of difference between your case and theirs. See, that’s the sole difference.

Every once in a while, why, their empire gets wiped out, and somebody implants the lot, but that’s life.

So here’s your ARC. And your ARC can go up, then, to pretty high levels. And it depends below a certain level on matter, energy, space and time as its communication media.

ARC gets very important after you start dropping away from telepathic communication. Becomes very important because, you see, it’s so much present before then that nobody ever thinks of it. Nobody ever thinks of it at all. You’re just not mad at people, and reality is terrific and you know all about it, and communication is good, and your understanding and knowingness are pretty well up, so it wouldn’t be something that you worried about at all.

But the second you start introducing MEST into communication lines, living with great dependence upon this universe in this universe, then ARC become very important and become the measure of life.

Of course, they’re there all the way up. But you don’t measure them as going out. In fact, I believe nobody would believe they could. Livingness: degree of livingness is measured by ARC. How alive is somebody? It’s how much ARC is he capable of. That is the test.

Now when you get over here . . . Let’s just rule out telepathy. I’m saying are you lot brave enough to say “Well, I just don’t know.” And from that point on you start getting your own track back.

That’s an interesting point, that this occurs. And perhaps, perhaps, you haven’t given enough attention to this, as nobody’s trying to wipe out your pictures; we’re just trying to pick out those pictures which bar all other pictures and which the individual considers hostile. And then you’ve done that, why, the individual gets back all of his pictures. It’s very simple. The hostile ones can no longer bite.

Now you’ve got a Case Level 2. Now you go after the mechanism which makes it automatic for him to make pictures, and you put this back on power of choice, and of course you’ve got an OT. And that’s the whole scope of processing where it has to do with pictures and bank and knowingness and so forth; they’re all wrapped up in that.

Well no v, you see, instead of erasing pictures, you could go at this another way. You could bring up the individual’s confront with regard to pictures to such an extent that he could even face the hostile ones. Ah, that’s an interesting approach, too, isn’t it?

Now, this is comparable to the old exteriorization approach. Instead of erasing the guy’s bank, pull him out of it. That’s the old exteriorization approach.

Well. this is a similar approach, but it’s different than either of those approaches, you see, of erasing the pictures or pulling the guy out of the picture. We’re pushing the guy up so that he can disentangle and confront his pictures. In other words, we’re getting him so he can understand his pictures. And X his one works, too, which actually gives you a third route to processing.

So R2H is not just a method of erasing pictures or getting the PC away from his pictures, it actually raises the individuals potential in recognizing and owning his pictures and making the pictures better.

Now, well-run R2H can make the pictures much better, much prettier, much solider, without them being obsessively solid so that they intimidate the PC with their tremendous solidity. Now, that’s the important point of it

So, with R2H, you actually are embarked on another philosophy. If you understand this grip on it, it is its own philosophy. Doesn’t make the other philosophies invalid, but it embarks on its own private, personal railroad car and says this is a whole philosophy in itself. Of course, it uses the elements and mechanics and other things, but the individualism of R2H is based on this. There have been some new discoveries about this, and they’ve been put to work in R2H. And let me show you what these things look like.

Here is a thetan. Now, your first level of life and beingness, your first look at life and beingness, what life and beingness are, exist as potentials or abilities, not as things. And those potentials and abilities consist of A, R and C.

You know all about A, R and C: Affinity, Reality and Communication. But think of those things as potentials. Not affinity for anything special but the potential of having affinity. In other words, you could say, “What is the potential of the A, R and C of an individual? What i5 his potential?” You’d be asking the same thing as “How alive is he?” The more alive he is, the more ARC he’s capable of; the less alive he is the less ARC he’s capable of. That’s interesting, isn’t it?

What do you think of a philosophy that thinks that man is mud? Well, let’s take a look at this. ARC. ARC—and probably this could be drawn in different ways. ARC goes out to . . . And remember that communication with other beings is through matter, energy, space, time and so forth, see? This ARC potential, or ARC with what? What is this ARC with? Communication with, reality about, affinity for, see? What are these things connected up with? Well, it exists, but it isn’t necessary to our proposition at all, and it’s a highly individual and odd bit of business, see, that transcends matter, energy, space and time and goes straight to other beings.

So, we would have thetans as a thing to be in ARC with, and then we would have matter, energy, space, time, form, location. Now, you could add to this, you could break these down further, but they are the principal things beyond which there is Do breakdown. Possibly in importance it ought to be L and then F.

Now, the ARC that this individual has expresses the degree that he can be cause over these. The potential of ARC of the individual gives you the degree that he can be at cause over thetans, matter, energy, space, time, form and location. The less life he has, the less he is.

Now, as a thetan gets more and more solid, he is less and less capable of ARC. That’s fairly obvious, isn’t it? Why? It isn’t that his solidity prevents him from communicating or feeling affinity or that sort of thing, but it’s simply an indicator that he must have broken ARC with matter, energy, space, time, form and location, or it wouldn’t be piled on him without his choice. That’s an interesting point, isn’t it? He must have had ARC breaks, then, with matter, energy, space, time, form and location. Ah, but how could he have ARC breaks with matter, energy, space, time, form and location without having ARC breaks with other thetans? Well, I think it’s probable, and very possible, that he could have. But the truth of the matter is, it was having ARC breed’s with other thetans that caused him to start to ARC break with matter, energy, space, time, form and location. Doesn’t necessarily follow that way, but essentially that would be it.

So, as an individual rises up the line—as he rises up the line—he then rises back toward direct communication, direct affinity, direct reality on other beings. The less ARC he has, the more matter, energy, space, time, form and location he has to go through in order to communicate to other beings.

See you look a little bit dense on that one. Let me give you an idiot’s line. Here you have Bill, and here you have space, and here you have Joe. Now, Joe, in order to hear Bill, has to register an air wave which is generated by Bill. So Bill generates an air wave—vibrations—that are received by Joe and are reinterpreted into ARC. So ARC here are converted, and then are converted from matter, energy, space, time to ARC. And you in actual fact have done this cycle. This thetan here communicates to those thetans there by going up here, here, see? And actually, they communicate back similarly. See? Get the idea?

Once you drop away from telepathy, you enter MEST into the line, and ARC, then, becomes subordinate to MEST. And you eventually get a bunch of knuckle heads implanted up to their ears. Did you ever realize Einstein went through the between-lives area when he kicked the bucket? (Served him right. I wonder if he traveled faster than constant? These brutal, gruesome thoughts I have every once in a while.)

Now, look at this: Man is not mud, but a fellow who isn’t alive at all would think only “mudly.” He’d have very muddy thinking. He’d come to mud-like conclusions. Therefore, his mental sciences are very mud-like.

There are no mental studies which admit—today, that are currently being taught—that admit of the existence of a being. They only admit of the existence of biological combinations of mud resulting in a very muddy result. Psychology textbooks today begin by very carefully defining the fact they do not know what a psyche is, and they do not even know if one exists—and they’re pretty sure it doesn’t—”but we will now give you the parts of the brain.” See?

What are you dealing with there? You’re dealing with somebody who is so far away from other beings that he is no longer talking through MEST, he’s talking to MEST. Ding, ding, ding, here comes the wagon!

Every once in a while you see some poor little kid that’s been knocked in the dome too much, and he’ll be out there beating his red wagon. And you yourself in your dippier moments will start talking to something on the mantelpiece. And when you’re particularly foggy in the morning and haven’t been awakened, you’re very often prone to curse your shoes.

Well, you may be doing it on another harmonic, because a thetan is always capable of investing things with life. And you’re probably doing it because you’ve “alived” the shoe. You see, you’re perfectly capable of mocking up a living being and making it talk and walk totally independent of you. Perfectly, perfectly capable of doing that. Used to do it as OTs all the time. So you’re capable of investing matter, energy, space and time, and so forth, with life. And theta other-determining it, saying it is no longer I, and having it walk around and talk.

Now, that’s a potential that’s talked about in Dianetics: Evolution of a Science, that speaks of “Throgmagog.” You can always invest something with life, such as a shoe. And you can always pretend that a shoe is alive. But how would you like to be in the kind of a condition where you thought another living being was no more capable of life than a shoe? Let’s reverse that, see? Let’s get a total reverse on the situation. Let’s look at a living being and say that this living being has no life in it.

Now, you got some kind of an estimate of how far down scale you can go, and somebody can still sit there and eat breakfast. Got the idea? It’s pretty far south.

Matter, energy, space, time, form and location—ARC breaks with, cause the dwindling spiral of. ARC breaks with other beings, matter, energy, space, time, form and location bring about a deterioration of one’s ARC.

It never really deteriorates; one just believes it is deteriorated, you see? In other words, you can have an ARC break with MEST, you can have an ARC break with form, you can have an ARC break with locations. It’s very common for an animal to have ARC break with locations. A place where an animal has been hurt will be avoided by that animal, very carefully.

Now, what in essence does this forecast? That is the basic theory behind R2H. It forecasts that by clearing up a person’s ARC breaks, one then returns to him his ARC potential. Clean up his ARC breaks with matter, he feels better about matter. Clean up his ARC breaks with energy, he’ll feel better about energy. Clean up his ARC breaks with space, he feels better about space. Clean up his ARC breaks with time and he will feel better about time. Clean up his ARC breaks with form and he will feel better about form. Clean up his ARC breaks with location, he feels better about location. Clean up his ARC breaks with other beings and he feels better about other beings. And all the way up the line, of course, his bank—that reservoir of ARC breaks—is getting plainer and plainer to him and more and more confrontable to him. Because all of his ARC breaks in terms of pictures have responded as the reactive-mind ARC breaks. Because reactive mind is made, after all, out of images of other beings, matter, energy, space, time, form and location. It’s as easy as that. And that consists of the reactive mind.

So by cleaning up his ARC breaks with these things, you tend to clean up his ARC breaks with the things he’s got pictures of in the reactive mind that he can’t confront, and his reactive mind opens up and he can tolerate it and confront it.

So R2H considers and conceives that the reactive mind is a reservoir of ARC breaks. That is the basic assumption on which that process hops off. We know that the reactive mind contains images or beliefs in other beings, and certainly their images in terms of thought, don’t you see? We might, by the way, have put a T under other beings for “thought,” you see, because thought or significance could be included in that; but by just putting up other beings you also have the reflections of other beings, so that you could omit that.

But you know that the reactive mind consists of images of other beings, thoughts of other beings, thoughts of oneself and so forth, plus matter (if you don’t believe it’s composed of matter, someday run into a ridge); energy (you hear and see the energy flitter-nattering around in the reactive mind all the time and that’s what registers on the tone arm); space every once in a while a guy can’t see a thing, and then he suddenly realizes he’s looking across too much space to see it. In a picture, it always has space, and lack of space is the main thing that’s upsetting in the reactive bank—you can’t get away from the lousy thing, see? You can’t put space between it and you. Space is the cure for no-confront, see? And time: good heavens! The thing is not time. If there’s any time in the bank, that is remarkable. What you have in the bank is an absence of time an apparent absence in time in the presence of a totality of time. You’ve got a nothing where a something is and a something where a nothing is. And that’s what makes it reactive.

Reactive—remember, that’s what the thing is called. That means instantaneous response regardless of what time the response is laid in. A=A=A also equals twenty-nine years ago equals a billion years ago equals eight trillion years ago. Before you start inspecting it, they’re all the same time. So you got this terrific time identification; you also have space, energy and matter identifications.

Now, as far as form is concerned, that’s not h terribly upgraded thing. It comes-into the field of aesthetics and arts more than anything else. Some people like Picasso, some people don’t. Some people like blondes, some people like brunettes. Form: aesthetics, tastes, that sort of thing. And the reactive bank—the things least confronted in the reactive bank are those forms which one has disliked most. And Bo, of course, he’s got a wonderful close-up stockpile of forms he detests. We’re not talking now about income-tax forms; we’re talking about pleasanter things, like girls and things.

Anyhow, as far as location is concerned, if there’s anything that is A=A=A in the reactive mind, its location. When I first collided with this early Helatrobus, I was absolutely sure that it was in exactly the same location— that here, trillions of trillions of trillions of years before, some knuckle head had begun this thing and then somebody had walked back in the vicinity and said, “Well, this is what you do when you are here,” and proceeded to give the Helatrobus implants. I was sure that was the case. In fact, I only know now intellectually that it is not the same place, because it’s the same type of scenery. Given a little similarity of form, and boy, those locations were identical. But what you doing right now, packing around in your bank and your head and your ridges planets which are light-years away? Looks to me like that’s a very interesting identification of location.

In an auditing session this comes off all the time. It happens so often that you don’t even think about it. This guy is sitting there, let us say he’s running something, and it’s something that happened in Australia. Doesn’t seem either peculiar to the auditor or the PC that it is being run out in England. There’s a 12,500-mile error in location. And you very often see this kind of an odd thing happen: You get the thing all run, and it goes spang! and stays there. It goes to its proper location. It seems to disappear or something.

Of course, by moving in time you can make the thing disappear too. But I’ve had this odd experience of not being able to run certain engrams because they were too well fixed in their proper location. You practically have to go to Arizona to run it—that’s where it happened! You can spot the facsimile, but it’s over in Arizona. Well, it couldn’t be very aberrative if it fixes its
 location that smartly, see, because that’s the right location.

Well now, if everything was on its proper time span, you’d have to move all over time in order to connect with anything, wouldn’t you? So the thing must be in its improper time span if you can reach it in present time without yourself moving back trillions of years in time. Well, there’s something wrong in the reactive mind with other beingness and other thoughts, with matter, with energy, with space, with time, with form and location, and everything that is the matter is they’re identified one with another. Two times are identified, two forms are identified, two locations are identified, two spaces are identified, two energies identified, two masses identified.

Can also go the other way into what you call a disassociate. And you as Scientologists run less into this thing of disassociation. Someday you may read some Sigmund Freud, and you’ll hear all about disassociation because he specialized in this thing, disassociation. It’s not anything we’ve ever talked about to amount to anything, but two things which are the same thing, approximately, look entirely different. In other words, two pictures of the same person at two different locations look like two different people, see? That is an inverse of identification. Things that should be seen to be similar are seen to be madly different.

You don’t pay much attention to this because after a person’s done that he’s more or less flipped his lid. But you’re now going to run into disassociation, and that’s why I’m making a little side comment on it here as we go, because you’re going to run into it if you really put in the itsa line. And you’re going to wonder what’s happening. Because the PC doesn’t at first answer the auditing question. You say, “Have you had any gains in this session?”

And he says, “The . . . well, so on . . . The floor dropped out, and then I had a couple of drinks. And three or four years ago, why, I knew a girl named Mabel.”

And now, in putting in your itsa line, by the rules of the game you shouldn’t interrupt him. He may sit there, but hex not finished with that communication. And he’ll keep on going and going and going, and you’ll see all these disassociates come up. And then all of a sudden, if you let him go on, he will eventually come up and tell you a gain he has made for the session.

But you’re running such violent stuff, you see, on the whole track, that as he passes through the stuff, he’s actually going through the session trying to answer your question, and these things are getting in his road, so he says them to you, they tend to as-is, and after that he can finally reach the material necessary to answer your question. Got the idea?

But now, if you’ve put in an itsa line all the way across the line you’re going to see disassociation, so you better know what it is. It’s simply that two things which should be seen to be similar are seen to be madly different. It’s the inverse of identification. It’s you ought to see a similarity between the question and the answer.

“Have you had a gain for the session?”

“Yes, I’ve had a gain for the session. I can see better.”

You get that? Now, that’s a similarity, you see? There’s the same communication line, and the answer compares to the question that was asked. You get a disassociation this way:

“Have you had a gain in the session?”

“I had a beer three years ago.”

That’s a disassociate. Well, it isn’t that the PC isn’t answering your question, he’s getting around to it. And if you’re very good at your itsa line, he will eventually wander torturously through and eventually will come up and say, “Yes, I don’t feel like I’ll be so thirsty all the time.” Of course, that is almost a sequitur statement. He will have uttered other statements less sequitur. But as you search the thing out, you would see that he was coming closer and closer to answering your question as he talked.

Try that sometime on a full itsa line, and you will be very, very, very pleased with the result. The guy was answering your auditing question. If you let him go on tanking he eventually would have answered your auditing question. He only didn’t answer your auditing question if you cut him off at the point he was disassociating. Then he didn’t seem to answer your auditing question.

You’ll notice his eye is no longer on you again, you’ll notice he’s still groping, you’ll notice he’s still fumbling with the bank, as he tells you these things. You’ll see this. Well, that’s a disassociate.

All right. Guy comes up and slugs his mother, thinking that she is about to rob him. Well, he’s associated his mother with a burglar. Well, you’d say he’s nuts. Well, yeah, true enough. But there are people who are nuts. But that is what that is.

So identification isn’t the only crime. There’s one beyond identification. That’s, two things that you ought to recognize the similarity between, you see as vastly different.

So this whole thing here goes on to an inversion. What you get is a restimulator factor. We knew a girl who had pink hair, see? We knew n girl who had pink hair, so therefore girls who have pink hair aren’t to be trusted; therefore nothing pink must be trusted. And we know a fellow named “Pink,” who brushes his teeth, so we’d better not brush our teeth anymore. Do you follow that torturous line of logic?

Well, that is ARC as it goes down scale doesn’t just stay as ARC, it goes into an inverse, because it gets too many things identified, and then it gets things disassociated in some kind of an effort to see some separateness in existence, and eventually starts going into a twisteroo. So that you will have people who consider good communication shooting people. High level of communication.

I had a husky one time that knew what communication was: chewing people up and being bitten. There he was. He was quite a dog. It was very funny, I’ll never forget that dog; he was the toughest dog I think I ever saw. I’d walk into the yard after being gone for a long time—you know, a year or two or something like that—and this dog would suddenly see this “stranger,” and he would bare his teeth—he was one of these fantastic malamutes—and he’d bare his teeth, come tearing across the yard, fangs just shooting out of his face in all directions. And I’d pick him up on either side Of his jowl and, using his lunge, throw him twenty-five feet. You practice up a little bit with police dogs and things, you can get so you do—it’s like dog judo, you know? And he’d go through the air and he’d land. And he’d get up: “Oh, Ron!” He knew what communication was!

So, there’s all kinds of wild levels of communication. You get people tell you what pleasure is—they describe agony. It’s very funny. So you get these various inversions. ARC, then, doesn’t just decline, it goes and inverts and inverts again and inverts again. And you get a hodgepodge down at the end that nobody can make anything out of. Go down and listen to them in the spinbins and you’ll see how far ARC can go, because those people are still alive. They’re still alive.

How far can ARC go south? All the way—there is no bottom at which one dies, but there’s some mighty peculiar things happen on the way down.

Beingnesses can die, but the individual—no. Forms can die, but the person actually—no. Memory can die, but not the person who is capable of remembering, you see? Not the person who—who is, you see? He can forget everything. And he’s still in that kind of a state.
 
Now, ARC never ceases, so you have no bottom to the process. There are no bottom limits to the process. There is some method of communicating all the way down. It gets down into weird versions of reach and withdraw, as I just described one to you—with the dog. That’s a kind of a reach and withdraw. Want to make him happy all day Sunday? Why, chew him up all Saturday night, you know? Big case gain.

This is your Tone Scale. As people go upscale, they go up through anger and so forth. It’s very funny.

I remember one poor psycho in New York: Auditors would process her, get her up to anger, and she’d scold her family, and they’d promptly put her in restraints and put her back in the hospital. And then she’d get out, and then the auditors would process her, and she’d get back up to a point where she’d scold her family, and they put her back. And this nonsense just kept going, see? They’d never let her get up through anger. Of course, they’d been knocking her in for a long time, and she just never was able to say that she was mad about it. She was never able to do that, so she never recovered.

Now, here’s a case, then, of a process which if you can get any C in at all and get an improvement of the C or an improvement of the R or an improvement of the A, you get an improvement of the C, an improvement of the R. an improvement of the A, an improvement of the C, an improvement of the R. an improvement of the A—you get the idea? And you just keep raising this triangle—all three corners of this triangle—up, up, up, by the process of running ARC breaks. Now, the basic limit of the process is the communication of the auditing command itself. And you’ll be surprised how many interpretations there are of an ARC break. And one might make a criticism of the process by saying, “Well, look, it has such a specialized command: ‘Recall an ARC break.’ Only a Scientologist would know what that meant.”

Well, actually, you’re really not asking for an upset, you’re not asking for a worry, you’re not asking for a time he was concerned, you’re not asking for this, you’re not asking for that; you’re asking for an ARC break. Now, I don’t think it’d take you any time to describe to the PC what an ARC break was, and he’d eventually settle in his own head what an ARC break was. He’d be better off if he could understand the communication of this phrase ARC break. But this is one of the weak spots of the process. But its not a very weak spot.

It’s very funny how fast this communicates. You say, “Life is composed of affinity, reality and communication. When one of these breaks down, a person doesn’t feel so good about something. Now, an ARC break is a time when affinity, reality or communication have been cut down on a person, have been reduced. I hat’s what an ARC break is.”

It may take the individual three or four days to digest the definition. But the funny part of it is, having digested the definition, he will have made a case gain. I don’t really consider it a liability.

Now, that process isn’t going to be used very broadly, and shotgunnish. You can’t use it in a co-audit; it’s too particularized.

So there’s the anatomy, however, of what you are trying to do with the process. You are trying to increase the individual’s affinity and reality and communication with other thetans and thought, matter, energy, space, time, form and location by picking up those points in time when the individual has suffered a cut or reduction of communication, has suffered from a lowering of reality, or from a reduction of affinity level—period. You don’t care what he had an ARC break with, because he has to come up quite a ways to recognize ARC breaks with MEST. This is a long way north—good, clean-cut ARC breaks with MEST.

In that earlier GPM, about the only thing that was causing a great deal of difficulty in running it was a supreme ARC break with MEST, that it would obey people who would do things like this GPM implant—big ARC break with the fact that MEST obeyed that sort of thing—and an ARC break with the people for debasing and degrading MEST to such a usage and end. The items— to hell with it. See, that wasn’t the important thing. The important thing was that anybody who would attempt something like this using MEST, that MEST would obey them, so on. Big ARC break. So there’s one even wrapped up in a GPM.

The thought that you’re trying to get across with your auditing command is you want a time when affinity, reality and communication have been reduced with other beings, matter, energy, space, time, form and locations. And you don’t direct what you’re going to get the ARC break about or with; that’ll all work out more or less automatically. You simply ask for an ARC break. You don’t ask “in this lifetime”; you don’t limit him in time; you hope he’ll give you something to at least let you get your teeth into the process and get the process grooved in before you’re handling a God-’elp-us engram, but you want from the PC a time of that reduction. That is what you want. And that’s all you want. And then you want to find out from the PC what it was.

This goes into your form, which is still being worked out, but which is more or less grooved in now. The formal steps of R2H done for good gain on the case are What, Where, When, and then an assessment, and then cleaning up every line of the assessment when it reads—not going by it. That is a difference. And working the ARC break over until it no longer reads on the meter and the PC feels all right about it, and so forth.

Now, the exact way the assessment is done, I’ll go over that again . . . I’d better go a little bit earlier. The exact way What is done, is you take what the PC is willing to tell you without probing. “What’s this ARC break about?” and he’ll give you a resume of it, very brief, usually. Where? Where: that’s to help him get the time. See, these are all development of the ARC breaks so that he can more ably identify them. And then When. Now, this When gets very important. He’ll have trouble with the Where, but nothing compared to the trouble he may get into with the When.

Now, the rule is, you use your meter on these three steps only when the last dog has been hanged. And you don’t date nothing with the meter unless the PC is in despair and on the verge of tears about the actual time. And then you chip in, at the last moment, and you say—so on.

Something like this: This meter dating is terribly easy. You know, there’s a training version; that’s to train you to date on a meter. I’m giving you the therapeutic version; this is the way she really rolls. You’ve been sitting there with the meter in front of you, and the PC’s been saying, “It’s 1937—no, it’s 1936, 1937; no, 1936; no, 1937; no, nineteen-thirty . . . ‘37, I think it was; ‘38, ‘38, maybe it was ‘38, ‘39. No, it could have been nineteen thirty (sigh) just don’t know, I just don’t know, I just don’t know where. I don’t know when it was. 1937, 19 . . .”

He’s already admitted he doesn’t know and your TA action has showed down to nothing, and so forth. And you’ve watched 1937 bang every time he said it. You say, “It’s 1937, according to the meter.” That’s your dating step. Got that?

PC may get into a specialized case sometimes, when if it was in 1937 it would be a terrible ARC break, whereas if it was in 1938 it wouldn’t have been a terrible ARC break because something else had happened. So they keep saying it’s 1938 when it was 1937.

Here’s the only other way you go about this: When your tone arm is hung up you’ve got a wrong date, and you damn well better find it. Tone arm is hung up, you can’t get it moving, everything is going to the devil, and so forth, well, you just better do a scout for wrong dates. “Do we have a wrong date?”
 
There is a number two that you scout for when the tone arm has stuck. (This is repairing it.) Number two is you get in your BMRs on the session or the process, because the PC has recalled ARC breaks which he has then suppressed and has not given the auditor. That causes a tone arm hang-up. These are the three things that hang up a tone arm. And the PC ARC breaks in session because of an ARC break in the past. It isn’t because you’ve bypassed charge in the session; he’s recalled an ARC break in the past, which has given him an ARC break in the session. And when you find that—any one of those three (wrong date, suppressed ARC breaks or an ARC break in the session because of an ARC break in the past)—you’ve got to remedy the situation. Your tone arm will stick and the process becomes unworkable. But one of those three things exists if your tone arm ceases to move on this.

The other one that can stop your tone arm from moving is just too corny. You’ve missed an assessment, you’ve missed a meter read, and you haven’t got the reason of the bypassed charge. That’s just pretty corny. That’s under the heading of meter reading, and so forth.

The ARC break is always cleaned up to the tremendous satisfaction of the PC, and you’re looking on this as something whereby you do an assessment, you say, “Well, that was the bypassed charge. That’s it, thank you. Recall another ARC break.” That isn’t the way it’s done.

Now, let’s go into the last end of this thing. You’re doing an assessment: You clear it line by line, just like you used to do old rudiments. If you get a read, you say, “That read.” You’ve got your pat assessment sheet. “That read.” You got a new one; there’ll probably even be newer ones developed from time to time. I haven’t issued this latest sheet yet, but it’s very comparable to the L1 which you’ve got, it’s just a little better.

You see that “an attitude refused” does so. That ticks. You didn’t go down the whole thing, see? You just said—right off the bat, you said, “All right. In that ARC break was an attitude refused?” Tick. You say, “All right. What attitude was refused?” And that’s the end of your job. It’s now up to the itsa. That’s your whatsa. And the PC is going to stem and fuss and stew and try to figure out what attitude was refused where. And the only time it won’t come off is when those three things I gave you are out: you’ve had a wrong date in the session; the PC has recalled some ARC breaks and suppressed them; or the PC has had an ARC break in the present time in the session. See? And this system doesn’t work if those three are present. And if this system doesn’t work, those three are present.

So you clean this line up, and it’s all up to the PC. “An attitude refused? I don’t think any attitude was refused . . . attitude was refused . . .” and so forth and so on. Says, “Well, I don’t . . . I don’t think there was one.”

What do you know! At this point do you shove it down his throat? You say, “No? All right, thank you,” and go to the next line. Well, he can’t remember it, so obviously the thing needs shaking up some more.

But you leave that mark alongside of that thing, because you’re going to come back to it. It was hot once; it’s going to be hot again. In other words, that just wasn’t ready to be answered; that’s the only thing you communicate on that. If he can’t find it, and he says he can’t, that’s it. Leave it marked. Don’t even say “We’ll come back to it later.” Say “All right” and go on to the next line. Otherwise your needle’s going to get so dirty you can’t assess. It’s a highly practical consideration.

And you say, “All right. Was that ARC break caused by a communication ignored?”—you get down to that line, see?—and it goes ping! And you say, “All right. I have here that a communication was ignored. What communication was ignored?”

“Oh, well, let’s see. It was Bill and me and Pete, and there were three dogs. And a spaceship landed. And the dog barked, and we said to hell with it, but if we’d listened to the dog bark. . . Yeah. Yeah. We ignored the dog barking. Heh-heh! Yeah.” Down comes your tone arm.

You run by blowdowns. Your whole meter action is by blowdowns; your whole determination is by blowdowns. You find an ARC break for which you get no blowdowns, then you haven’t got the cause of the ARC break and the PC hasn’t remembered anything about the ARC break. But just because you get one blowdown doesn’t mean that the ARC break is gone. At this point you say to the PC, “How do you feel about that ARC break?” and watch it on the meter.

The question is asked of the PC and watched on the meter. If you get a rough-up of a needle—the slightest reaction of a needle—that ARC break isn’t gone. But usually the PC will tell you, “Well, I don’t feel as good about it as I want.” Then keep on with your assessments. Do you understand? But every time you find one, and you clear one up, then you ask the PC how be feels about it. PC feels all right and it doesn’t bang on the meter—to hell with it, get off of it, man. That’s it, that’s it.

Don’t get into a situation where the PC feels perfectly all right about it and you haven’t done three quarters of your assessment sheet, so you just go on doggedly doing the remaining three quarters of your assessment sheet. You’re now trying to find the bypassed charge for an ARC break that doesn’t exist. And I can guarantee that you’ve got the withhold of nothing. The PC hasn’t got anything to tell you, so he’s going to ARC break.

So the other frailty of R2H, much more important than the communication of its auditing command, is that an inexpert handling of R2H can bring about an ARC break. Very interesting.

Every time you find a line, you go through the same song and dance. You find a line, you ask him the question, he answers the question, he’s got it all to his satisfaction no matter how long the itsa line is. Don’t expect to do many of these a session, man. You probably won’t do more than three, four, five a session. But boy, the tone arm action you can milk out of that thing—wham, wham, wham, wham, wham. You can get lots of tone arm action

Why recall ten and get the same tone arm action as you get recalling four, and still leave the PC with some missed withholds? You get the idea? So you just want tone arm action out of it, not the number of ARC breaks handled. See, you’re not interested in the number of ARC breaks handled; just handle those you get well. Every time you find a reason for it, you’ll find a tick, and the PC will give you the answer, and you’ve now got that.

Now, you don’t even necessarily test that line again. You can drive a PC berserk. He’s now satisfied. He’s found it, and so forth.

Now, you may suspect, from the doubtful nature and the fact you haven’t got a blowdown, that there is another tick on She same line. Just say, “Well, I’ll check this line now. In that ARC break was a communication ignored? You know, that still reads. Do you suppose you had—know any reason why that should still be reading?”

“Well . . . no, I don’t see why it should be reading. Maybe I protested.”

“All right. You protested it, that’s all. That’s all I wanted to know.” Down to the next line. Leave it. You’re not going to get anyplace shoving it down the PC’s throat.

But every now and then you say, “That line still reads.”

“Oh, it does? Oh, well, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. The—ha-hs!—it wasn’t really the dog communication, I ignored their communication. They told me not to go anywhere near that place and I did and I ignored their c . Yeah, well, that caused the ARC break with them, because they should have told me more loudly.” And you’ll see your tone arm blow down.
 
You see how it’s done? Treat them like end rudiments that you don’t care whether they clean up or not, and don’t leave an ARC break unless the thing is reading smooth as glass. An ARC break is going to give you blowdowns. Just regard it as a source of getting some blowdowns. And if an ARC break doesn’t blow down, you’re now going to run into trouble with later ARC breaks. That is the way to forecast trouble. We had ARC break, and then we had another ARC break, and we didn’t get any blowdown on either of these ARC breaks. Ohhh! Now, our third ARC break—our chances of our getting a blowdown on that . . . The next thing you know, you’re getting in the mid ruds and the PC’s going into an automaticity of suppressing ARC breaks, and we’ve got a sort of a mess on our hands. Why? Because we excited some bypassed charge by asking for the ARC break and then didn’t clean the bypassed charge.

Now, the whole basic mechanism on which you are operating here is that incidents will blow if the misaligned or bypassed charge is knocked out, and that an ARC break is caused by bypassed charge. There is no ARC break without bypassed charge. So therefore you must find the bypassed charge, and if you do, there won’t be any ARC break. And it straightens the bank out, and the guy gets oriented in the middle of his bank, and there you are.

It’s a terribly permissive process. It depends on the itsa line and that accurate assessment, and then, having found what the thing assesses, let the guy run on.

And it also depends on not to keep slugging him with assessments for ARC breaks that have cleaned up. It has a frailty. You can get the whole ARC break cleaned up, it doesn’t seem hardly worthwhile. And there was a reality rejected, and you got a ping on that (it wasn’t a very big ping), and he answered this thing, and we asked for the ARC break, and he didn’t have much of an ARC break, but now we went on and did the rest of the assessment. Oh, you’ve got an ARC break now. Why? You’ve invalidated the reason which he gave for the ARC break.

Takes rather delicate, slippy auditing. But with those reservations, it’s absolutely terrific. It’s a fabulous process. Terribly mild, terribly permissive.

I see I’ve left you hanging on the ropes a little bit; there’s probably something you don’t understand about the process. But if you just did it like end mid ruds, which you didn’t bother to finish if your PC got bright, then you’ve got it made. You’ve got it made. And if you monitor its success by the number of blowdowns which you get, you’ve also got it made. And when it doesn’t blow down, start worrying. And if it is blowing down and the TA is moving and so forth, don’t worry. Just sit back and ride your luck. Look for trouble when it comes, not before it gets there, because it’ll carry you through all the way.

PC wants to talk to you the whole session about one ARC break which is giving you tone arm action from 2.0 to 6.5, you are an absolute nut not to let him. See? It’s the amount of tone arm action you can get in the session, up and down, not the number of ARC breaks you cover. Because the PC you are auditing is in, after all, present time. He is here, all there is of him is here. He isn’t barred out of existence by his bank. And if you discharge all of these crossed bypassed charges off of present time, theoretically you could run him all the way to OT without him ever going backtrack to amount to anyone [Anything]. He just picks up this item and that item and that incident and that incident and this one and straightens them out, and his pictures are getting better and the track is straightening out.

And the nest thing you know, he’s eight feet back of his head saying, “What do you want done with these between-lives guys?”

Thank you very much.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 MAY 1962
Franchise

ARC BREAKS
MISSED WITHHOLDS

(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, vital to the auditor and to anyone who wants to live.

Conversely:

THERE ARE NO ARC BREAKS WHEN MISSED WITHHOLDS HAVE BEEN CLEANED UP.

By WITHHOLD is meant AN UNDISCLOSED CONTRA-SURVIVAL ACT.

By MISSED WITHHOLD is meant AN UNDISCLOSED CONTRA-SURVIVAL

ACT WHICH HAS BEEN RESTIMULATED BY ANOTHER BUT NOT DISCLOSED.

This is FAR more important in an auditing session than most auditors have yet realized. Even when some auditors are told about this and shown it they still seem to miss its importance and fail to use it. Instead they continue to use strange methods of controlling the pc and oddball processes on ARC Breaks.

This is so bad that one auditor let a pc die rather than pick up the missed withholds! So allergy to picking up missed withholds can be so great that an auditor has been known to fail utterly rather than do so. Only constant hammering can drive this point home. When it is driven home, only then can auditing begin to happen across the world; the datum is that important.

An auditing session is 50% technology and 50% application. I am responsible for the technology. The auditor is wholly responsible for the application. Only when an auditor realizes this can he or she begin to obtain uniformly marvellous results everywhere.

No auditor now needs “something else”, some odd mechanism to keep pcs in session.

PICKING UP MISSED WITHHOLDS KEEPS PCS IN SESSION.

There is no need for a rough, angry ARC Breaky session. If there is one it is not the fault of the pc. It is the fault of the auditor. The auditor has failed to pick up missed withholds.

As of now it is not the pc that sets the tone of the session. It is the auditor. And the auditor who has a difficult session (providing he or she has used standard technology, model session, and can run an E-Meter), has one only because he or she failed to ask for missed withholds.

What is called a “dirty needle” (a pc’s needle pattern) is caused by missed withholds, not withholds.

Technology today is so powerful that it must be flawlessly applied. One does his CCHs in excellent 2 way comm with the pc. One has his TRs, Model Session and E-Meter operation completely perfect. And one follows exact technology. And one keeps the missed withholds picked up.

There is an exact and precise auditor action and response for every auditing situation, and for every case. We are not today beset by variable approaches. The less variable the auditor’s actions and responses, the greater gain in the pc. It is terribly precise. There is no room for flubs.

Further, every pc action has an exact auditor response. And each of these has its own drill by which it can be learned.

Auditing today is not an art, either in technology or procedure. It is an exact science. This removes Scientology from every one of the past practices of the mind.

Medicine advanced only to the degree that its responses by the practitioner were standardized and the practitioner had a professional attitude toward the public.

Scientology is far ahead of that today.

What a joy it is to a preclear to receive a completely standard session. To receive a text book session. And what gains the pc makes! And how easy it is on the auditor!

It isn’t how interesting or clever the auditor is that makes the session. It’s how standard the auditor is. Therein lies pc confidence.

Part of that standard technology is asking for missed withholds any time the pc starts to give any trouble. This is, to a pc, a totally acceptable control factor. And it totally smooths the session.

You have no need for and must not use any ARC Break process. Just ask for missed withholds.

Here are some of the manifestations cured by asking for missed withholds.

1. 	Pc failing to make progress.
2. 	Pc critical of or angry at auditor.
3. 	Pc refusing to talk to auditor.
4. 	Pc attempting to leave session.
5. 	Pc not desirous of being audited (or anybody not desirous of being audited).
6. 	Pc boiling off.
7. 	Pc exhausted.
8. 	Pc feeling foggy at session end.
9. 	Dropped havingness.
10. 	Pc telling others the auditor is no good.
11. 	Pc demanding redress of wrongs.
12. 	Pc critical of organizations or people of Scientology.
13. 	People critical of Scientology.
14. 	Lack of auditing results.
15. 	Dissemination failures.

Now I think you will agree that in the above list we have every ill we suffer from in the activities of auditing.

Now PLEASE believe me when I tell you there is ONE CURE for the lot and ONLY that one. There are no other cures.

The cure is contained in the simple question or its variations “Have I missed a withhold on you ? “

THE COMMANDS

In case of any of the conditions l. to 15. above ask the pc one of the following commands and CLEAN THE NEEDLE OF ALL INSTANT READ. Ask the exact question you asked the first time as a final test. The needle must be clean of all instant reaction before you can go on to anything else. It helps the pc if each time the needle twitches, the auditor says, “That” or “There” quietly but only to help the pc see what is twitching. One doesn’t interrupt the pc if he or she is already giving it. This prompting is the only use of latent reads in Scientology—to help the pc spot what reacted in the first place.

The commonest questions:

“In this session, have I missed a withhold on you?”
“In this session have I failed to find out something?”
“In this session is there something I don’t know about you?”

The best beginning rudiments withhold question:
“Since the last session is there something you have done that I don’t know about?”

Prepcheck Zero Questions follow:

“Has somebody failed to find out about you who should have?”
“Has anyone ever failed to find out something about you?”
“Is there something I failed to find out about you?”
“Have you ever successfully hidden something from an auditor?”
“Have you ever done something somebody failed to discover?”
“Have you ever evaded discovery in this lifetime?”
“Have you ever hidden successfully?”
“Has anyone ever failed to locate you?”

(These Zeroes do not produce “What” questions until the auditor has located a specific overt.)

When Prepchecking, when running any process but the CCHs, if any one of the auditing circumstances in l to 15 above occurs, ask for missed withholds. Before leaving any chain of overts in Prepchecking, or during Prepchecking, ask frequently for missed withholds, “Have I missed any withhold on you?” or as above.

Do not conclude intensives on any process without cleaning up missed withholds.

Asking for missed withholds does not upset the dictum of using no O/W processes in rudiments.

Most missed withholds clean up at once on two way comm providing the auditor doesn’t ask leading questions about what the pc is saying. Two way comm consists of asking for what the meter showed, acknowledging what the pc said and checking the meter again with the missed withhold question. If pc says, “I was mad at my wife,” as an answer, just ack and check the meter with the missed withhold question. Don’t say, “What was she doing?”

In cleaning missed withholds do not use the Prepcheck system unless you are Prepchecking. And even in Prepchecking, if the zero is not a missed withhold question and you are only checking for missed withholds amid other activities, do it simply as above, by two way comm, not by the Prepcheck system.

To get auditing into a state of perfection, to get clearing general, all we have to do is:

1. 	Know our basics (Axioms, Scales, Codes, the fundamental theory about the thetan and the mind);

2. 	Know our practical (TRs, Model Session, E-Meter, CCHs, Prepchecking and clearing routines).

In actual fact this is not much to ask. For the return is smooth results and a far, far better world. An HPA/HCA can learn the data in l above and all but clearing routines in the material in 2. An HPA/HCA should know these things to perfection. They are not hard to learn. Additives and interpretations are hard to get around. Not the actual data and performance.

Knowing these things, one also needs to know that all one has to do is clean the E-Meter of missed withholds to make any pc sit up and get audited smoothly, and all is as happy as a summer dream.

We are making all our own trouble. Our trouble is lack of precise application of Scientology. We fail to apply it in our lives or sessions and try something bizarre and then we fail too. And with our TRs, Model Session and meters we are most of all failing to pick up and clean up MISSED WITHHOLDS.

We don’t have to clean up all the withholds if we keep the Missed Withholds cleaned up.

Give a new auditor the order to clean up “Missed Withholds” and he or she invariably will start asking the pc for withholds. That’s a mistake. You ask the pc for Missed Withholds. Why stir up new ones to be missed when you haven’t cleaned up those already missed? Instead of putting out the fire we pour on gunpowder. Why find more you can then miss when you haven’t found those that have been missed.

Don’t be so confounded reasonable about the pc’s complaints. Sure, they may all be true BUT he’s complaining only because withholds have been missed. Only then does the pc complain bitterly.

Whatever else you learn, learn and understand this please. Your auditing future hangs on it. The fate of Scientology hangs on it. Ask for missed withholds when sessions go wrong. Get the missed withholds when life goes wrong. Pick up the missed withholds when staffs go wrong. Only then can we win and grow. We’re waiting for you to become technically perfect with TRs, Model Session and the E-Meter, to be able to do CCHs and Prepchecking and clearing techniques, and to learn to spot and pick up missed withholds.

If pcs, organizations and even Scientology vanish from Man’s view it will be because you did not learn and use these things.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 MAY 1963
CenOCon	
Franchise
ALL AUDITING
STAR RATING HCO BULLETIN FOR ACADEMIES AND SHSBC

CAUSE OF ARC BREAKS

LUCKY IS THE PC WHOSE AUDITOR HAS UNDERSTOOD THIS HCO BULLETIN AND LUCKY IS THE AUDITOR, MAY HIS OWN CASE RUN WELL.

I have just narrowed the reason for ARC Breaks in auditing actions down to only one source.

RULE: 	ALL ARC BREAKS ARE CAUSED BY BY-PASSED CHARGE.

RULE: 	TO TURN OFF AN ARC BREAK FIND AND INDICATE THE CORRECT BY-PASSED CHARGE.

Charge can be By-Passed by:

1 . 	Going later than basic on any chain without further search for basic.

Example: Looking for the pc’s first automobile accident, finding the fifth instead and trying to run the fifth accident as the first accident, which it isn’t. The By-Passed Charge here is the first accident and all succeeding accidents up to the one selected by the auditor as the first one or the one to run. To a greater or lesser degree depending on the amount the earlier material was restimulated, the pc will then ARC Break (or feel low or in “low morale”). One can run a later incident on a chain briefly but only to unburden earlier incidents, and the pc must know this.

2. 	Unknowingly ignoring the possibility of a more basic or earlier incident of the same nature as that being run after the pc has been restimulated on it. Or bluntly refusing to admit the existence of or let the pc “at” an earlier incident.

3. 	Cleanly missing a GPM, as one between two goals run consecutively in the belief they are consecutive.

4. 	Missing an earlier GPM and settling down to the assertion there are no earlier ones.

5. 	Cleanly missing one or more RIs, not even calling them.

6. 	Failing to discharge an RI and going on past it.

7. 	Accidentally missing a whole block of RIs, as in resuming session and not noticing pc has skipped (commoner than you’d think).

8. 	Accepting a wrong goal, missing the right one similarly worded.

9. 	Accepting a wrong RI, not getting the plot RI to fire.

10. 	Misinterpreting or not understanding data given to you by the pc and/or acting on wrong data.
11. 	Misinforming the pc as to what has or has not fired and discharged.

12. 	Locating the wrong By-Passed Charge and saying it is the source of the ARC Break.

13. 	Failing to follow the cycle of communication in auditing.

These and any other way charge can be restimulated and left prior to where the auditor is working can cause an ARC Break.

Charge left after (later) (nearer pt) than where the auditor is working hardly ever causes an ARC Break.

The burden of skilled auditing then, is to get RIs (and GPMs and incidents) discharged as close to basic (first incident) as possible. And always be prowling for something earlier.

In contradiction of this is that any GPM fairly well discharged by RRs unburdens the case, ARC Break or no ARC Breaks. And any incident partially discharged lets one go earlier.

The pc never knows why the ARC Break. He may think he does and disclaim about it. But the moment the actual reason is spotted (the real missed area) the ARC Break ceases.

If you know you’ve missed a goal or RI, just saying so prevents any ARC Break.

An ARC Breaky pc can always be told what has been missed and will almost always settle down at once.

Example: Pc refuses to come to session. Auditor on telephone says there’s a more basic incident or RI or GPM. Pc comes to session.

The auditor who is most likely to develop ARC Breaks in the pc will have greater difficulty putting this HCO Bulletin into practice. Perhaps I can help this. Such an auditor Qs and As by action responses, not acknowledgments after understanding. Action can be on an automaticity in the session. So this HCO Bulletin may erroneously be interpreted to mean, “If the pc ARC Breaks DO something earlier.”

If this were true then the only thing left to run would be Basic Basic—without the pc being unburdened enough to have any reality on it.

A drill (and many drills can be compiled on this) would be to have a lineal picture of a Time Track. The coach indicates a late incident on it with a pointer and says, “Pc ARC Break.” The student must give a competent and informative statement that indicates the earlier charge without pointing (since you can’t point inside the reactive bank of a pc with a pointer).

Drawn Time Tracks showing a GPM, a series of engrams along free track, a series of GPMs, all plotted against time, would serve the purpose of the drill and give the student graphic ARC Break experience.

The trick is TO FIND AND INDICATE the RIGHT By-Passed Charge to the pc and to handle it when possible but never fail to indicate it.

It is not DO that heals the ARC Break but pointing toward the correct charge.

RULE: 	FINDING AND INDICATING AN INCORRECT BY-PASSED CHARGE WILL NOT TURN OFF AN ARC BREAK.

An automaticity (as covered later in this HCO Bulletin) is rendered discharged by indicating the area of charge only.
This is an elementary example: Pc says, “I suppressed that.” Auditor says, “On this incident has anything been suppressed?” Pc ARC Breaks. Auditor indicates Charge by saying, “I’m sorry. A moment ago I didn’t acknowledge your suppression.” ARC Break ceases. Why? Because the source of its charge that triggered an automaticity of above the pc’s tone, was itself discharged by being indicated.

Example: Auditor asks for a Joburg overt. Pc gives it. Auditor consults meter at once asking question again, which is protested giving a new read. Pc ARC Breaks. Auditor says, “I did not acknowledge the overt you gave me. I acknowledge it.” ARC Break ceases.

Example: Auditor asks for RI No. 173 on First Series Line Plot. Pc ARC Breaks, giving various reasons why, such as auditor’s personality. Auditor asks meter, “Have I missed an Item on you?” Gets read. Says to pc, “I’ve missed an Item.” ARC Break ceases. Whether the missing item is looked for or not is immaterial to this HCO Bulletin which concerns handling ARC Breaks.

If an auditor always does in response to an ARC Break, such as instantly looking for specific earlier Items, that auditor has missed the point of this HCO Bulletin and will just pile up more ARC Breaks, not heal them.

Don’t be driven by ARC Breaks into unwise actions, as all you have to do is find and indicate the missing charge that was By-Passed. That is what takes care of an ARC Break, not taking the pc’s orders.

If the ARC Break does not cease, the wrong By-Passed Charge has been indicated.

The sweetest running pc in the world can be turned into a tiger by an auditor who always Qs and As, never indicates charge and goes on with the session plan.

Some Qs and As would be a source of laughter if not so deadly.

Here is a Q and A artist at work (and an ARC Breaky pc will soon develop) (and this auditor will soon cease to audit because it’s “so unpleasant”).

Example: Auditor: “Have you ever shot anyone?” Pc: “Yes, I shot a dog.” Auditor: “What about a dog?” Pc: “It was my mother’s.” Auditor: “What about your mother?” Pc: “I hated her.” Auditor: “What about hating people?” Pc: “I think I’m aberrated.” Auditor: “Have you worried about being aberrated?” Pc: @!!*?!!.

Why did the pc ARC Break? Because the charge has never been permitted to come off shooting a dog, his mother, hating people, and being aberrated and that’s enough By-Passed Charge to blow a house apart.

This pc will become, as this keeps up, unauditable by reason of charge missed in sessions and his resulting session dramatizations as overts.

Find and indicate the actual charge By-Passed. Sometimes you can’t miss it, it has just happened. Sometimes you need a simple meter question since what you are doing is obvious. Sometimes you need a dress parade assessment from a list. But however you get it, find out the exact By-Passed Charge and then INDICATE IT TO THE PC.

The violence of an ARC Break makes it seem incredible that a simple statement will vanquish it, but it will. You don’t have to run another earlier engram to cure an ARC Break. You merely have to say it is there—and if it is the By-Passed Charge, that ARC Break will vanish.

Example: Pc: “I think there’s an incident earlier that turned off my emotion.” Auditor: “We’d better run this one again.” Pc ARC Breaks. Auditor: (Consults meter) “Is there an earlier incident that turns off emotion? (Gets read) Say, what you just said is correct. Thank you. There is an earlier incident that turns off emotion. Thank you. Now let’s run this one a few more times.” Pc’s ARC Break ends at once.

Don’t go around shivering in terror of ARC Breaks. That’s like the modern systems of government which tear up their whole constitution and honor just because some hired demonstrators howl. Soon they won’t be a government at all. They bend to every ARC Break.

ARC Breaks are inevitable. They will happen. The crime is not: to have a pc ARC Break. The crime is: not to be able to handle one fast when it happens. You must be able to handle an ARC Break since they are inevitable. Which means you must know the mechanism of one as given here, how to find By-Passed Charge and how to smoothly indicate it.

To leave a pc in an ARC Break more than two or three minutes, is just inept.

And be well-drilled enough that your own responding rancor and surprise doesn’t take charge. And you’ll have pleasant auditing.

ARC BREAK PROCESSES

We had several ARC Break processes. These were repetitive processes.

The most effective ARC Break process is locating and indicating the By-Passed Charge. That really cures ARC Breaks.

A repetitive command ARC Break process based on this discovery I just made would possibly be “What communication was not received?”

Expanding this we get a new ARC Straight Wire:

“What attitude was not received?”

“What reality was not perceived (seen)?”

“What communication was not acknowledged?”

This process IS NOT USED to handle SESSION ARC BREAKS but only to clean up auditing or the track. If the pc ARC Breaks don’t use a process, find the missed charge.

Indeed this process may be more valuable than at first believed, as one could put “In auditing ......” on the front of each one and straighten up sessions. And perhaps you could even run an engram with it. (The last has not been tested. “In auditing” + the three questions was wonderful on test. 2 div TA in each 10 mins on a very high TA case.)

“ARC Break Straight Wire” of 1958 laid open implants like a band saw, which is what attracted my attention to it again. Many routine prefixes such as “In an organization” or “On engrams” or “On past lives” could be used to clear up past attitudes and overts.

We need some repetitive processes today. Cases too queasy to face the past, cases messed up by offbeat processes. Cases who have overts on Auditing or Scientology or orgs. Cases pinned by session overts. The BMRs run inside an engram tend to make it go mushy. And Class I Auditors are without an effective repetitive process on modern technology. This is it.

A Repetitive Process, even though not looking for basic, implies that the process will be run until the charge is off and therefore creates no ARC Breaks unless left unflat. Therefore the process is safe if flattened.
RUDIMENTS

Nothing is more detested by some pcs than rudiments on a session or GPM or RI. Why?

The same rule about ARC Breaks applies.

The Charge has been By-Passed. How?

Consider the session is later than the incident (naturally). Ask for the suppress in the session. You miss the suppress in the incident (earlier by far). Result: Pc ARC Breaks.

That’s all there is to ARC Breaks caused by Session BMRs or Mid Ruds.

Example: “Scrambleable Eggs” won’t RR. Auditor says, “On this Item has anything been suppressed?” Pc eventually gets anxious or ARC Breaks. Why? Suppress read. Yes, but where was the suppress? It was in the Incident containing the RI, the pc looked for it in the session and thereby missed the suppress charge in the incident of the RI which, being By-Passed Charge unseen by pc and auditor, caused the ARC Break. Remedy? Get the suppress in the incident, not the session. The RI RRs.

Also, the more ruds you use, the more you restimulate when doing Routine 3, because the suppress in the incident is not basic on Suppress, and if you clean just one clean, even to test, bang, there goes the charge being missed on Suppress and bang, bang, ARC Break. Lightly, auditor, lightly.

Q AND A ARC BREAKS

Q and A causes ARC Breaks by BY-PASSING CHARGE.

How? The pc says something. The auditor does not understand or Acknowledge. Therefore the pc’s utterance becomes a By-Passed Charge generated by whatever he or she is trying to release. As the auditor ignores it and the pc re-asserts it, the original utterance’s charge is built up and up.

Finally the pc will start issuing orders in a frantic effort to get rid of the missed charge. This is the source of pc orders to the auditor.

Understand and Acknowledge the pc. Take the pc’s data. Don’t pester the pc for more data when the pc is offering data.

When the pc goes to where the auditor commands, don’t say, “Are you there now?” as his going is thereby not acknowledged and the going built up charge. Always assume the pc obeyed until it’s obvious the pc did not.

ECHO METERING

The pc says, “You missed a suppress. It’s ......” and the auditor reconsults the meter asking for a suppress. That leaves the pc’s offering an undischarged charge.

NEVER ASK THE METER AFTER A PC VOLUNTEERS A BUTTON.

Example: You’ve declared suppress clean, pc gives you another suppress. Take it and don’t ask suppress again. That’s Echo Metering.

If a pc puts his own ruds in, don’t at once jump to the meter to put his ruds in. That makes all his offerings missed charge. Echo Metering is miserable auditing.

MISSED WITHHOLDS

Needless to say, this matter of By-Passed Charge is the explanation for the violence of missed withholds.

The auditor is capable of finding out. So the pc’s undisclosed overts react solely because the auditor doesn’t ask for them.

This doesn’t wipe out all technology about missed withholds. It explains why they exist and how they operate.

Indication is almost as good as disclosure. Have you ever had somebody calm down when you said, “You’ve got missed withholds”? Well it’s crude but it has worked. Better is, “Some auditor failed to locate some charge on your case.” Or, “We must have missed your goal.” But only a meter assessment and a statement of what has been found would operate short of actually pulling the missed withholds.

APPARENT BAD MORALE

There is one other factor on “Bad Morale” that should be remarked.

We know so much we often discard what we know in Scientology. But way back in Book One and several times after, notably 8-80, we had a tone scale up which the pc climbed as he was processed.

We meet up with this again running the Helatrobus Implants as a whole track fact.

The pc rises in tone up to the lower levels of the tone scale. He or she comes up to degradation, up to apathy.

And it often feels horrible and, unlike an ARC Break and the Sad Effect, is not cured except by more of the same processing.

People complain of their emotionlessness. Well, they come up a long ways before they even reach emotion.

Then suddenly they realize that they have come up to being able to feel bad. They even come up to feeling pain. And all that is a gain. They don’t confuse this too much with ARC Breaks but they blame processing. And then one day they realize that they can feel apathy! And it’s a win amongst wins. Before it was just wood.

And this has an important bearing on ARC Breaks.

Everything on the whole Know to Mystery Scale that still lies above the pc finds the pc at effect. These are all on Automatic.

Therefore the pc in an ARC Break is in the grip of the reaction which was in the incident, now fully on automatic.

The pc’s anger in the incident is not even seen or felt by the pc. But the moment something slips the pc is in the grip of that emotion as an automaticity and becomes furious or apathetic or whatever toward the auditor.

None is more amazed at himself or herself than the pc in the grip of the ARC Break emotion. The pc is a helpless rag, being shaken furiously by the emotions he or she felt in the incident.

Therefore, never discipline or Q and A with an ARC Broken pc. Don’t join hands with his bank to punish him. Just find the By-Passed Charge and the automaticity will shut off at once to everyone’s relief.

Running Routine 3 is only unpleasant and unhappy to the degree that the auditor fails to quickly spot and announce By-Passed Charge. If he fails to understand this and recognize this, his pcs will ARC Break as surely as a ball falls when dropped.

If an auditor has ARC Breaky pcs only one thing is basically wrong—that auditor consistently misses charge or consistently fails to anticipate missed charge.

One doesn’t always have to run the earliest. But one had better not ignore the consequences of not pointing it out. One doesn’t have to discharge every erg from an RI always but one had better not hide the fact from the pc.

The adroit auditor is one who can spot earlier charge or anticipate ARC Breaks by seeing where charge is getting missed and taking it up with the pc. That auditor’s pcs have only the discomfort of the gradually rising tone and not the mess of ARC Breaks.

It is possible to run almost wholly without ARC Breaks and possible to stop them in seconds, all by following the rule: DON’T BY-PASS CHARGE UNKNOWN TO THE PC.

LRH :jw.rd							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard	
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 JUNE AD 13
Central Orgs
Franchise
ROUTINE 2H
ARC BREAKS BY ASSESSMENT

This is not just a training process. It is a very valuable unlimited process that undercuts Repetitive Processes and produces tone arm action on cases that have none on repetitive processes.

R2H, however, is a training must before an auditor is permitted to run engrams. It does not have to be run on a pc before engrams are run. Only when an auditor can produce results with R2H should he or she run engrams on any pc. For R2H combines the most difficult steps of engram running, dating, assessing, locating and indicating by-passed charge. If an auditor can date skillfully and quickly handle ARC Breaks (and handle the Time Track) he or she is a safe auditor on R3R. If not, that auditor will not produce results with R3R or make any OTs.

In Academies and the SHSBC, R2H is placed after skill is attained in Model Session and repetitive processes. In auditing programming R2H comes immediately after Reach and Withdraw and the CCHs.

For sweetening a pc’s temper and life, R2H has had no equal for cases above but not including level 8.

ARC stands for the Affinity—Reality—Communication triangle from which comes the Tone Scale and is best covered by the booklet “Notes on Lectures”.

By-passed charge is covered very fully in recent HCOBs on ARC Breaks.

R2H BY STEPS

The auditing actions of Routine 2H are complex and must be done with great precision.

The actions are done in Routine 3 Model Session. Mid Ruds and Missed Withholds may be used.

STEP ONE:

Tell the pc, “Recall an ARC Break.”

When pc has done so acknowledge that the pc has done so. Do not ask the pc what it is. If pc says what it is, simply acknowledge. It is no business of R2H to know what the ARC Break consists of!

STEP TWO:

Date the ARC Break on the meter. If the pc volunteers the date do not verify it on the meter further. Accept it at once and write it down. The date is more important than the content of the ARC Break.

STEP THREE:

Assess the ARC Break for by-passed charge, using the attached list.

Find the greatest read.

The assessment is seldom gone over more than once as a whole and those that read are then read again until one remains.

This is a rapid action on the meter. Look only for tiny ticks or falls or a small left to right slash of the needle. Do not expect large reactions. The Mark V meter is indispensable.

STEP FOUR:

Indicate to the pc what charge was missed in that ARC Break he or she has recalled .

The pc must be satisfied that that was the charge missed.

The pc may try to recall what it was that was indicated. This is not a vital part of the drill but THE PC MUST BE SATISFIED THAT THE LOCATED BY-PASSED CHARGE WAS THE SOURCE OF THE ARC BREAK.

There is a danger here of a great deal of auditor ad-libbing and tanglefoot. If the pc is not satisfied and happier about it, the wrong by-passed charge has been found and Step Three must be re-done.

It is no part of this process to run an engram or secondary thus located.

THE ASSESSMENT FORM

This is a sample form. It may be necessary to add to it. Some lines of it may eventually be omitted. However, this form does work. The auditor may add a few lines to it.

In asking the questions preface the whole assessment with, “In the ARC Break you recalled_____.” Do not preface each question so unless pc goes adrift.

A dirty needle means pc has started to speculate. Ask, “Have you thought of anything?” and clean needle.

Had an engram been missed? Had a withhold been missed’? Had some emotion been rejected’? Had some affection been rejected? Had a reality been rejected? Had a communication been ignored? Had a similar incident occurred before? Had a goal been disappointed? Had some help been rejected? Was an engram restimulated? Had an overt been committed? Had an overt been contemplated? Had an overt been prevented? Was there a secret?

Routine 2H is a skilled operation. Practice gives the auditor a knack of doing it rapidly.

An ARC Break should be disposed of about every fifteen minutes of auditing
time. Longer shows ineptitude.

LRH:dr.cden							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963		
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 AUGUST 1963

Central Orgs
Franchise
ARC BREAK ASSESSMENTS

In a session don’t ever do an ARC Break Assessment until the pc has given up trying to untangle it. This particularly applies to R3R and 3N.

DATES R2H

Don’t ever date anything for the pc until the pc has completely given up trying himself.

DON’T USE METERING, ARC BREAK ASSESSMENTS, DATING, or incomprehensible or new commands to CUT THE ITSA LINE. Let it run. Help only when it’s stopped.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :dr jh 
Copyright © 1963 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 AUGUST 1963

Central Orgs

LECTURE GRAPHS

The following graphs accompany Saint Hill Special Briefing Course Lectures of:

July 	25, 	AD 13
August 	7, 	AD 13
August 	8, 	AD 13

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:dr.cden 
Copyright © 1963 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 AUGUST AD13 
Central Orgs 
Franchise
SCIENTOLOGY TWO
STAR RATED HCO BULLETIN

HOW TO DO AN ARC BREAK ASSESSMENT

(HCO Secs: Check out on all technical Executives and Personnel. Tech Dir: Check out on HCO Secs and Assn Org Secs.)

The successful handling of an ARC Break Assessment is a skilled activity which requires:

1. 	Skill in handling a Meter.
2. 	Skill in handling the Itsa Line of the Auditing Cycle.
3. 	Skill in Assessment.

The lists given in HCO Bulletin of July 5, AD13 “ARC BREAK ASSESSMENTS”, are used, either from that HCO Bulletin or amended.

There are several uses for ARC Break Assessments.

1. 	Cleaning up a session ARC Break.
2. 	Cleaning up auditing in general.
3. 	Cleaning up a pc’s or student’s possible ARC Breaks.
4. 	Cleaning up a member of the public’s possible or actual ARC Breaks.
5. 	Regular use on a weekly basis on staff or organization members.

There are others. Those above are the chief uses.

For long time periods the standard 18 button prepcheck is faster, but an ARC Break Assessment is still useful in conjunction with it.

The drill is simple. If complicated by adding in R2H material, dating, and other additives, the ARC Break Assessment ceases to work well and may even create more ARC Breaks.

If used every time a pc gets in a little trouble in R3N or R3R the ARC Break Assessment is being used improperly. In R2H, R3N, R3R sessions it is used only when the pc shows definite signs of an ARC Break. To use it oftener constitutes no auditing.

Unnecessary use of an ARC Break Assessment may ARC Break the pc with the Assessment.

The ARC Break Assessment may be repaired by an 18 Button Prepcheck “On ARC Break Assessments ......”.

ARC BREAK ASSESSMENT BY STEPS

STEP ONE:

Select the proper list. This is done by establishing what the pc has been audited on. If more than one type of by-passed charge is suspected, do more than one list. If the ARC Break is not completely cured by one list, do another kind of list. (All lists have been in HCOBs as “L”.)
STEP TWO:

Inform the pc that you are about to assess for any charge that might have been restimulated or by-passed on his or her case. Do not heavily stress the ARC Break aspect. Right: “I am going to assess a list to see if any charge has been by-passed on your case.” Wrong: “I’m going to try to cure (or assess) your ARC Break.”

STEP THREE:

Without regard to pc’s natter, but with quick attention for any cognition the pc may have during assessment as to by-passed charge, assess the list.

Phrase the question in regard to the reason for the Assessment—”In this session........” “During this week .......” “In Scientology ........” etc. Call each line once to see if it gives an instant read.

The moment a line gives a reaction, stop, and do Step Four.

STEP FOUR:

When a line reacts on the needle, say to the pc, “The line ........reacts. What can you tell me about this?”

STEP FIVE:

Keep Itsa Line in. Do not cut the pc’s line. Do not ask for more than pc has. Let pc flounder around until pc finds the charge asked for in Step Four or says there’s no such charge. (If a line reacted because the pc did not understand it, or by protest or decide, make it right with the pc and continue assessing.)

STEP SIX:

In a session: If pc found the by-passed charge, ask pc “How do you feel now?” If pc says he or she feels OK, cease assessing for ARC Breaks and go back to session actions. If pc says there’s no such charge or gets misemotional at Auditor, keep on assessing on down the list for another active line, or even on to another list until the charge is found which makes pc relax.

In a routine ARC Break check (not a session but for a longer period), don’t stop assessing but keep on going as in Step Five, unless pc’s cognition is huge.

END OF STEPS

Please notice: This is not R2H. There is no dating. The auditor does not further assist the pc with the meter in any way.

If the pc blows up in your face on being given a type of charge, keep going, as you have not yet found the charge. Typical response to wrong charge found: Pc: “Well of course it’s a cut communication! You’ve been cutting my communication the whole session. You ought to be retreaded ..	etc.” Note here that pc’s attention is still on auditor. Therefore the correct charge has not been found. If the by-passed charge has been found the pc will relax and look for it, attention on own case.

Several by-passed charges can exist and be found on one list. Therefore in cleaning up a week or an intensive or a career (any long period) treat a list like rudiments, cleaning everything that reacts.

Blow down of the Tone Arm is the meter reaction of having found the correct by-passed charge. Keep doing Steps One to Six until you get a blow down of the Tone Arm. The pc feeling better and being happy about the ARC Break will coincide almost always with a Tone Arm Blow Down.

You can, however, undo a session ARC Break Assessment by continuing beyond the pc’s cognition of what it is. Continuing an assessment after the pc has cognited, invalidates the pc’s cognition and cuts the Itsa Line and may cause a new ARC Break.

Rarely, but sometimes, the ARC Break is handled with no TA blow down.

PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT

The purpose of an ARC Break Assessment is to return the pc into session or into Scientology or into an Org or course. By-passed charge can cause the person to blow out of session, or out of an Org or a course or Scientology.

WITH A SESSION (formerly “in”): Is defined as “INTERESTED IN OWN CASE AND WILLING TO TALK TO THE AUDITOR”. AGAINST SESSION: Against session is defined as “ATTENTION OFF OWN CASE AND TALKING AT THE AUDITOR IN PROTEST OF AUDITOR, PT AUDITING, ENVIRONMENT OR SCIENTOLOGY”.

WITH SCIENTOLOGY: With Scientology is defined as “INTERESTED IN SUBJECT AND GETTING IT USED”. AGAINST SCIENTOLOGY: Against Scientology is defined as “ATTENTION OFF SCIENTOLOGY AND PROTESTING SCIENTOLOGY BEHAVIOUR OR CONNECTIONS”.

WITH ORGANIZATION: With organization can be defined as “INTERESTED IN ORG OR POST AND WILLING TO COMMUNICATE WITH OR ABOUT ORG”. AGAINST ORGANIZATION: Against organizationness is defined as “AGAINST ORGANIZATION OR POSTS AND PROTESTING AT ORG BEHAVIOUR OR EXISTENCE” .

The data about ARC Breaks can be expanded to marriage, companies, jobs, etc. Indeed to all dynamics—With Dynamic, Against Dynamic.

What it boils down to is this: There are only two conditions of living, but many shades of grey to each one.

These conditions are:

1. 	LIFE: NOT ARC BROKEN: Capable of some affinity for, some reality about and some communication with the environment; and

2. 	DEATH: ARC BROKEN: Incapable of affinity for, reality about and communication with the environment.

Under One we have those who can disenturbulate themselves and make some progress in life.

Under Two we have those who are in such protest that they are stopped and can make little or no progress in life.

One, we consider to be in some ARC with existence.

Two, we consider to be broken in ARC with existence.
In a session or handling the living lightning we handle, people can be hit by a forceful charge of which they are only minutely aware but which swamps them. Their affinity, reality and communication (life force) is retarded or cut by this hidden charge and they react with what we call an ARC Break or have an ARC Broken aspect.

If they know what charge it is they do not ARC Break or they cease to be ARC Broken.

It is the unknown character of the charge that causes it to have such a violent effect on the person.

People do not ARC Break on known charge. It is always the hidden or the earlier charge that causes the ARC Break.

This makes life look different (and more understandable). People continuously explain so glibly why they are acting as badly as they are. Whereas, if they really knew, they would not act that way. When the true character of the charge (or many charges as in a full case) is known to the person the ARC Break ceases.

How much by-passed charge does it take to make a case? The whole sum of past by-passed charge.

This fortunately for the pc is not all of it in constant restimulation. Therefore the person stays somewhat in one piece but prey to any restimulation.

Auditing selectively restimulates, locates the charge and discharges it (as seen on the action of a moving Tone Arm).

However, accidental rekindlings of past charge unseen by pc or auditor occur and the pc “mysteriously” ARC Breaks.

Similarly people in life get restimulated also, but with nobody to locate the charge. Thus Scientologists are lucky.

In heavily restimulated circumstances the person goes OUT OF. In such a condition people want to stop things, cease to act, halt life, and failing this they try to run away.

As soon as the actual by-passed charge is found and recognized as the charge by the person, up goes Affinity and Reality and Communication and life can be lived.

Therefore ARC Breaks are definite, their symptoms are known, their cure is very easy with this understanding and technology.

An ARC Break Assessment seeks to locate the charge that served, being hidden, as a whip-hand force on the person. When it is located life returns. Locating the actual by-passed charge is returning life to the person.

Therefore, properly handling ARC Breaks can be called, with no exaggeration “Returning Life to the person”.

One further word of caution: As experience will quickly tell you, seeking to do anything at all with an earlier by-passed charge incident which led to the ARC Break immediately the earlier incident is found will lead to a vast mess.

Let the pc talk about it all the pc pleases. But don’t otherwise try to run it, date it or seek to find what by-passed charge caused the earlier incident. In assessing for ARC Breaks, keep the Itsa Line in very well and keep the What’s It out in every respect except as contained in the above Six Steps.

SUMMARY

An ARC Break Assessment is simple stuff, so simple people are almost certain to complicate it. It only works when kept simple.

Old auditors will see a similarity in an ARC Break Assessment List and old end rudiments. They can be handled much the same but only when one is covering a long time period. Otherwise assess only to cognition and drop it.

The trouble in ARC Break Assessments comes from additives by the auditor, failure to keep on with additional lists if the type of charge causing the ARC Break isn’t found on the first list chosen, failure to read the meter, and failure to keep the Itsa Line in.

Doing ARC Break Assessments to cure ARC Breaks is not the same drill as R2H and confusing the two leads to trouble.

Handled skillfully as above, ARC Break Assessing cures the great majority of woes of auditing, registraring, training and handling organization. If you find you aren’t making ARC Break Assessments work for you check yourself out on this HCO Bulletin carefully, review your meter reading and examine your handling of the Itsa Line. If you want live people around you, learn to handle ARC Break Assessments.

Don’t worry about pcs getting ARC Breaks. Worry about being able to cure them with assessment until you have confidence you can. There’s nothing so uplifting as that confidence, except perhaps the ability to make any case get TA motion.

Don’t ever be “reasonable” about an ARC Break and think the pc is perfectly right to be having one “because ......”. If that ARC Break exists, the pc doesn’t know what’s causing it and neither do you until you and the pc find it! If you and the pc knew what was causing it, there would be no further ARC Break.

LRH:dr.cden 							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 OCTOBER 1963
Franchise 
CenOCon
SCIENTOLOGY ALL

HOW TO GET TONE ARM ACTION

The most vital necessity of auditing at any level of Scientology is to get Tone Arm Action Not to worry the pc about it but just to get TA action. Not to find something that will get future TA. But just to get TA NOW.

Many auditors are still measuring their successes by things found or accomplished in the session. Though this is important too (mainly at Level IV), it is secondary to Tone Arm Action.

l. 	Get good Tone Arm Action.

2. 	Get things done in the session to increase Tone Arm Action.

NEW DATA ON THE E-METER

The most elementary error in trying to get Tone Arm action is, of course, found under the fundamentals of auditing—reading an E-Meter.

This point is so easily skipped over and seems so obvious that auditors routinely miss it. Until they understand this one point, an auditor will continue to get minimal TA and be content with 15 Divisions down per session—which in my book isn’t TA but a meter stuck most of the session.

There is something to know about meter reading and getting TA. Until this is known nothing else can be known.

TONE ARM ASSESSMENT

The Tone Arm provides assessment actions. Like the needle reacts on list items, so does the Tone Arm react on things that will give TA.

You don’t usually needle assess in doing Levels I, II and III. You Tone Arm Assess.

The Rule is: THAT WHICH MOVES THE TONE ARM DOWN WILL GIVE TONE ARM ACTION.

Conversely, another rule: THAT WHICH MOVES ONLY THE NEEDLE SELDOM GIVES GOOD TA.

So for Levels I, II and III (and not LEVEL IV) you can actually paste a paper over the needle dial, leaving only the bottom of the needle shaft visible so the TA can be set by it and do all assessments needed with the Tone Arm. If the TA moves on a subject then that subject will produce TA if the pc is permitted to talk about it (Itsa it).

Almost all auditors, when the Itsa Line first came out, tried only to find FUTURE TA ACTION and never took any PRESENT TA ACTION. The result was continuous listing of problems and needle nulling in an endless search to find something that “would produce TA action”. They looked frantically all around to find some subject that would produce TA action and never looked at the Tone Arm of their meter or tried to find what was moving it NOW.

This seems almost a foolish thing to stress—that what is producing TA will produce TA. But it is the first lesson to learn. And it takes a lot of learning.

Auditors also went frantic trying to understand what an ITSA LINE was. They thought it was a Comm Line. Or part of the CCHs or almost anything but what it is. It is too simple.

There are two things of great importance in an auditing cycle. One is the Whatsit, the other is the Itsa. Confuse them and you get no TA.

If the auditor puts in the Itsa and the preclear the Whatsit, the result is no TA. The auditor puts in the Whatsit and the pc the Itsa, always. It is so easy to reverse the role in auditing that most auditors do it at first. The preclear is very willing to talk about his difficulties, problems and confusions. The auditor is so willing to Itsa (discover) what is troubling the preclear that an auditor, green in this, will then work, work, work to try to Itsa something “that will give the pc TA”, that he causes the pc to “Whatsit Whatsit Whatsit that’s wrong with me”. Listing is not really good Itsa-ing; it’s Whatsit-ing as the pc is in the mood “Is it this? Is it that?” even when “solutions” are being listed for assessment. The result is poor TA.

TA comes from the pc saying, “It IS” not “Is it?”

Examples of Whatsit and Itsa: Auditor: “What’s here?” (Whatsit) Pc: “An auditor, a preclear, a meter.” (Itsa)

Itsa really isn’t even a Comm Line. It’s what travels on a Comm Line from the pc to the auditor, if that which travels is saying with certainty “It IS”.

I can sit down with a pc and meter, put in about three minutes “assessing” by Tone Arm Action and using only R1C get 35 Divisions of TA in 2% hours with no more work than writing down TA reads and my auditor’s report. Why? Because the pc is not being stopped from Itsa-ing and because I don’t lead the pc into Whatsit-ing. And also because I don’t think auditing is complicated.

Tone Arm Action has to have been prevented if it didn’t occur. Example: An auditor, noting a Whatsit moved the TA, every time, promptly changed the Whatsit to a different Whatsit. Actually happened. Yet in being asked what he was doing in session said: “I ask the pc for a problem he has had and every time he comes up with one I ask for solutions to it.” He didn’t add that he frantically changed the Whatsit each time the TA started to move. Result—9 Divisions of TA in 21/2 hours, pc laden with by-passed charge. If he had only done what he said he had he would have had TA.

If it didn’t occur, Tone Arm Action has to have been prevented! It doesn’t just “not occur”.

In confirmation of auditors being too anxious to get in the Itsa Line themselves and not let the pc is the fad of using the meter as a Ouija Board. The auditor asks it questions continually and never asks the pc. Up the spout go Divisions of TA. “Is this Item a terminal?” the auditor asks the meter. Why not ask the pc? If you ask the pc, you get an Itsa, “No, I think it’s an oppterm because .....” and the TA moves.

Now to give you some idea of how crazy simple it is to get in an Itsa Line on the pc, try this:

Start the session and just sit back and look at the pc. Don’t say anything. Just sit there looking at the pc. The pc will of course start talking. And if you just nod now and then and keep your auditor’s report going unobtrusively so as not to cut the Itsa, you’ll have a talking pc and most of the time good TA. At the end of 21/2 hours, end the session. Add up the TA you’ve gotten and you will usually find that it was far more than in previous sessions.

TA action, if absent, had to be prevented! It doesn’t just fail to occur.

But this is not just a stunt. It is a vital and valuable rule in getting TA.

RULE: A SILENT AUDITOR INVITES ITSA.

This is not all good, however. In doing R4 work or R3R or R4N the silent auditor lets the pc Itsa all over the whole track and causes Over-Restimulation which locks up the TA. But in lower levels of auditing, inviting an Itsa with silence is an ordinary action.

In Scientology Levels I, II and III the auditor is usually silent much longer, proportionally, in the session, than he or she is talking—about 100 of silence to 1 of talking. As soon as you get into Level IV auditing however, on the pc’s actual GPMs, the auditor has to be crisp and busy to get TA and a silent, idle auditor can mess up the pc and get very little TA. This is all under “controlling the pc’s attention”. Each level of auditing controls the pc’s attention a little more than the last and the leap from Level III to IV is huge.

Level I hardly controls at all. The rule above about the silent auditor is employed to the full.

Level II takes the pc’s life and livingness goals (or session goals) for the pc to Itsa and lets the pc roll, the auditor intruding only to keep the pc giving solutions, attempts, dones, decisions about his life and livingness or session goals rather than difficulties, problems and natter about them.

Level III adds the rapid search (by TA assessment) for the service facsimile (maybe 20 minutes out of 2l/2 hours) and then guides the preclear into it with R3SC processes. The rule here is that if the thing found that moved the TA wouldn’t make others wrong but would make the pc wrong, then it is an oppterm lock and one Prepchecks it. (The two top RIs of the pc’s PT GPM is the service facsimile. One is a terminal, the pc’s, and the other is an oppterm. They each have thousands of lock RIs. Any pair of lock RIs counts as a service facsimile, giving TA.) A good slow Prepcheck but still a Prepcheck. Whether running Right-Wrong-Dominate-Survive, (R3SC) or Prepchecking (the only 2 processes used) one lets the pc really answer before acking. One question may get 50 answers! Which is One Whatsit from the auditor gets 50 Itsas from the pc.

Level IV auditing finds the auditor smoothly letting the pc Itsa RIs and lists but the auditor going at it like a small steam engine finding RIs, RIs, RIs, Goals, RIs, RIs, RIs. For the total TA in an R4 session only is proportional to the number of RIs found without goofs, wrong goals or other errors which rob TA action.

So the higher the level the more control of the pc’s attention. But in the lower levels, as you go back down, the processes used require less and less control, less auditor action to get TA. The Level is designed to give TA at that level of control. And if the auditor actions get busier than called for in the lower levels the TA is cut down per session.

OVER-RESTIMULATION

As will be found in another HCO Bulletin and in the lectures of summer and autumn of 1963, the thing that seizes a TA up is Over-Restimulation. THE RULE IS: THE LESS ACTIVE THE TA THE MORE OVER-RESTIMULATION IS PRESENT. (THOUGH RESTIMULATION CAN ALSO BE ABSENT.)

Therefore an auditor auditing a pc whose TA action is low (below 20 TA Divisions down for a 2l/2 hour session) must be careful not to over-restimulate the pc (or to gently restimulate the pc). This is true of all levels. At Level IV this becomes: don’t find that next goal, bleed the GPM you’re working of all possible charge. And at Level III this becomes: don’t find too many new Service Facs before you’ve bled the TA out of what you already have. And at Level II this becomes: don’t fool about with a new illness until the pc feels the Lumbosis you started on is handled utterly. And at Level I this becomes: “Let the pc do the talking”.

Over-Restimulation is the auditor’s most serious problem.

Under-Restimulation is just an auditor not putting the pc’s attention on anything.

The sources of Restimulation are:

1. 	Life and Livingness Environment. This is the workaday world of the pc. The auditor handles this with Itsa or “Since Big Mid Ruds’ and even by regulating or changing some of the pc’s life by just telling the pc to not do this or that during an intensive or even making the pc change residence for a while if that’s a source. This is subdivided into Past and Present.

2. 	The Session and its Environment. This is handled by Itsa-ing the subject of session environments and other ways. This is subdivided into Past and Present.

3. 	The Subject Matter of Scientology. This is done by assessing (by TA motion) the old Scientology List One and then Itsa-ing or Prepchecking what’s found.

4. 	The Auditor. This is handled by What would you be willing to tell me, Who would you be willing to talk to. And other such things for the pc to Itsa. This is subdivided into Past and Present.

5. 	This Lifetime. This is handled by slow assessments and lots of Itsa on what’s found whenever it is found to be moving the TA during slow assessment. (You don’t null a list or claw through ten hours of listing and nulling to find something to Itsa at Levels I to III. You see what moves the TA and bleed it of Itsa right now. )

6. 	Pc’s Case. In Levels I to III this is only indirectly attacked as above.

And in addition to the actions above, you can handle each one of these or what’s found with a slow Prepcheck.

LIST FOR ASSESSMENT

Assess for TA motion the following list:

The surroundings in which you live.

The surroundings you used to live in.

Our surroundings here.

Past surroundings for auditing or treatment.

Things connected with Scientology (Scientology List One).

Myself as your auditor.

Past auditors or practitioners.

Your personal history in this lifetime.

Goals you have set for yourself.
Your case.

At Level II one gets the pc to simply set Life and Livingness goals and goals for the session, or takes up these on old report forms and gets the decisions, actions, considerations, etc., on them as the Itsa, cleaning each one fairly well of TA. One usually takes the goal the pc seems most interested in (or has gone into apathy about) as it will be found to produce the most TA.

Whatever you assess by Tone Arm, once you have it, get the TA out of it before you drop it. And don’t cut the Itsa.

MEASURE OF AUDITORS

The skill of an auditor is directly measured by the amount of TA he or she can get. Pcs are not more difficult one than another. Any pc can be made to produce TA. But some auditors cut TA more than others.

Also, in passing, an auditor can’t falsify TA. It’s written all over the pc after a session. Lots of TA = Bright pc. Small TA = Dull pc.

And Body Motion doesn’t count. Extreme Body Motion on some pcs can produce a division of TA! Some pcs try to squirm their way to clear! A good way to cure a TA conscious body-moving pc is to say, “I can’t record TA caused while you’re moving.”

As you may suspect, the pc’s case doesn’t do a great deal until run on R4 processes. But destimulation of the case can produce some astonishing changes in beingness. Key-out is the principal function of Levels I to III. But charge off a case is charge off. Unless destimulated a case can’t get a rocket read or present the auditor with a valid goal. Levels I to III produce a Book One clear. Level R4 produces an O.T. But case conditioning (clearing) is necessary before R4 can be run. And an auditor who can’t handle Levels I to III surely won’t be able to handle the one-man band processes at Level IV. So get good on Levels I to III before you even study IV.

THE FIRST THING TO LEARN

By slow assessment is meant letting the pc Itsa while assessing. This consists of rapid auditor action, very crisp, to get something that moves the TA and then immediate shift into letting the pc Itsa during which be quiet! The slowness is overall action. It takes hours and hours to do an old preclear assessment form this way but the TA flies.

The actual auditing in Level III looks like this—auditor going like mad over a list or form with an eye cocked on the TA. The first movement of the TA (not caused by body motion) the auditor goes a tiny bit further if that and then sits back and just looks at the pc. The pc comes out of it, sees the auditor waiting and starts talking. The auditor unobtrusively records the TA, sometimes nods. TA action dies down in a couple minutes or an hour. As soon as the TA looks like it hasn’t got much more action in it the auditor sits up, lets the pc finish what he or she was saying and then gets busy busy again. But no action taken by the auditor cuts into the TA action. In Levels I to III no assessment list is continued beyond seeing a TA move until that TA motion is handled.

In doing a Scientology List One assessment one goes down the list until the TA moves (not because of body motion). Then, because a TA is not very pinpointed, the auditor covers the one or two above where he first saw TA and, watching the pc for interest and the TA, circles around that area until he is sure he has what made the TA move and then bleeds that for TA. by Itsa or Prepcheck.

Yes, you say, but doesn’t the auditor do TRs on the pc? One question—one answer ratio? NO!
Let the pc finish what the pc was saying. And let the pc be satisfied the pc has said it without a lot of chatter about it.

TA NOT MOVING SIGNALS AUDITOR TO ACT.

TA MOVING SIGNALS AUDITOR NOT TO ACT.

Only the auditor can kill the TA motion. So when the TA starts to move, stop acting and start listening. When the TA stops moving or seems about to, stop listening and start acting again.

Only act when the TA is relatively motionless. And then act just enough to start it again.

Now if you can learn just this, as given here, to act when there’s no TA and not act when there is TA, you can make your own start on getting good TA on your preclear.

With this you buy leisure to look over what’s happening. With half a hundred rules and your own confusion to worry about also, you’ll never get a beginning. So, to begin to get TA on your pc, first learn the trick of silent invitation. Just start the session and sit there expectantly. You’ll get some TA.

When you’ve mastered this (and what a fight it is not to act, act, act and talk ten times as hard as the pc) then move to the next step.

Cover the primary sources of over-restimulation listed above by asking for solutions to them.

Learn to spot TA action when it occurs and note what the pc was saying just then. Co-ordinate these two facts—pc talking about something and TA moving. That’s Assessment Levels I to III. Just that. You see the TA move and relate it to what the pc is saying just that moment. Now you know that if the pc talks about “Bugs” he gets TA action. Note that down on your report. BUT don’t otherwise call it to pc’s attention as pc is already getting TA on another subject. This pc also gets TA on Bugs. Store up 5 or ten of these odd bits, without doing anything to the pc but letting him talk about things.

Now a few sessions later, the pc will have told all concerning the prime source of over-restimulation I hope you were covering with him or her by only getting the pc started when he or she ran down. But you will now have a list of several other things that get TA. THE HOTTEST TA PRODUCER ON THIS LIST WILL GET A PC’S GOAL AS IT IS HIS SERVICE FAC. You can now get TA on this pc at will. All you have to do is get an Itsa going on one of these things.

ANY TA is the sole target of Levels I to III. It doesn’t matter a continental what generates it. Only Level IV (R4 processes) are vital on what you get TA on (for if you’re not accurate you will get no TA at Level IV).

From Levels I to III the pc’s happiness or recovery depends only on that waving TA Arm. How much does it wave? That’s how much the case advances. Only at Level IV do you care what it waves on.

You’re as good an auditor in Levels I to III as you can get TA on the pc and that’s all. And in Level IV you’ll get only as much TA as you’re dead on with the right goals and RIs in the right places and those you don’t want lying there inert and undisturbed.

Your enemy is Over-Restimulation of the pc. As soon as the pc goes into more charge than he or she can Itsa easily the TA slows down! And as soon as the pc drowns in the over-restimulation the TA stops clank! Now your problem is correcting the case. And that’s harder than just getting TA in the first place.
Yes, you say, but how do you start “getting in an Itsa Line?” “What is an Itsa?”

All right—small child comes in room. You say, “What’s troubling you?” The child says, “I’m worried about Mummy and I can’t get Daddy to talk to me and ....” NO TA.

This child is not saying anything is it. This child is saying, “Confusion, chaos, worry.” No TA. The child is speaking in Oppterms.

Small child comes in room. You say, “What’s in this room?” Child says, “You and couch and rug ....” That’s Itsa. That’s TA.

Only in R4 where you’re dead on the pc’s GPMs and the pc is allowed to say it is or isn’t can you get TA good action out of listing and nulling. And even then a failure to let the pc say it is it can cut the TA down enormously.

Auditor says, “You’ve been getting TA movement whenever you mention houses.

In this lifetime what solutions have you had about houses?” And there’s the next two sessions all laid out with plenty of TA and nothing to do but record it and nod now and then.

THE THEORY OF TONE ARM ACTION

TA motion is caused by the energy contained in confusions blowing off the case. The confusion is held in place by aberrated stable data.

The aberrated (non-factual) stable datum is there to hold back a confusion but in actual fact the confusion gathered there only because of an aberrated consideration or postulate in the first place. So when you get the pc to as-is these aberrated stable data, the confusion blows off and you get TA.

So long as the aberrated stable datum is in place the confusion (and its energy) won’t flow.

Ask for confusions (worries, problems, difficulties) and you just over-restimulate the pc because his attention is on the mass of energy, not the aberrated stable datum holding it in place.

   Ask for the aberrated stable datum (considerations, postulates, even attempts or actions or any button) and the pc as-ises it, the confusion starts flowing off as energy (not as confusion), and you get TA.

Just restimulate old confusions without touching the actual stable data holding them back and the pc gets the mass but no release of it and so no TA.

The pc has to say, “It’s a “ (some consideration or postulate) to release the pent-up energy held back by it.

Thus an auditor’s worst fault that prevents TA is permitting the dwelling on confusions without getting the pc to give up with certainty the considerations and postulates that hold the confusions in place.

And that’s “Itsa”. It’s letting the pc say what’s there that was put there to hold back a confusion or problem.

If the pc is unwilling to talk to the auditor, that’s What to Itsa—”decisions you’ve made about auditors” for one example. If the pc can’t seem to be audited in that environment, get old environments Itsa’ed. If the pc has lots of PTPs at session start, get the pc’s solutions to similar problems in the past.

Or just Prepcheck, slow, the zone of upset or interest of the pc.

And you’ll get TA. Lots of it.	

Unless you stop it.

There’s no reason at all why a truly expert auditor can’t get plenty of TA Divisions Down per 2 1/2 hour session running any old thing that crops up on a pc.

But a truly expert auditor isn’t trying to Itsa the pc. He’s trying to get the pc to Itsa. And that’s the difference.

Honest, it’s simpler than you think.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :gw.cden 
Copyright © 1963 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 SEPTEMBER 1964
Issue II
Remimeo 
Franchise 	
Sthil Students
ALL LEVELS

PTPs, OVERTS AND ARC BREAKS

Just to remind you, other auditing is not possible in the presence of Present Time Problems and Overts. No auditing is possible in the presence of an ARC Break.

These are data like “Acknowledge the pc”, “An auditor is one who listens” etc. These belong in the ABCs of Scientology.

PRESENT TIME PROBLEMS

When a pc has a PTP and you don’t handle it, you get no gain. There will be no rise on a personality test graph. There will be little if any TA action. There will be no gain in the session. The pc will not make his session goals. Etc. Etc. So you don’t audit pcs who have PTPs on anything but the PTPs the pc has.

And you don’t audit PTPs slowly and forever. There are numerous ways of handling PTPs. One of them is “What communication have you left incomplete about that problem?” A few answers and poof! no PTP. Another is “What doesn’t (that person or thing pc is having PTP with) know about you?” Other versions of overts and withholds can be used. These are all fast PTP handling methods and they get rid of the PTP and you can audit what you started to audit.

The mark of a ruddy amateur in auditing is somebody who can always do successful assists but can’t do a real session. The secret is: in an assist you are handling the PTP, aren’t you? So you never audit over the top of (in the presence of) a PTP!

Another circumstance is “can’t get down to real auditing because the pc always has so many PTPs”. This is only a confession that one can’t handle a PTP and then get on with the session. One fumbles with the PTPs so badly as an auditor one never really handles the pc’s PTPs so of course one never gets on with the job at hand—auditing the pc.

The pro, in a real session, just handles the PTPs quickly, gets the pc into session and gets on with whatever should be run.

OVERTS

Overts are the other principal source of getting no gain.

Here we really can tell the goony birds from the eagles professionally.

No pro would think of auditing a pc on other processes in the presence of overts.

1. 	The Pro would recognize by the pc’s natter, or lack of previous gain, that the pc had overts;

2. 	The Pro would know that if he tried to do something else besides pull these overts, the pc would eventually get critical of the auditor; and

3. 	The Pro wouldn’t (a) fail to pull the real overts or (b) ARC Break the pc in getting the overts off.

If one gets “reasonable” about the pc’s condition and starts agreeing with the motivators (“look at all the bad things they did to me”), thus ignoring the overts, that’s the end of gains for that pc with that auditor.

If one is clumsy in recognizing overts, if one fails to get the pc to give them up, if one fails to properly acknowledge the overt when given, or if one demands overts that aren’t there, overt pulling becomes a howling mess.

Because, then, getting the pc overts off is a tricky business auditors sometimes become shy of doing it. And fail as auditors.

Sometimes pcs who have big overts become highly critical of the auditor and get in a lot of snide comments about the auditor. If the overt causing it is not pulled the pc will get no gains and may even get ARC broken. If the auditor doesn’t realize that such natter always indicates a real overt, when pcs do it, eventually over the years it makes an auditor shy of auditing.

Auditors buy “critical thoughts” the pc “has had” as real overts, whereas a critical thought is a symptom of an overt, not the overt itself. Under these critical thoughts a real overt lies undetected.

Also, I love these pcs who “have to get off a withhold about you. Last night Jim said you were awful ........” An experienced auditor closes the right eye slightly, cocks his head a bit to the left and says, “What have you been doing to me I haven’t known about?” “I thought .....” begins the pc. “The question is”, says the old pro, “What have you been doing to me that I don’t know about. The word is doing. “ And off comes the overt like “I’ve been getting audited by Bessy Squirrel between sessions in the Coffee Shop.”

Well, some auditors are so “reasonable” they never really learn the mechanism and go on getting criticized and getting no gains on pcs and all that. I once heard an auditor say “Of course he was critical of me. What he said was true. I’d been doing a terrible job.” The moral of this story is contained in the fact that this auditor’s pc died. A rare thing but a true one. The pc had terrible overts on Scientology and the auditor, yet this auditor was so “reasonable” those overts were never cleaned up. And that was the end of those auditing sessions.

It’s almost never that drastic, but if an auditor won’t pull overts, well auditing gets pretty unpleasant and pretty pointless too.

A lack of grasp of the overt-motivator sequence (when somebody has committed an overt, he or she has to claim the existence of motivators—the Ded-Dedex version of Dianetics—or simply when one has a motivator he is liable to hang himself by committing an overt) puts an auditor at a very bad disadvantage. Howling pcs and no pc wins.

ARC BREAKS

You can’t audit an ARC Break. In fact you must never audit in the presence of one.  Auditing below Level III, the best thing to do is find an auditor who can do ARC Break Assessments.

At Level III and above, do an ARC Break Assessment on the pc. An ARC Break Assessment consists of reading an ARC Break list appropriate to the activity to the pc on a meter and doing nothing but locate and then indicate the charges found by telling the pc what registered on the needle.
That isn’t auditing because it doesn’t use the auditing comm cycle. You don’t ack what the pc says, you don’t ask the pc what it is. You don’t comm. You assess the list between you and the meter, same as no pc there. Then you find what reads and-you tell the pc. And that’s all.

A by-passed charge assessment is auditing because you clean every tick of the needle on the list being assessed. The pc is acked, the pc is permitted to Itsa and give his opinions. But you never do a by-passed charge assessment on an ARC Broken pc. You do an ARC Break Assessment as per the paragraph above this one.

These two different activities unfortunately have the word “assessment” in common and they use the same list. Therefore some students confuse them. To do so is sudden death.

You can really clobber a pc by doing a by-passed charge assessment on an ARC Broken pc. And also you can ARC Break a pc by doing an ARC Break Assessment on a pc who isn’t (or has ceased to be) ARC Broken.

So unless you have these two separate and different actions—the ARC Break Assessment and the by-passed charge assessment—clearly understood and can do both of them well and never get too rattled to know which one to use, you can get into plenty of trouble as an auditor.

Only auditing over the top of an ARC Break can reduce a graph, hang the pc up in sessions or worsen his case. So it’s the next to the most serious blunder that an auditor can make. (The most serious error is to deny assistance either by not trying to get the pc into session or not using Scientology at all.)

Auditing an ARC Broken pc and never realizing it can lead to very serious trouble for the auditor and will worsen the pc’s case—the only thing that will.

SUMMARY

It is elementary auditing knowledge that no gains occur in the presence of PTPs or overts and that cases worsen when audited over the top of an ARC Break.

There aren’t “lots more conditions that can exist”. Given an auditing session there are only these three barriers to auditing.

When you do Clay Table auditing or any other kind of auditing the rules all still apply. A change of process or routine doesn’t change the rules.

In doing Clay Table auditing off a meter one still handles the elements of a session. One puts the pc on the meter to start off and checks for PTPs, overts, withholds, even ARC Breaks, handles them quickly and then goes into the body of the session. Much the same as the oldest model session rudiments. One doesn’t use Mid Ruds or buttons to get started. One just knows the things that mustn’t be there (PTPs, overts, ARC Breaks) and checks for them, handles if found and goes on with the main session activity. If a PTP or an overt or an ARC Break shows up one handles them, putting the pc back on the meter if necessary. When they are handled, the pc is put back into the main activity of the session.

It’s true of any auditing that gets done. It isn’t likely to alter and actually no new data is likely to be found that controverts any of this. The phenomena will still be the same phenomena as long as there are pcs. Ways of handling may change but not these basic principles.

They’re with the auditor in every session ever to be run. So one might as well stay alert to them and be continuously expert in handling them.

They are the only big reefs on which an auditing session can go up high and dry, so their existence, causes and cures are of the greatest possible importance to the skilled auditor.

								L. RON HUBBARD

LRH jw.cden						 	
Copyright © 1964 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 MARCH 1965 
Remimeo
Students	ALL LEVELS

ARC BREAKS

Great News!

I’ve found the basis of ARC Breaks!

As you know, only a PTP (Present Time Problem) can hold a graph unchanging and only an ARC Break can lower one. Therefore the Anatomy of an ARC Break is more vital to know, as it can worsen, than the anatomy of a PTP. But both are very important and with the overt act and misunderstood words in study form the vital four things anyone should know in auditing Pcs.

The average student has a hard time getting rid of ARC Breaks in others, mostly because he never really finds the ARC Break. One Auditor was sure a Pc had been ARC Broken by “the last few inches of a lecture tape” and was madly calling Washington to borrow the tape so the poor Pc could “listen to it again to cure his ARC Break” ! Well I don’t mind being cause, but my tape never ARC Broke the Pc. The Auditor just didn’t locate the Charge.

The whole trick is to keep cleaning up the ARC Break until the Pc is happy again and then quit. When you find it, that’s it. You don’t find it and still have an ARC Broken Pc! No, the terribly simple truth is that

1. 	The Pc is ARC Broken because something happened.

2. 	The Pc will continue to be ARC Broken until the thing is found.

3. 	The ARC Break will vanish magically when the source is found.

Finding the ARC Break and indicating it clears the ARC Break. If it doesn’t clear on what you find, then you haven’t found it !

You must not continue to run a Pc on some process when the Pc is ARC Broken. You must find the ARC Break and clear it.

The Pc will go into a sad effect if you don’t find the ARC Break but instead, continue the process. If you think you have found the ARC Break (and haven’t) and then go on auditing, the Pc will go into a sad effect.

ARC Broken Pcs are easy to identify. They gloom and mis-emote. They criticise and snarl. Sometimes they scream. They blow, they refuse auditing.

If you can read a lighted neon sign at 10 feet on a dark night, you can detect a Pc who has an ARC Break. Some Auditors can detect them sooner than others. I can see one coming in a Pc 11/2 hours of auditing before the Pc starts to get misemotional in earnest. Some newcomer in the business might not detect one until the Pc wraps a chair around the auditor’s head. As I say, the ability to perceive one varies. The better you are the sooner you see one. If an auditor’s Pc isn’t bright and happy, there’s an ARC Break there with life or the bank or the session.

The thing to do is find it and clean it up.

And now all is revealed: This is what makes an ARC Break occur:
AN ARC BREAK OCCURS ON A GENERALITY OR A NOT THERE.

The Generality

Example of a Generality

“They say you are cold-hearted.” “Everybody thinks you are too young.” “The People Versus Sam Jones.” “The will of the masses.”

Case Manifestation

Example: Little boy screaming in rage when he makes a mistake in drawing. Auditor observes little boy is upset. Auditor: “What are you upset about?” Little Boy: (howling) “My drawing is no good!” Auditor: “Who said your drawing is no good?” Little Boy: (crying) “The teachers at school (plural).” Auditor: “What teacher (singular)?” Little Boy: (sobbing) “Not the teachers, the other children (plural)!” Auditor: “Which one of the other children?” Little Boy: (suddenly quiet) “Sammy.” Auditor: “How do you feel now?” Little Boy: (cheerfully) “Can I have some ice cream?”

The Formula

1. 	Ask what the Pc is upset about.

2. 	Ask who thought so.

3. 	Repeat the generality the Pc used and

4. 	Ask for the singular.

5. 	Keep 3 and 4 going until the Pc is happy.

As it’s a near Q and A it should be awfully easy. They name prunes, you say what prune is prunes.

Result

It’s quite magical done barehanded or on a meter.

Errors

You can miss in English sometimes on YOU. The Pc says YOU are mean. We have no plural or singular signal in the word YOU. Therefore a statement that “YOU are ARC Breaking me” or “YOU ARE MEAN” may not mean, as an egocentric auditor may take it, the auditor but YOU may be being used as THE WHOLE WORLD. The above formula holds 1 to 5. Just find out “Which person is meant by the word you?”

Our old “Look at me, who am I?” was not too wrong.

So next time your Pc says, “The Instructors are mean,” don’t be goofy enough to indicate the charge with “OK, you are ARC Broken because the Instructors are mean.” And then be amazed when the ARC Break continues. You didn’t find out “What Instructor is Instructors?” If you ask a bit further you’ll find it probably wasn’t “the Instructors” but somebody else. And that somebody will be a unit, not a group.

A less workable but interesting approach is “Who uses the word ‘everybody’ frequently?” It’s of interest only because “everybody” makes a dispersal which the Pc can’t see through. It will take quite a while sometimes for a Pc to spot such a person!

How many people have died heartbroken because “they” were mean to him. And it was just one vicious being who had been blown up to “they”.

The Not There is also a generality because it can be anywhere. But it is a special case.

When something becomes unlocatable it can cause an ARC Break.

The cure for this one is to find out what’s gone.

If you see somebody with a cold, ask “Who’s gone?” and you’ll be amazed at the recovery if you pursue the matter.

One concludes it’s less the loss than not knowing where something has gotten to, making a one into a generality.

The common response to sudden loss is to feel everything is gone or going.

This is the state of anxiety explained.

The beaten and downtrodden respond well on this (when brought up through normal levels to the Level of Remedies).

A very sneaky question is “Who (or what) was everything to you?”

But use it sparingly. The Pc will go whole track like a flash if overworked.

Remarkably (at this late date to find it!) that’s why he rather fancies his pictures! At least he has a picture of it!

Dreams follow a sudden loss. It’s an effort to orient oneself and get something back.

Level VI ARC Breaks

Of course, there’s nothing wrong really with a thetan but his reactive bank. He can recover from the rest. And his reactive bank is full of generalities which explains the hard ARC Breaks of Level VI. But don’t tamper with Level VI if the Pc belongs at II. You can get enough locks off any day from normal life to cure the ARC Breaks you’ll encounter getting up to VI.

Main thing to know is: AN ARC BREAK OCCURS BECAUSE OF A GENERALITY OR A NOT THERE.

Fortunately it doesn’t always occur. Only sometimes. And when it does: Find the singular form of the generality.

In Admin particularly you save more executives that way. And in auditing you just don’t have failed cases or blows if you know it.

                                        					
LRH:wmc.aj.cden 	L. RON HUBBARD
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 6 AUGUST 1968
Remimeo
LEVEL III
IMPORTANT—STAR RATED

R 3 H
(Takes precedence over all other HCOBs & Tapes)

The way to handle the ARC Breaks of a case with R3H as the process for Level III is:

1. 	Locate a change in life by listing to a blowdown. Use that period. “What change has happened in your life” is a version of the question.

2. 	Get it dated.

3. 	Get some of the data of it (don’t run as an engram) so you know what the change was.

4. 	Find out by assessment if this was a Break in

Affinity
Reality
Communication or
Understanding

	and have the pc examine that briefly.

5. 	Taking the one found in (4) find out by assessment if it was

Curious about__________
Desired_______________
Enforced______________
Inhibited______________

That is all there is to it.

That was the research process.

It works like a bomb.

To make sure it works well, get in the rudiments before you do it.

It has been said that you can do this several times on a pc beyond a floating needle on one. I have not verified this.

Doing Know—Unknown—Curious, etc. first is definitely wrong. ARC is dominant. ARC is done first as above. Understanding is the composite of ARC and so is added to ARC as U in (4) above.

LRH:jp.s.cden  						L. RON HUBBARD
copyright ©1968 						Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

R2-50: CHANGING MINDS

Exerpted from the Book: Creation of Human Ability

The basic process of a thetan is simply getting him to change his mind. Most thetans fall below the level of mechanics. They have to be brought up to a point where they are not being handled by mechanics before they can simply change their considerations. If changing minds worked on any thetan it would then be the only process in Scientology, but it does not work on thetans who are interiorized since they are being other things than themselves, and when they start to change their minds they are simply changing something else.

When you have a thetan exteriorized, all you have to do is ask him to change his mind, and, unless he is still very badly burdened by mechanical considerations with which he has so thoroughly agreed that he cannot immediately change his mind, he will do so.

This process can be used on a non-exteriorized thetan, however, and on those who are uneasily exteriorized, by having them stand in one place with an idea that they have to appear there, and then change their minds, and disappear there.  Or simply have them stand in one place until they change their mind, and then go to another place and change their mind, and go to another place and change their mind. This is done, actually, by moving the body around, as most auditing these days is done.

The auditing commands for this would be ‘Walk over to this spot’ (indicating a spot to the preclear), ‘Now decide you have to appear there’, ‘Now change your mind and decide you have to disappear there’, ‘Now change your mind and decide you have to appear there’, and so on.

This can also be worked into opening procedures by having a preclear select a spot, then change his mind about the spot, select another spot, change his mind about that spot and select another spot, until he knows that he, himself, is changing his mind.

When exteriorized, the thetan can change his mind very easily on any subject simply when told to do so.  Very often he does not realize that he can change the factors of his life around simply by changing his mind, and so has to be asked to do so by the auditor.

A note of warning: this does not work on interiorized preclears with any great value.

R2-63: ACCEPT - REJECT

Exerpted from the Book: Creation of Human Ability

From acceptance we get a ten-star process. Whatever else you may do with a Preclear, he must be brought to accept the physical universe and his own and other bodies, all in every kind of condition. The way out is the way through. In Eastern practices, the goal was abandonment, desertion.  Scientology’s main difference from Eastern practices is this: it accepts to free. And it frees. That which one cannot accept chains one. For instance, revulsion to sex inclines at last to slavery to sex. A ruler’s motto could be ‘make them resist’, and his people would become enslaved.          

In 1870 we find capitalists resisting Marx. In 1933 we find Marx the basic text of U.S. government. Resistance and restraint are the barbed-wire of this concentration camp. Accept the barbed-wire and there is no camp.

On test this process exteriorizes the worst case if run long enough.

This process is important because it is one of the few (like R2-16) which does not have alter-isness as its operative factor. This is not, then, an altering practice, confirming somatics and aberrations, it is a freeing process.

That which one cannot accept he cannot as-is.

The commands of this process are as follows: ‘Find something about yourself which you can accept’, ‘Something else’, ‘Find something else you can accept’, etc., etc., until there is no comm-lag. Then: ‘Find something about yourself you can reject’, ‘Find something else about yourself you can reject’, etc., etc., until there is no comm-lag. Then: ‘Find something in this room you can accept’, ‘Something else’, ‘Find something else in this room you can accept’, etc., etc., ‘Find something in this room you can reject’, ‘Find something else in this room you can reject’, etc., etc. Then: ‘Find something about this universe you can accept’, until the comm-lag is flat. Then: ‘Find something in this universe you can reject’.

Remember, this is not an altering process. It is a high value escape process. If your preclear keeps putting conditions of change into everything before he can accept it, you must persuade him to find things he can accept without changing them.

R2-68: INCOMPREHENSIBILITY

Exerpted from the Book: Creation of Human Ability

A thetan is understanding. A space or mass is no understanding. A Thetan is no mass. An object is mass. Duplication is thus difficult.

A thetan must be able to be a mass or a space and to experience at will incomprehensibility in order to see spaces and masses. It is a new understanding to understand that something can be incomprehensible.

The tone scale is a study of varying degrees of ARC. Affinity, Reality and Communication comprise understanding. With knowingness at the top of the scale, we come down in ‘understanding’ -- (Third Dynamic knowingness), then down through relative understandings and increasing incomprehensibility until at bottom scale (MEST) we have total incomprehensibility and total non-comprehension.

A ‘difficult’ case is simply an incomprehensible case. The processing on this is done by the command:  ‘Spot something incomprehensible’, repeated many, many times. This ‘ups’ I.Q. and raises perception. This is a good process.

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
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 APRIL 1961R
REVISED 25 NOVEMBER 1973
REISSUED 19 SEPTEMBER 1974
(Only change is signature)
Remimeo

CHANGE BRACKETS AND COMMANDS
(Only changes are correction of typo errors whereby
“not” was omitted from commands 8, 9 and 10 of the
15 Way Bracket and inclusion of the terminal assessment.)

The basic commands of CHANGE form a series of brackets.

The basic curve of change compares to the CYCLE OF ACTION.

Therefore the basic versions of CHANGE would consist of Change, No Change and Failed Change.

The Standard bracket is a five way bracket. The general form of this is as follows:

	You ....................	Terminal
	Terminal.................You
	Terminal ................Another
	Another .................Terminal
	Terminal ................Terminal

Change as a five way bracket would be somebody or something as the terminal (whichever falls most on a meter) and:

Assess:	Somebody__________
          	Something__________

5 Way Bracket

(Use whichever gave best read above.)

1. 	“How have you changed something?”
2. 	“How has something tried to change you?”
3. 	“How has something changed another?”
4. 	“How has another changed something?”
5. 	“How has something changed?”

	or:

1. 	“How have you changed somebody?”
2. 	“How has somebody tried to change you?”
3. 	“How has somebody changed another?”
4. 	“How has another changed somebody?”
5. 	“How has somebody changed self?”

15 Way Bracket
(something or somebody)

1. 	“How have you changed something?”
2. 	“How has something tried to change you?”
3. 	“How has something changed another?”
4. 	“How has another changed something?”
5. 	“How has something changed?”
6. 	“What have you not changed?”
7. 	“What has not changed you?”
8. 	“What has not changed something?”
9. 	“What has something not changed?”
10. 	“What has not changed self?”
11. 	“What have you failed to change?”
12. 	“What has failed to change you?”
13. 	“What has something failed to change?”
14. 	“What has failed to change something?”
15. 	“What has failed to change self?”

The above commands are run consecutively as one process. This process is the basic Release Process.

Another version:

1. 	“What change have you avoided?”
2. 	“What change have you sought?”
3. 	“What no change have you avoided?”
4. 	“What no change have you sought?”
5. 	“What failed change have you avoided?”
6. 	“What failed change have you sought?”

Another version:

1. 	“Recall a change.”
2. 	“Recall a no-change.”
3. 	“Recall a failed change.”

Another version:

Sort out “Think” or “Get the idea” by the meter’s reaction. Use one that produces the most fall.

1. 	“Think (get the idea) of a change.”
2. 	“Think of a no-change.”
3. 	“Think of a failed change.”

LRH:nt.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1961, 1973,1974 	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

GOALS LISTING

A lecture given on
9 August 1962

Thank you.

Well, this is lecture two, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, 9 August . . . What’s the year?

Audience: 1962. A.D. 12.

A.D. 12. All right, thank you.

What I’m going to talk to you about is technically just listing. Listing: How to list.

In the beginning, there was the Model Session.

Now, what do you do in listing that is different than any other auditing?

Well, you prepcheck the object of and the lines of the auditing command every session beginning with a fast check. Got it? And I think if you do that, your number of items that you need to list out a goal will materially diminish. I think you’ll find it saves its time over and over and over and over.

So let’s put in the rudiments—the beginning rudiments—bangetybangety-bang, and say the PC’s goal, and to-be-a-tiger it. In other words, get the middle ruds in on it fast. Get it to firing if we can. Of course, we go just so far, this thing is going to start firing latent, and it’s going to expire one way or the other. But after all, it is our target. And to run somebody endlessly with his goal suppressed and invalidated and all that sort of thing is liable to require a large number of additional items and all kinds of other things in the session, don’t you see? Other things might go wrong. You might even waste a whole session and not even recognize that you have wasted one.

All right. Now, the auditing command, of course, is the who-what lines, of which there are four.

Now, I’m not going to try to give you a wording of the who-what lines and say that it will forever and always be true.

First you have finding the goal, in 3GA, and proving it out, and then you get to listing. And in actual fact, the first step of listing is to find lines that fit the goal.

Now, you’ve got a picture that you must comply with. And the picture is an outflow arrow and an inflow arrow—arrows pointing at one another. Draw a circle for the PC and then draw a line going out from him and then the arrow-ends, and then draw another line extending that one, but its arrow-ends are in toward the first arrow.

And then you have the retarding arrow of the first line, and then you have the retarding arrow of the second line, and they’re just arrows alongside the other two arrows—going the opposite direction. In other words, you got four arrows here: One is going out from the PC and one is going in toward the PC.
 
And then you’ve got the other pair of arrows further out; the first one is in toward the PC and the other one is out away from the PC.

Now, the auditing command that you want simply matches up the four basic flows. Now, you see, there could be 16 flows listed, there could be 32 flows listed, there could be 128 flows listed. Don’t you see? You could list and list—oh, wow! But staying with four is the most economical, as far as we know at this particular time. But those four must be meaningful to the PC; they’ve got to make sense to the PC.

Now, we want to know—the first line is. “Who or what would have it?” “Want it,” “have it”—I don’t care which one you use. That’s as far as the goal is concerned. Then “Who or what would oppose it?” See, that’s your outer arrow pointing in toward the first arrow. “Who or what would oppose it?”

Now we’ve got to have specifically “Who or what would keep you from performing it?” or “doing it?” You see? And then we’ve got to find out “Who or what would oppose its being opposed?”

Now, how you get these words to go together is remarkable, and so forth, but they must fire.

Now, the goal has a rocket read, and then so must the lines. You’ve got to have a read on those lines. And the read on these lines must exist not because you’ve made a mistake on the line. You recognize that you could write the wrong line, and so forth.

Do you know, to date we have had three people, one of whose clearing was held up and two that was loused up, right here at Saint Hill, because nobody paid enough attention to the wording and value of the wording of lines? So this is not a light subject. This is a very important subject. And it is the auditor’s responsibility, not the Training Director or somebody else’s responsibility. This is the auditor’s responsibility. Those lines are there and they’ve got to fire.

In other words, when you read this line, “Who or what would want to catch catfish?” that thing has got to fire on that, not because the goal is on the end, but the line as a major thought has got to fire. That’s got to fire.

Now, remember that the whole rash of free needles that we got out earlier this summer were all listed on this simplicity. (I’ll show you how simple it can be.) Line one: “Who or what would want to catch catfish?” (Let’s say this is the goal.) Line two: “Who or what would oppose catching catfish?” Line three: “Who or what would not oppose catching catfish?” Line four: “Who or what would not want to catch catfish?”

Now, those are the exact lines—the verb form changing on two of the lines to an -ing. And look, even though they were reaching madly and having an awful time on line four, and scrambling around on it most horribly, they still made it, see? Now, it was only when, on one (and I’m not saying this just to be mean, although the person who is going to hear it in a moment will swear that I said it just to be mean)—the introduction of “your” into the line (unreported by the auditor)—into one of the lines prevented that line from ever going to free needle. Till one day I caught the thing up and found out that this extra word existed in the line, knocked the extra word out, had it prepchecked a little bit, and wham, all four lines went to free needle.

See, there was one line in there—I’ve forgotten which line it was, but it was something on the order of “Who or what would oppose your catching catfish?” Not “Who or what would oppose catching catfish?” See? Just the introduction of that “your” on one of the four lines. See, it wasn’t on the other three. And yet this was listed this way by three auditors, see? And the first auditor was completely exonerated on the matter because nobody had formulated the lines at that time to amount to anything and we were just at the beginning of this level, and this auditor put them together as kind of what the PC thought they might be, you see? And there was a “your” in it. And that prevented those things from going to free needle. So, in other words, the wording Of the line can prevent or achieve a free needle for that line. It is the wording of the line.

Now, our more modern version seems to hit people much closer. And we have had at least one goal not go clear on the old four lines, but be much easier to run, and is running much more easily—and actually on the original four lines just went up to 6.0 as the TA, and stuck. Right goal, but it just went up and stuck because these lines were not adequate to describe the situation, you see, and started moving again the moment the wording was changed to these lines which we are now using.

Line one: “Who or what would want to catch catfish?” Line two: “Who or what would oppose catching catfish?” Line three: “Who or what would retard” (or “pull back”) “opposition to catching catfish?” And line four: “Who or what would pull back” (what is it?) “ . . . from catching catfish?”

Audience: “Someone or something.”

Oh, “someone or something from catching catfish?” Now, “someone or something” could of course be on at least two of the lines, or on more of the lines, you understand. But there is the pattern which we are using now. It’s “pull back” and “pull back,” or “retard” and “pull back,” on lines three and four.

But the point is, the line has got to fire. You read the goal, “To catch catfish,” bang! “To catch catfish,” bang! “To catch catfish,” bang!

All right. That read transfers over onto all four lines. And it is not true that it transfers onto just three of the lines and the other one isn’t hot just now. See, it’s because that line that is not firing is not quite right. See? You should be able to put these four lines together and get them all to fire. You say, “To catch catfish,” bang! “To catch catfish,” bang! “To catch catfish,” bang! “Who or what would want to catch catfish?” Bang! See? They’ve all got to fire that way.

Now, there are various oddball wordings which haven’t worked. We run into the problem of the negative goal. Let’s take the goal “not to talk.” “Who or what would want not to talk?” That’s perfectly fine, isn’t it? “Who or what would oppose not to talk?” That’s good, isn’t it? That’s fine. We’re just going along fine there. Now let’s get to line three on the old wording. “Who or what would not oppose not to talk?” Double negative. Enterprising auditor, shift the double negative, of course, change it around so you don’t have a double negative, that’d make it “much better”—she never goes clear. And line four, “Who or what would not want not to talk?” That’s really becoming garbage as far as the auditor can see. Pretty gruesome.

But what do you know! Interestingly enough, it’s perfectly comprehensible to the PC. Double negative—so what? Doesn’t mean anything to the PC. The line means something to the PC, but that it isn’t grammatically something or other was not a thing. So that first wording was perfectly okay and was all right to remain just as it was, if you had a negative goal.

But this wording didn’t work, see—double negative, that’s all right, doesn’t matter. But this wording didn’t work: “Who or what would want the goal ‘not to talk’?” “Who or what would oppose the goal ‘not to tally’?” “Who or what would not oppose the goal ‘not to talk’?” For some cockeyed reason it ceases to make sense very soon, see? “The goal...” “the goal...” “the goal . . .” Makes it grammatical, but apparently makes it unworkable.

Now we’ll get another one: Let’s take the wing out of it. “Who or what would oppose catching catfish?” See? “Who or what would oppose the goal ‘to catch catfish’?” Now, this one is important for you to know about, because PCs will try to steer you into it. It hasn’t the least bearing on the situation. It doesn’t go clear. Apparently this one lays an egg. But a PC tells you that’s real hot. The PC will tell you “That’s real good.” And apparently it is for the birds. See the difference? It’s a different meaning. “Who or what would oppose the goal ‘to catch catfish’?” of course is just dandy. That sounds good, doesn’t it? Well, it isn’t the same meaning that you want on your list line.

We don’t care about opposing the goal. To hell with the goal—why keep it in that realm? We want to know who would oppose catching catfish, not oppose the goal “to catch catfish.” It’s “Who or what would oppose catching catfish?” that clears the PC. See, that’s the opposition. It’s the opposition to action. Because remember, these are flow lines. When anybody tries to steer you away from a wording which you think is proper and so forth, in arguing it out with a PC, or figuring it out yourself or something, just remember this: These are actions. These are actions.

Now, of course, we get “want the goal”: that’s a kind of an inflow, isn’t it? And that has always kind of loused me up. I don’t know quite why an inflow word like want works as an outflow action of the goal. But it apparently keeps the goal in the item’s head that has got it. See? But hale, as far as I know— although I don’t have too much data on this—have apparently works equally well. Apparently.

But it’s what fires that counts. But what fires has got to be actions of the goal. It’s got to be action. Because you’re listing flow lines.

So this would be dead wrong: “Who or what would oppose people who had the goal to catch catfish?” That’s dead wrong. You want to know who or what would oppose people. Well, that’s not the goal.

All right. Let’s go a little bit further afield here. It’s after all catfish, isn’t it? All right, so “Who or what would oppose catfish?” You’re practically listing two lines at once. That’s what messes up there. Because anybody who’s trying to catch catfish is opposing catfish too. And anybody who’s opposing catfish is also opposing catfish, and you’ve got no opposition anyplace. So you might as well just do the one line for the two; don’t you see?

And there we come into the liability of listing lines. Now, believe me, this is quite a problem, because you’re liable to make this horrible mistake, unless forewarned: The PC is given four commands but actually only lists three lines. Now, look at the mess this gets him into. He lists twice as many items on one line and he lists no items on another line, and an equal number on the remaining two lines.

In other words, he overlists one line and doesn’t list another line at all. And the PC is going to go round the bend. See, he’s really going to get cooked with this one. Next thing you know, your tone arm is stuck, and you’ll be saying it’s the wrong goal, and everything is all upset. Well, the PC, through his own interpretation, can do this just fine. So the best way to handle this is have PCs draw you pictures.

Now, you want to draw the PC a picture of the one I just gave you and present this as a problem to the PC of how you’re going to word this thing. Of course, you’re going to word this thing with current wording. If absolutely impossible, you’re going to change it. But you’re going to try to word it with current wording. But you want to show the PC this thing. And it’s this arrow that comes in toward him, and this arrow that goes out that faces the other arrow, and then this arrow that pulls back and then this arrow that goes out parallel to the other one. You want to show him those four arrows, and you’re going to say, “That’s oppose. That’s opposed to doing your goal, and this is doing your goal, see, and this is keeping you from doing your goal, don’t you see, and that’s retarding the other Tom being opposed. But at the same time, we don’t want this fourth line here to be the second line up here. Do you see how that could be? See, who would oppose you doing your goal? And who would not want you to do your goal?” Ooooh, those things are getting awful ghostly close together, aren’t they?

You got to have wording here that means these four flows, with regard to the action of this goal.

Now, goals Are action situations. Even “being a hound dog,” as a goal— “to be a hound dog,” see—requires an action. The action is at least to be. That’s not much action, but it’s still enough action to be action and it causes a Dow. You say, “Who would want to be a hound dog?” and of course now you’ve got it pretty well made. Of course, there’s some action a little bit added in there. And “not want to be a hound dog,” see? You could get these things, you see, but they’re still actions. “Oppose being a hound dog,” that’s guaranteeing action, you see? And “retard opposition to being a hound dog.”

These are very hard for PCs to wrap their wits around very often. Particularly when they’re lying at the bottom of the GPM. There they lie, nobody has disturbed them on this subject for millennia, you see, or triennia. Nobody’s even breathed it at them or mentioned it to them, and you all of a sudden come along and propound the philosophic principle of whether or not they’re going to oppose or not oppose being a hound dog, you know? They’ve just never considered it. They’ll be in this kind of a state: They know that everybody opposes being a hound dog. And that is the “truth.” That isn’t a fact, you see; that’s the “truth.” The truth of life: Life opposes being a hound dog.

Now, you introduce a brand-new idea: You say, “Who would want to be a hound dog?”

“Want to be a hound dog?” Good heavens, nobody’s thought of that, you see !

Well, factually they haven’t thought of it for ages. See? And these other actions, the other three actions . . . So they very readily steer themselves over onto one groove, if they possibly can, and it’ll be the flow they happen to be stuck on at the moment you get them to figure it out.

So their advice is worse than useless. But you want to find out whether or not they can answer it. That’s what you want to know. That’s why you consult them. You don’t take their wording, but you want to find out if they can answer it. And then you juggle the wording around or do anything you have to do to the wording so that you can clear, you know, invalidation, mistake, wrong word, anything like that that you want to clear on this thing. And after this line is cleaned up with a fast check on the mid ruds, like to-be-a-tiger drill— after this line is cleaned up, brrrrp, see—you say that line and you get pow! You get a read, see? You say the line, you get a read. You say the line, you get a read. Dandy. Here we go. That’s fine, see?

Now you want to get the next one, so that when you say that line you get a read. Say the line, get a read. Prepcheck it out. In other words, you mid-rud the thing. You see, you get those mid ruds in on the line, and then test it. You’d be surprised how busy they are sometimes in invalidating lines, and all that straighten-out.

So frankly, I’ve opened up a subject to you, you possibly haven’t looked at very intimately, and that is the wording of a line to be listed. But that, second to the goal, is the most important source from which all clearing flows—is that line. And now, keeping an even balance amongst those lines as they list.

All right. Now, so much for this wording of the line. Your next step is to make sure that as you list, you list in Model Session, your rudiments are in without antagonizing the PC unduly—because, you see, you can put the rudiments in so often that it amounts to no auditing, and then the rudiments go out, see?

So your basic action is don’t list too long on one line. How long is too long? I’ll tell you exactly how long you should list a line, exactly how long: as long as the flow in that direction persists.

Yeah, how are you going to know that? Well, short of an oscilloscope, you’re not. An oscilloscope will show you the flow line. So you just pays your money and you takes your chance.

But I’ll give you an indicator. This would be slightly overlisting a line, but would be safe. This is slightly overlisting the line by an item or two, but it’s very safe: As soon as the PC says “Uh . . . and uhhhh . . . ,” change your lines. Go to the next line. Why? You’ve hit the null point.

You see, don’t be under the delusion that the PC is thinking up these items. Don’t make that mistake. He thinks he’s thinking; he thinks he’s talking; he thinks it’s all going off, but actually he’s just a wound-up doll. See, he’s just firing off . . . He couldn’t help it. He practically couldn’t help but give you the items, because they’re being dealt. See? Because they’re stacked in the GPM in that way. He doesn’t think of any of them.

Now, if a PC is groping for the right wording, you’ve overlisted. “I mean a . . . uh . . . I mean a . . . uh . . . uh . . . mm . . . Oh, no, that isn’t the right word. Uh . . . uh . . . a uh . . . a big . . . a big . . . uh . . . no, a big, big . . . a huge . . . uh . . . uh . . . a gargantuan . . . Uh . . . a tr—tr—uh, let’s see, a tremendously . . . no, that isn’t . . . uh, tremendously large . . .” Oh, man, you overlisted a long way back. You should have quit, see?

Now, that item will spew onto the paper, bang! Just without any trouble from the PC. And long times in listing sessions without many items coming onto the page is all caused by the auditor not judging the flows right. Comm lag of the PC eats up session. And if you keep the PC out of that comm lag—you just list in rotation: one, two, three, four; one, two, three, four; one, two, three, four; and don’t let the PC comm lag, or shut off an automaticity.

Isn’t that neat? You mustn’t shut off a PC’s automaticity. He’s saying, “Tiger, waterbuck, water buffalo, uh . . . big snakes, pythons, uh . . . Mindoro uh ... natives, pygmies, uh ... pygmies, pygmies, uh ... uh....”

Well, the funny part of it is, is you mustn’t have shut him off at “water buffalo,” because it’d suppress the nest two items. He can’t help but say them, don’t you see? They’re just being dealt off the top of the deck, one-two-three-four, see? They’re just coming right on up, one-two-three-four-five-six-seven-eight-nine-ten-eleven, tr-tra-nun-nun, and then “a . . . a . . . uh . . .” Shift lines.

Now, I’ll tell you when you’ve listed too long, slightly, but not to the other degree “I can’t get the right word for it. I don’t know what . . .” Oh, you’re way overdue, man! You missed the 5:15, you missed the 6:20, see, you missed the midnight express. No, here’s the one: The PC says, “No, that’s not it.” You’ve gone over. You’ve gone over, right now.

He’s invalidating the item he is giving you. Why is he invalidating the item he has given you? Because the other flow line is now meeting the direction of his attention and is overwhelming his attention so that any item he thinks up is of course being overwhelmed by the other flow line coming to him. Just like that, heh! It’s very neat.

And you just listen to him, as he goes along on listing, and he says, “A water buffalo, a tiger, a Mindoro native, a pygmy, a uh . . . uh . . . uh . . . uh.. .ap-python, auh...um.. .uh. ..uh...a.. .a deer. No. No. No, that’s not it. Um . . . a uh . . . buck. A buck . . . uh—no, no, um . . . a buck, uh . . . No. No, not a—not—not—not a—not a buck deer. Uh . . . um . . . let’s see, now. Um . . . Well, I c-ca-can’t really think of the name of the thing. Uh . . . uh . . . a big . . . uh . . . a buck, uh . . . uh . . . uh . . . a v . . . a very lar— uh . . . It’s a certain kind of a deer they have down in Mindoro, a uh . . . a dak, or u . . . u . . .” Oh man, you missed the 6:15, the 8:30, the 10:25 they’ve all gone by. See? That’s the whole gamut. You have run the lot now, see?

Your first indicator was “and a uh....” Well, out of courtesy, you could let him give it to you. He’ll say, “ . . . a uh . . . buck.”

And you say, “All right. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Now, all right, we’re going to start on the next line. And here we go.” We’ve shifted gears, and we’re now listing on something else.

That’s really the way to get away from the pin fast, and your PC doesn’t get suppressions, and you don’t have to put in the mid ruds all the time and all that sort of thing. Just catch it on that first “ahh . . .” And it’s just handed to you on a silver platter.

He tells you. “This line has run as far as it’s going to go, and is now in an eddy area, and is about to turn around and go the opposite direction.” That’s what he tells you with that “ahh....” With the invalidation, he tells you, “It has already turned around and is going in the opposite direction, and anything I think of is being overwhelmed and invalidated by the line which is now coming the other way.” See? And when he can’t think of it at all, he’s just totally overwhumped. Now the line is really racing at him.

But similarly—let me make this point again—it is a high crime to shut off an automaticity because he won’t be able to get it again. This thing is firing off and you put a suppression right on the middle of the thing. He’s going to tell you all of a sudden thirty items—brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

And you say, “Well, that’s enough.”

He says, “Bu-bu brrr-b-brr—brrrr. . .” And you put in the mid ruds at that point, you find it was all suppressed. The PC feels kind of loused up. He feels kind of betrayed and so on.

So there are the basic tricks of listing: (1) At the beginning of the session get in your rudiments. (2) Get your goal fast-checked. (3) Now, there’s two ways you could go about this: One is simply to fast-check the first line you do, and then when you get to the next line give it a fast check; when you get to the nest line give it a fast check—first time you ask it, you see? You get to the fourth line, give it a fast check and then don’t check them anymore. Just see if it fires, that’s the only thing you want. It’s very fast. See? That could be done that way, or you could take all five of these things—the goal and the lines—and just read them all off to see if they all fire, see if there are any suppressions on them, you know. And clean them up, bang-bang, get them all firing, bong, and then go on to your session. Two ways you could go about this. Find out which one is best for you.

Now, you center his attention on the lines, of course, too solidly, in prepchecking the things, and he’ll start giving you answers, then you’re already in session. So that has some liability connected with it.

Now, your next action is to get the PC to list the first line down to a point where he says “And a ... uh ... uh ... let me see....” Let him see by all means. But if he sees for more than a few seconds you say, “Well, all right. That’s fine. We’ll get that one the next time we come around. Now, let’s start on this next line,” see? Let’s not leave him in thin air. And just list to the comm lag. Go straight along down the line. List to the comm lag. List to the comm lag. List to the comm lag.

Now, you’re going to get in trouble sooner or later because your lines are going to get ragged if you list to the comm lag. And that’s liable to upset you. So you take one of those times when he’s feeling very, very easy, and catch up a few items. And it’s a nice balance which you do. But if it’s straining him to think of any more items just to make you catch up, you abandon catching up. You got it? Because it’s not a quantitative process, after all. It’s the amount of now, see? It’s the amount of now that we’re interested in, not the number of items. And number of items is merely an approximation of keeping them level. That is a sloppy index of how much flow has been gotten off any one of these lines.

As far as checking the mid ruds is concerned, every time you turn around, you won’t have to do it if you list this way, which makes for very fast listing. But if you make yourself a bunch of mistakes—this is really when to use the mid ruds, a fast check of the mid ruds, not a repetitive check. If you make a big mistake, and this PC is going brrrrrr, and you say “Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much! Yeah, thank you! Yeah, thank you! Yeah, well I got that! Now, is there any other item that—a person or being there that would want to catch catfish?” And the PC is sitting there looking blanched, you know? He’s been struck dead. He’s halfway through an automaticity, and he can’t get it out.

Actually, recognize what’s happened to him. You’ve suppressed thirty or forty items, just like that. Bang! You didn’t quite see what you were doing, you know? You didn’t realize he was running off an automaticity and it was just tearing right on down the line, and you all of a sudden gave him a nice Tone 40 acknowledgment, see? Brought him into present time, put him into the session, crash, you see, all that sort of thing, and you just smell the rubber burning. 

You make a goof like that, don’t let him yap or get upset about it, just get in your mid ruds. Suppress—man, that is really going to be hot. You made him suppress the lot. Get the idea?

Or, if you were kind of sleepy and it was a summer afternoon, and you suddenly wake up to realize that the PC for five minutes has been sitting there saying various things like this: “Is it a large . . . a . . . a large tiger, a . . . a . . . a very—no, no, a tiger, a stri . . . a striped . . . I can’t quite get the word for this. A tiger with horns. No, that would not be right,” and so forth.

And you wake up suddenly, the PC has been going on like this for about five minutes—be an awfully good thing to get in the mid ruds. In other words, the mid ruds are something with which you pick up goofs. And if you’re really a smooth auditor you don’t goof.

Now, how many items does it take per line to list a goal out? How many items? What an interesting question. It’s almost philosophic in its impulse. It has a lot to do with how smoothly it was done, oddly enough. And the less smoothness it was done, the less in-sessionness it was done with, the more items you are going to have. So therefore you can’t say how many items should appear on a list as just a fait accompli. How many items, bang! You see? You can’t say that. But you sure can say that it isn’t going to be ten or fifteen. Ten or fifteen hundred? Now we’re getting more into the zone and order of magnitude.

But speaking, then, we’re only speaking for the first goal. How many is it for a second goal? How many is it for a third goal? How many is it for a fourth goal? Well, these things become shorter and shorter, these lines do.

So, how many clears the goal? Well, as many as you write down well and expertly to a point where the needle goes free. That’s how many it is. And it certainly is not going to be less than a thousand, I don’t think. We’ve got the third goal, I think you’re still within that order of magnitude. But I’m just guessing there.

The first goal, seven thousand items on each line I wouldn’t worry too much about it unless the TA has gone up and stuck and has been stuck for a long time, or something like this, you see? I wouldn’t worry about the number of items. I’ll tell you what to worry about in a minute. But the number of items isn’t something to worry about, you understand? Too few—God help us. That, no.

Now, of course you don’t ever null these items, and the PC is going to ask you, “Why are we writing them down?” It would be an interesting question: Why are we writing the items down?

Well, my answer to that is writing them down is a better acknowledgment and it’s a much better way to keep tabs on your lists, and there’s various reasons for writing them down. But amongst them isn’t nulling. We don’t ever do anything with these items. I don’t know anything to do with them.

Your PC at first will be rather puzzled as to which one it is. Well, of course, that’s the joke. It isn’t a Which one?”

He’s been going a long piece of track on that goals problem mass, man. He’s had an opportunity to collect an awful lot of identities. And the identities which he personally has picked up has had the opportunity to collect an awful lot of enemies. And he himself has collected an awful lot of things which oppose enemies. And he himself has had a very interesting taste for things which prevented him from doing his goal. He’ll begin to wonder after a while what possessed him. And all of these things combined make quantity. And the quantity is large.

All right. Now, let’s talk about how long a line is listed. It is listed exactly to free needle. It is not listed one item beyond free needle. Hear me now: not one item beyond the free needle. Not even one! Needle was free.

Now, the proper conduct of an auditor, when observing a free needle on a line, should be professional. He should not suddenly get hold of one of his favorite valences of a rodeo performer, start bucking about in the chair and trying to put a quirt to the E-Meter.

“A free needle! Ha-ha! Hey-hey! Ha-ha! Ha—that’s enough, it’s a free needle. Hey, do you want to come around and see this?” That is not optimum auditor conduct. It’s all right, because we can run the suppressions off.

But you’ll feel like that when you first see one. You go to the next line and list it to free needle or, if it doesn’t go to free needle, until the flow runs out as usual.

Sometimes one of them goes free, and three of them will stick for a while. Some of them then you’ve got two free, and the other two are sticking. And then sometimes you’ve got three free, and one is all hung up. And then eventually it goes free.

Well, the way to do that is you keep going one, two, three, four, see? This thing is stuck. This line is sticky; it’s not free. Come back here to your next line in sequence, see, and put one, two, three, free needle, see?

Now your needle is free when you go to your next line; your next line doesn’t upset it at all. Now, I can’t lay down a rule absolutely here, because it may not make the least bit of difference. But if you said the line to the PC and you get no needle reaction of any kind whatsoever and nothing happens to the needle, it might be very foolish to list it. So we go to the next line and we read the thing off and there’s no needle reaction of any kind to it, you see, and the needle is still free. And we come to the line we had that was sticky in the first place and it’s still sticky, now we list that thing on down until we get to a comm lag, and it’s still stuck. Well now, which line do we come back to next? Because nothing is cooling this thing down. Well, you’d better check them, hadn’t you?

Now, it won’t upset anybody if you put one item on each one of these lines. Now, we’re into a completely questionable area of what is the right thing to do? Experience will tell what is the right thing to do. I can’t give you a packaged answer, but I can tell you this: is don’t list beyond a free needle! Because it’s quite upsetting. It’s something like asking for a rudiment answer when there isn’t one, see?

And if I were to lay down an operating rule for myself on this, as something I would now be guided by, I would wade myself through this. I would read these other lines and see if I could get a stick, or a fall, see? Something.
 
And I’d get an item. And then I’d walk back to the line that was stuck, and I would list it till I got a comm lag. You get the idea? And I’d walk myself through this. And if I had three lines, all of which were giving a free needle, I wouldn’t test all three in rotation every time. I’d test one after the other. In other words, I’d take the sticky line, I’d list on it to a comm lag, and then I’d choose another one of these lines—not the one in rotation; I’d skip a rotation, see?—and then I’d list some more sticky needle and then I’d choose the third one that was free and test it now. You know, I’d just walk my way through this, sort of like on eggs. You get the idea?

And I wouldn’t list those lines. My instinct would be agin’ it. If I couldn’t get a fall or stick or any needle misbehavior on it, I don’t think I would touch them. I’d ask the PC if he had any items on these lines, but my auditing command would not be “Who-or-what-would-want-to-catch-catfish?” “Can you think of anything right now that—anything, anybody, want to catch catfish? No, you can’t. All right. Thank you. Huh-huh, that is—that’s fine. Thank you very much.” Get off of there, see?

PC said, “Yeah, I just thought . . . uh game wardens catch catfish every now and then.” And then you’ve set it down, see? All right. He just gave you that gratuitously; that’s to keep from missing withholds.

You’re at a touchy end of the case. And obviously to you it isn’t a touchy end of the case at all, because the PC is now practically Clear and a Clear can stand anything. That might be your reason. If the needle is this free, why, doesn’t matter how we treat the PC, does it?

Well, that’s the wrong kind of thinking. Because right at that stage of the game it is rather edgy, because you could take one of these free-needle lines and you could list it right on into a hole. In other words, you could stick it all up again. It’s already happened here, don’t think I’m just dealing on theory only. Overlisting has occurred.

All right. That’s enough for that. You can certainly list through to free needle on four lines.

Now, if one line consistently and continually hangs up, and you can’t make it go free, then you investigate the living daylights out of what is wrong with that particular line and see if you can find anything wrong with it at all. And see if you can get any variation of wording of that line to fire nicely and neatly, and continue listing on that new wording, and that line will go clean. Okay? That’s in case of emergency. Because there might have been, throughout, something wrong with that one line. See, you might have missed it. Already been done here, so it can happen. Three lines went free, one didn’t.

Well, when that happened before, your was in the fourth line. That your was enough to keep that line from going free. And an examination of it—only took a couple, three sessions of listing after that, and all four lines were free, just like that, see? So, suspect that if you get too much an inequality of this, and it’s hanging on too long, don’t let it go for months; look into it. Okay?

All right. Now, what are the dangers of listing? Number one, listing is auditing. It is auditing and must be treated as such. It is the only therapeutic action undertaken to free a goal—is merely listing. The pi: does not give out these answers analytically, no matter how bright and alert the PC might act. They’re all being dealt off the bottom of the deck, all out of the reactive mind, and you must not worry as to whether the PC is inventing answers or dreaming them up or thinking of them analytically or anything else. Just be calm about this. Look, there are enough things to worry about in auditing without inventing things.

No, just take what the PC gives you, man. Keep the session going and relax. See? All right.

Now, as you are starting in with the goal, you have a period of danger. And this period of danger begins at the moment of finding the goal and is over when you have proved beyond doubt that this goal, while being listed on all four lines, turns on pain on line one, sensation on line two, a little more sensation than pain on line three, and a little more pain than sensation on line four. And when you’ve proven that to your own complete satisfaction . . .

Well, look, you’re looking at me as though I should detail this more, but figure it out for yourself, man. Figure it out for yourself. Lines one and three belong to the PC. And lines two and four belong to the enemy. And the enemy is sensation and the PC is pain. That’s easy. And unless you get that optimum condition of affairs, that goal is wrong. And you better get off of that, hotter than hot and faster than fast.

Line one—here’s what makes a goal wrong: Line one turns on sensation. “Who or what would want to catch catfish?”

Dizzy, misemotional, groggy, “Uh-u-uhhh-ohhh,” see? Pressures.

“Who or what would oppose catching catfish?”

“Ouch! Oh, what a terrible pain went through my head. Oh, what an awful pain in my back. Oh, dear, dear, dear. Ohrrarr. Ohh, my—ouch!” See? It’s the wrong line! That should be turning on sensation; it’s turning on pain.

And we get to line three, which is the PC’s own line again, since it’s an allied line, and the person says, “Nyoom-m! Oh dear, still very dizzy and so on, so on and so on and so on and so on . . . Very dizzy, and there’s this little tiny pain in my ear, but that doesn’t amount to much. Sure makes you dizzy, doesn’t it?”

And he gets to line four, “Who or what would pull back your goal?”—you see, that’s the enemy, man—and, “Ouch! Urp! Pain went through the back there. What was that?”

Now look, that condition as a purity seldom exists. It won’t exist for very long. If you continue to list this it all becomes sen. Everything gets to be sen. But if you go too far on this, everything goes sen. The bank starts to become hard, beefy, lumpy. The person wakes up in the morning and the ridges he usually had are now really ridges. We’re getting an exaggeration of the situation. That bank is becoming heavy. It’s like running Creative Processing without having the goal “to create.”

And the PC will wake up in the morning, actually, and he’ll feel like there’s a board going through his head, see? Something like this. And he’s . . . And it all turns into sensation. It’s all dizzy, groggy, pressures, nausea, misemotion. Starts to feel like after a while he didn’t do anything to high blood pressure, probably, but he starts to feel like high blood pressure would be much more comfortable. You see, all four lines go to sen. That’s an interesting item, isn’t it?

Now, if all four lines went to pn, I wouldn’t worry. But if they all went to sen, to hell with it. Get out of there. You’re wrong. I don’t care what you think, you’re wrong! You got it? I don’t care what the PC says. That’s the wrong goal! Yeah, it read! Yeah, it’s fine. Yeah, it checked out. Yo. Yo, we had three instructors and the governor of Australia check it out! I don’t care about all those arguments! The line is wrong! because that is the final proof of a goal. You got it?

You haven’t got a goal until you have listed it two or three hundred items on each line, as the auditor. And that will save your bacon. Of course, if it checks out beautifully, PC got pain on it, bang, and so forth, you’re pretty sure, aren’t you? But the final test of any pudding is the listing. You go two, three hundred items deep on this thing; if it’s turning on pain in the right places and sen on the right places, and that sort of thing, oh boy, you’re in. Go for broke.

Now the only thing could happen wrong is you start listing with the rudiments out. Something crazy goes on in the PC’s life, he’s got PTPs like mad or rudiments are wildly out, or something of the sort, you see? And in a minor way—you see, checking the goal out every time is just a way of speeding this up. It won’t prevent clearing, and checking the lines out won’t prevent clearing by listing. They just blow it down.

But a wrong line will. A wrong line will prevent clearing. “Who or what would try awfully hard to oppose catching catfish?” And the next line to it is “Who or what would not want to catch catfish?” you see? And the next line down the line—all out of position, see, all misworded.

It would be too cruel an experiment—I have seen this in actual action— but you can take four lines, check them out, and then throw one. Now it will fire on a suggestion and an invalidation, see, and a mistake. You can get it to fire, of course, just like you can get a goal to fire. And now insist on listing that line. “Who or what would know he had to have to catch catfish?” And then put all the other ones down correctly.

The action of doing something like that is to bring the TA up to a stick. It’s almost exactly 4.5 to 6.0. Almost always. I haven’t ever seen a tone arm on a misworded line, or mislisting, or ARC-broke sessions, or overlisting in sessions—the errors you can make, in other words—that on goals listing didn’t go up to 4.5 and 5.0. I’m quite prepared to see one go up to 6.0, or to 7.0, or 3.75. I’m quite prepared to, you understand. But it just happens that every one I’ve seen have gone from 4.5 to 5.0 and then stick. They’ll stick at 4.5 or they’ll stick at 5.0. And more have stuck at 5.0 than at 4.5.

So when your tone arm starts lingering around 5.0 for a session, and next session lingers around 5.0, don’t be surprised if the third session your PC all of a sudden says, “Well, I was awfully dizzy. I was walking down the street, and I saw the buildings sort of reel.” You’re doing something weird. Something wild is going on here. Something’s happened. You got to straighten it out.

Now, what straightens out? How do you straighten one of these things out? Well, you locate what’s wrong. You better check out the goal and get it to fire again if you possibly can. Check out the lines, one after the other; see if there’s any disagreement from the PC on these lines or these wordings. That’s quite important. You’re not going to change them around just because he disagrees with them, but you’re going to sure make it’s answerable, if you can. Check out your sessioning in general (which isn’t really enough to keep it all hung up) and just straighten this thing out and get it to rolling again. That’s what you’re going to do.

Now, look: If you can’t straighten the goal out after you’ve listed a couple of hundred, if it ceases to fire after two or three hundred items on each one of four lists, it’s sort of “Which way did they go? What happened?” You got to get it back to firing again. Of course, if you can’t get it back to firing again, it was probably the wrong goal in the first place.

The method we’re using to find goals right now rather makes it very difficult to get a wrong goal. That makes it pretty difficult for you to get a wrong goal or run a wrong goal. That’s the beauty of it, and why I love that method. Ease of auditing and positiveness of finding the goal were enough to have this. And that’s not why I’m happy about it. It used to be that only an instructor or somebody who was specially trained in that little tiny technique of checkout—we could absolutely rely on the fact that it was the right goal.

Now, any of you guys, if you’re good enough to do nulling by mid ruds down to a point where you find a goal, you’re so used to checking them out that checking out a goal doesn’t phase you anymore. You’ll be able to actually look at a goal and say “Well, boom, let’s check it out.” Brrr, brrr. “To be a tiger”— tzal-tup-ub, bang, thud, bang. “Yeah, it doesn’t fire.” See, that’d be all there was to it, you know? “Let’s see, is there a suppression on there? That goal
 been suppressed? That isn’t a goal.” See? Positiveness enters into the picture. And that’s going to save an awful lot of bacons.

So, preventing the wrong goal from being found has been quite a campaign I’ve had to engage on here for quite a while, and actually what was marvelous is that this new nulling by mid ruds, not just for its value for the auditor, but to prevent wrong goals from being found, is worth its weight in planets, man, and it’s pretty heavy.

Now, this idea of finding a goal, finding it firing, and saying that is the person’s goal or agreeing that it as the person’s goal—that’s perfectly all right, because it can be run out. It’s an assertion, see? That’s all right. But when the PC keeps saying “No, it isn’t my goal” and the auditor keeps saying “Yes, it is your goal,” a ridge is built up which is pretty hard to take apart. And it will keep a goal firing. So don’t argue over somebody’s goal or you’ll make it fire and fire and fire, and its not his goal. You get the suppressions, invalidation’s off it, he’ll agree with it if it’s his goal, and if it isn’t his goal, he won’t.

You could find an opposition goal. This is the other thing that could be wrong. You could find an opposition goal. Now, I don’t know that by nulling by mid ruds you will find an opposition goal. I don’t know too much about finding opposition goals, as distinct from finding goals. I can’t give you much data on this, actually, because I’ve never seen an opposition goal that would fire after it has been prepchecked and nulled by mid ruds. You understand? So there’s always the possibility that opposition goals actually only fired because they were invalidation’s of the goal or something. You get the idea? And they might not have had rocket reads on them at all, you see?

And somebody the other day came up with a reverse rocket read on a goal, and immediately proposed it was probably an opposition goal, which I thought was very interesting. So if you see that sort of thing, let me know. But I don’t know that you can get a rocket read on an opposition goal. I don’t know that it isn’t just the invalidation of the goal that makes the opposition goal fire.

Well, you’re fairly secure if you have found the goal and checked it out. But don’t be too cocky until you’ve got two hundred on a line. And if you found a goal and then turned it over to somebody to list, remember to reach out, by the time they got three hundred on each line or something like that, and say to the PC, “How are you doing? How do you feel? All right. When they ask you so-and-so and so-and-so, where does the somatic come?”

And the person says, “Well, it’s so and so on.”

“Now, what kind of a somatic is it? Is it a sensation, or is it painful or what is it? And what line is it on?” And check it all out yourself, you got the idea? You know, don’t read the auditor’s report. That’s a good prevention.

Otherwise than that, you realize that somebody who is trained to HCA level could be quite competent in listing. And listing is the longest part of clearing. So if you had somebody helping you in auditing and you kept your eye on the situation, a person with less training than is necessary to find goals could list goals, and because he was doing this sort of thing and doing some Prepchecking and so forth as he went along, he would actually get up to a point where he could locate goals. So it’s a good training school, listing is. See?

Now, that lengthens the number of people you could clear by three or four times. See?

Now, you got to know all about listing and you should list somebody to Clear just to see how it looks and get the experience and that sort of thing, but I don’t expect you to list every goal to Clear that you find. It’d be a much more economic situation for you to find the goal and then keep your eagle eye beagled on the somebody who is listing it out.

Now, how about auto-listing? Well, there is no telling. I won’t say that auto-listing is impossible. I don’t believe that it is possible or impossible, at this particular stage of the game. I believe that it would be better than nothing. Let me put it that way. But to tell somebody to go home and list on four lists and you will look into it in a couple of weeks, it seems to me like it’s sort of taking his life in your hands! You know? I wouldn’t be sure about this at all. But I would say this—I would say this: that if you were on a desert island and you knew your goal, and you knew exactly what the goal is and it’d been expertly checked out, and there was absolutely no way under the sun for you to get Clear any other way, I would say that you should pick up a pencil and a piece of palm bark. But we would know more about that in due course.

Now, these are the various ramifications to listing. Clearing itself consists of the cycle of finding a goal and then listing it until you have a free needle on each of four lines, finding another goal and listing it on each of four lines, Ending another goal and listing it on each of four lines. And the state of case is regulated by the number of goals the person has which have not been found and listed. Those are damping factors.

Now, here at Saint Hill it’s fairly simple to make a first-goal Clear—not simple, but with heroic activities (let us put it that way), we can make a first-goal Clear.

Now, to find a second goal on a PC, and list that one out, this is getting much more difficult. We have just now found and checked out a second goal on Jean, and that was very, very good news, that I was very happy about. And at least it was stated to me in so many words that it was checked out today. Was it?

Female Voice: Hm-hm.

Yeah. All right, that’s a second goal. Okay, now she’s got a little time to list on this second goal. And I think they possibly even may list it out because the listing, very possibly, is much shorter than a first goal. But we know more about that in due course.

She’s already starting to depart from the standard state of Clear, or such a person is already starting to depart from what we have considered Clear. They’re starting to move up into Theta Clear or something like that, and it’s an adventure from there on out, because these various states, now, of course are not regulated in any way by different processes to different conditions. It’s a gradient scale of the same condition all the way, of course.

Now, I can’t even tell you how many goals it is to OT. See? Or how long it’d take you to find and list each one of these goals. I was very happy to find today that the second goal would fire so nicely. Nice. I was told they had good rocket reads on the thing. See? I was very happy about that.

Somewhere up the line, why, the goals are not going to stay in. They’re going to start blowing. But how far do you have to keep the goals not blowing to get OT? See?

But that is the road that we are on, basically. And it’s a repetition of the same action.

The only improvement which I see in auditing which is coming immediately up, and so on, is a mechanical improvement. That is to say, a persistency of read—devices to make a read more persistent and therefore more observable by an auditor.

I don’t see any changes to amount to anything on clearing as such. I do see some dodges one could do to probably shorten up finding a goal. And I see some frills one could add onto listing that would possibly shorten the thing up one way or the other. But I don’t look for any fabulous advance from along that line. I don’t. Because there are certain limitations that you hit, and the limitation is that the person has got just that much case, and they have to sit there just that long, and they can talk just that fast. Get the idea? All right.
 
And maybe when we’re all OT, why, maybe we’ll look back over the whole thing again, and we’ll say it would have been much easier had we done it this way. And I hope that we’re in that condition and don’t have to do it some other way.

Those are the improvements I look for in clearing. I really don’t look for many other improvements. But I do look for improvements that’ll take little shortcuts—little faster, something that is more valuable to do this than to do that, you know, little things along the line.

And we may carve it down, we may carve it down considerably. We may use various systems Of auditing. Just given you one tonight: You find the goal, let am HPA list it, see, under your eye. Therefore you’ve lost two hundred hours Of auditing, just like that. Various other mechanisms of this character can be fine, and we can step it up into quantitative clearing. Our problem now is quantitative clearing.

My immediate problem is to get some of you to read an E-Meter better. Well, I’m solving that with drills and attention and various things, and I’m also double-solving it by making sure that a persistent-read E-Meter comes into existence in the very near future that can be hooked up to a Mark IV and red lights go on and pinball’s dials go around when you hit a read, see, and it stays on until you do something about it or something like that.

But I have actually no quarrel—no real quarrel with your drills, no real quarrel with your auditing presence, no real quarrel with these things. I see just this metering that’s being a problem. And we’ll get that licked.

I have a problem of how many of you can I push on through to first-goal Clears in a space of time, when the fellow alongside of you can’t read an E-Meter and neither can you. You know? Some of you are in that condition, and that’s worrying me. I got these various problems, but I haven’t got any technical problems now. I haven’t got any. I’m not even worrying about what’s in the guts of this meter. I just told them, well, what we need is an idiot meter. You have an on-and-off switch and a red light. When you say something to the PC the red light goes on. Or it doesn’t go on. And if it goes on you clean it up, see, and if it doesn’t go on, you don’t clean it up. Idiot meter! These things we’ll have. These things we’ll have.

I can undoubtedly find where we can best expect the goal to appear on a list, and therefore cut down the number of goals we have to null in order to find the goal, you know? Do various other tricks of this character. But as far as technology is concerned, we got it made, and you’re doing it. And the only thing some Of you are doing wrong is you’re missing a few reads, see? Well, that’s all I got to cure, so that’s easy. That’s that.

Thank you very much.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 OCTOBER 1962
Central Orgs 
Franchise
ROUTINE 3GA
LISTING

The reason some pcs go to clear on listing and the reason some don’t at once lies entirely with the auditor.

The dominant rules are two:

1. 	Don’t force the pc to list more items than he has, and
2. 	Don’t prevent the pc from giving items.

The number of ways an auditor can dream up, or overlook, to violate 1 and 2 above are countless.

Example:

If pc can’t answer the line easily skip, omit or change it, DON’T Tiger Drill it to force an answer.

LISTING IS NOT PREPCHECKING. You don’t wait for the pc to say he has no more before you stop asking a line. THE AUDITOR REGULATES HIS QUESTION BY THE PC’S COMM LAG. When the pc first comm lags (without asking for a repeat of the Line wording) the auditor comes off the line. The auditor doesn’t ask the line again just “to make sure” or ask the pc “do you have any more”. Asking it again when the pc has comm lagged leaves, amongst other things, an unanswered auditing question.

The line is asked. The pc answers until he or she comm lags. The auditor then acks and goes instantly to next line. If the pc says he has more on the old line, the auditor says “sorry” and takes them.

A LINE IS RUN TO FIRST COMM LAG. How long is a comm lag? It is the pause before the strained grope.

A pc’s decline in answering goes as follows:

1. 	Bright rapid giving.
2. 	Comm lag while looking.
3. 	Groping for more.
4. 	Comm lag while groping.
5. 	Can’t quite say it.
6. 	Starts picking up and rejecting.

From 3 above onward the auditor is at fault. Right at the end of 2 the auditor acks and gives the pc the next line.

The auditor takes only the bright, easily gotten flows.

If the pc goes fumbling and groggy the auditor is at fault and is doing wrong.

Listing is a rapid action. The way to keep it rapid is to deftly see that the pc has given all and then get out of there!

Auditors whose pcs dope and grope will soon have pcs that mope.

The auditor avoids Q and A. The auditor never repeats an item back to the pc or asks if it fits on the line. The auditor’s role is permissive with good presence.

If the auditor does not understand an item he or she says so but does not include any repeat of the item in saying so. That’s evaluation.

Listing is slightly contrary to early auditing philosophy. Then, if the pc protested, the auditor forced the pc to answer. In listing this is never done.

Then, if the pc comm lagged, the auditor flattened it. In listing one never flattens a comm lag. One shifts the moment the first comm lag appears, but without startling the pc.

Listing auditing is different. The pc is always right. In listing if you trick a pc into more items and prevent the pc from giving those items he has readily to hand, the whole case may have to be patched up before it will clear.

It is so easy to list right as an auditor that many will fumble all over the place before they get the knack. And almost all errors will be additive errors.

Listing is the biggest barrier to clear now that we can find goals.

Other listing methods may appear, but these will only alter What lines. Nothing is going to alter the above, so you better learn it.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 AUGUST 1968

Remimeo

CLASS III, SOLO VI & VII, ACADEMY AND SHSBC
REQUIRED REVIEWED FOR SOLO AND VII

(Compiled from earlier HCOBs and TAPES of
the early 60’s to give the exact stable data)

THE LAWS OF LISTING AND NULLING

(Star Rate. No attestations
allowed, clay and demos required)

The following laws are the ONLY important rules of listing and nulling. If an auditor doesn’t know these he will mess up pcs thoroughly and awfully. An auditor who doesn’t know and can’t apply these is not a Level III auditor.

LAWS

1. 	The definition of a complete list is a list which has only one reading item on list.

2. 	A TA rising means the list is being overlisted (too long).

3. 	A list can be underlisted in which case nothing can be found on nulling.

4. 	If after a session the TA is still high or goes up, a wrong item has been found.

5. 	If pc says it is a wrong item it is a wrong item.

6. 	The question must be checked and must read as a question before it is listed. An item listed from a non-reading question will give you a “Dead Horse” (no item).

7. 	If the item is on the list and nothing read on nulling, the item is suppressed or invalidated.

8. 	On a suppressed list, it must be nulled with suppressed. “On ....has anything been suppressed.”

9. 	On an item that is suppressed or invalidated the read will transfer exactly from the item to the button and when the button is gotten in the item will again read.

10. 	An item from an overlisted list is often suppressed.

11. 	On occasion when you pass the item in nulling, all subsequent items will read to a point where everything on list will then read. In this case take the first which read on first nulling.

12. 	An underlisted and overlisted list will ARC break the pc and he may refuse to be audited until list is corrected, and may become furious with auditor and will remain so till it is corrected.

13. 	Listing and nulling or any auditing at all beyond an ARC Br without handling the ARC Break first such as correcting the list or otherwise locating it will put a pc into a “sad effect”.

 14. 	A pc whose attention is on something else won’t list easily. (List and null only with the rudiments in on the pc.)

15. 	An auditor whose TRs are out has difficulty in listing and nulling and in finding items.

16. 	Listing and nulling errors in presence of Auditor’s Code violations can unstabilize a pc.

17. 	The lack of a specific listing question or an incorrect non-standard listing question which doesn’t really call for item will give you more than one item reading on a list.

18. 	You cease listing and nulling actions when a floating needle appears.

19. 	Always give a pc his item and circle it plainly on the list.

20. 	Listing and nulling are highly precise auditing actions and if not done exactly by the laws may bring about a down tone and slow case gain, but if done correctly exactly by the laws and with good auditing in general will produce the highest gains attainable.

NOTE: There are no variations or exceptions to the above. (Does not alter 5A Power procedure.)

A failure to know and apply this bulletin will result in the assignment of very low conditions as these laws, if not known or followed, can halt case gain.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 AUGUST 1966
Remimeo
All Exec Hats
Qual Hats
Tech Hats
HCO Hats	
FLOATING NEEDLES, LISTING PROCESSES

In sessions where the process being run on a pc involves a listing question (including S & D), please note that after the listing question has been thoroughly cleared with the preclear and then given to the pc that the process is being run.

Should it happen, then, that while the pc is actually listing off the question (and has not gone momentarily out of session), the needle floats, this is the flat point or end phenomenon of the process and the whole subject and all further steps of it are dropped at once.

Whatever charge was on the listing question has blown, either with or without the preclear being analytically aware of it.

To continue the process beyond this point is Out Tech by the process being overrun and is also a violation of our basic Fast Flow System.

Please note that whether there is a second leg to the process or not, like fitting an item found off a list into a bracket of commands, has no bearing on the fact that the process is flat.

If the needle floats while the pc is in session listing off a question, then there is no charge left on that question and there will be no item to fit into the second leg of the process.

The process has served its purpose.

With training as immaculately precise as it is and auditors’ comm cycles becoming effortlessly superlative, the gradients of our technology are so fine that the results of each process on each level will be achieved faster and faster.

Sometimes the velocity of the processing is such that the end phenomenon will occur on the process without the preclear being aware of what has happened. Ending the process at this point then gives the preclear the chance to move into the velocity of the process.

Please then acknowledge the power of our technology and keep winning.

LRH:lb-r.cden                                 				L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright ©1966 
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

20 AUGUST 1970R
REVISED & REISSUED 19 AUGUST 1974 AS BTB

(REVISION IN ITALICS)
All Cksheets		           
Class III			           		     
CANCELS
HCO BULLETIN OF 20 AUGUST 1970
SAME TITLE

TWO COMPLETE DIFFERENCES

ASSESSMENT

LISTING AND NULLING

ASSESSMENT IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SUBJECT FROM LISTING AND NULLING.

LISTING AND NULLING IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SUBJECT FROM ASSESSMENT.

Please get these differences very clearly. They are completely different actions. They are even years apart in development. They have nothing to do with each other.

ASSESSMENT

Assessment is an action done from a prepared list. A PREPARED list.

The list is prepared by the Auditor or the C/S or it is an HCOB of prepared lists. It is done by someone other than the PC.

The prepared list for an Assessment is not made up by the preclear.

Assessment is done exactly per the Book of E-Meter Drills, Number 24.

Assessment is NOT done by the Laws of Listing and Nulling.

Assessment has nothing to do with S & Ds, Remedy A or Remedy B (which are Listing and Nulling actions).

Assessment is not auditing. It is simply trying to locate something to audit.

You say the words on the prepared list right to the PC’s bank, bang, bang, marking the reads, and go through the list of reading items until you are left with one reading item. That is the item.

To get a clue as to what happened, the C/S prepares a list, and the Auditor starts assessing with the list already written out,

The Auditor calls out each item and notes its read as follows:

lions  X
Big Game  SF

Cats  X

Felines  SF

Tigers  X

Bearers  X

Trucks  X

 Elephants  X

Killing

Camping  X

Three items are now reading after the first assessment . The Auditor continues to assess the reading items on the list by elimination down to ONE item. On the second assessment the list looks like this:

lions  X

Big Game  SF  X

Cats  X

Felines  SF  X

Tigers  X

Bearers  X

Trucks  X

Elephants  X

Killing  F  LFBD

Camping  X

Now the item left in is “Killing”.  It is circled.

That is the item.  The C/S now knows where the charge lies.

This item is prepchecked or done on an L1 as a subject or otherwise handled as directed by the C/S.

Sometimes some items will read three or four times, but the action is the same. The Auditor assesses the reading items by elimination down to one item. And that is all there is to it. If the item “killing” also had an F/N, the item would not be handled further as the charge will have blown.

LISTING AND NULLING

Listing and Nulling is an action whereby the PC gives items in answer to the Auditor’s listing question-

It is the Preclear who lists. Listing and Nulling is listed by the preclear. This is done precisely per the Laws of Listing and Nulling. (HCOB 1 August 1968).

There is no Listing and Nulling drill in the Book of E-Meter Drills.

The Auditor asks the listing question, if it reads he asks the PC the question, the PC answers, item, item, item, item. The Auditor writes the items down as the PC gives them noting the read or no read as the PC gives the item. The Auditor then nulls the list per the Laws of Listing and Nulling.

In Listing and Nulling, there should be ONLY ONE reading item on the list after nulling.

You don’t go over and over the reading items by a process of elimination. You may extend the list if more than one item is reading on nulling.

In its finest form, Listing and Nulling is done to LFBD F/N.

The Auditor says the listing question to the PC, checks whether it read and notes the reads per Number 6 of the Laws of Listing and Nulling.

Ideally, the following would happens.

The Auditor checks the question “Who got shot?” It gets a long fall, so it is reading well. Auditor writes the read beside the question. Then the Auditor gives the PC the question with good TR 8, and PC gives items. The Auditor writes the PC’s items down, noting whether the item read and the read as the PC gives it. The first reads therefore is always the read the item gave as the PC said it.

“Who got shot?” LF

Me  X

Joe  X

Bearers

Elephants  X

Tigers

The Buffalo  X

IND.	The White Hunter LFBD F/N

Bearers  F  X

Elephants  F  X

Tigers  F  X

The Buffalo  X  X

EXT

The Dog  X  X

IND	The White Hunter LFBD LFBD F/N

“The White Hunter will BD F/N because it is the item. The Auditor gives the item to the PC. The PC will have Cogs and VGIs. It might happen that the PC tells the Auditor that this is the item, at which point the Auditor would pleasantly say “thank you. ‘The White Hunter’ is your item.” of he could just smile and say “Thank you”, in acknowledgment. But the point is that he would never chop the PC’s Cog or enforce his presence on the PC while this is happening.

GOOD TRs ARE VITAL.

And this is the way you do Listing and Nulling.

You get an LFBD F/N while Listing or while Nulling, if you’re a flubless Auditor. It is the finest hand that gets it while Listing and never has to get to the Nulling stage. However, both are excellent. A list that has to be nulled to cm LFBD item is acceptable, but not worthy of praise.

There is of course one other place where you could get an LFBD F/N in Listing and Nulling - which is while checking the listing question for read before listing. You could get an F/N on checking the question, and the PC could start cogging and blow the whole subject. When that happens, the subject has blown. Don’t do anything more with it. Indicate the F/N and let the PC have his Cog and VGIs.

Listing and Nulling is so simple. Have perfect TRs, know the Laws of Listing and Nulling, and do it as shown above.

Any Auditor who consistently cannot get an LFBD F/N while Listing and Nulling should retrain on Listing and Nulling. It is more than likely he’ll find he has bought some one else’s misunderstoods or considerations on the subject.

As a matter of fact, Listing and Nulling is a breeze and don’t let anyone try to tell you otherwise.

Prepared from LRH lectures,
C/Ses and HCOBs
by CS-4

Revised & 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:JR:mh
Copyright © 1970, 1974
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 MAY 1970

Remimeo

UNREADING QUESTIONS AND ITEMS

(With particular reference to doing
a Group Engram Intensive)

Never list a listing question that doesn’t read.

Never prepcheck an item that doesn’t read.

These rules hold good for all lists, all items, even DIANETICS.

A “tick” or a “stop” is not a read. Reads are small falls or falls or long falls or long fall blowdown (of TA).

A preclear’s case can be gotten into serious trouble by listing a list that doesn’t read or prepchecking or running an item that doesn’t read.

On a list, this is the sort of thing that happens:

The List is “Who or what would fly kites?” The C/S has said to “List this to a BD F/N Item”. So the auditor does list it without checking the read at all. The list can go on 99 pages with the pc protesting, getting upset. This is called a “Dead horse list” because it gave no item. The reason it didn’t was that the list question itself didn’t read. One does an L4 on the pc to correct the situation and gets “Unnecessary action”.

On a list that is getting no item you don’t extend. You correctly use L4 or any subsequent issue of it. If you extend a “dead horse list” you just make things worse. Use an L4 and it will set it right.

This weird thing can also happen. C/S says to list “Who or what would kill buffaloes?” The auditor does, gets a BD F/N Item “A Hunter”. The C/S also says to list as a second action “Who or what would feel tough?” The auditor fails to test the Question for read and lists it. Had he tested it, the list would not have read. But the list comes up with an item, “A mean hunter”. It has stirred up charge from the first question and the item “A mean hunter” is a wrong item as it is a misworded variation of the first list’s item! Now we have an unnecessary action and a wrong item. We do an L4 and the pc is still upset as maybe only one or the other of the two errors read.
____________

In a Dianetic “list” one is not doing a listing action. One is only trying to find a somatic or sensation, etc that will run. The item must read well. Or it won’t produce a chain to run. In actual fact the Dn list Q does usually read but one doesn’t bother to test it.

But an item that doesn’t read will produce no chain, no basic and the pc will jump around the track trying but just jamming up his bank.

The moral of this story is:

ALWAYS TEST A LISTING QUESTION BEFORE LETTING THE PC LIST.

ALWAYS MARK THE READ IT GAVE (sF, F, LF, LFBD) ON THE WORKSHEET.

ALWAYS TEST AN ITEM FOR READ BEFORE PREPCHECKING OR RUNNING RECALL OR ENGRAMS.

ALWAYS MARK THE READ AN ITEM GAVE (sF, F, LF, LFBD) ON THE WORKSHEET.

CHARGE

The whole subject of “charge” is based on this. “Charge” is the electrical impulse on the case that activates the meter.

“Charge” shows not only that an area has something in it. It also shows that the pc has possible reality on it.

A pc can have a broken leg, yet it might not read on a meter. It would be charged but below the pc’s reality. So it won’t read.

THINGS THAT DON’T READ WON’T RUN.

The Case Supervisor always counts on the AUDITOR to test Questions and Items for read before running them.

The auditor, when a Question or Item doesn’t read, can and should always put in “Suppress” and “Invalidate”. “On this (Question) (Item), has anything been Suppressed?” “On this (Question) (Item), has anything been Invalidated?” If either one read, the question or item will also read. The Case Supervisor also counts on the AUDITOR to use Suppress and Invalidate on a Question or Item. If after this there is still no read on the Question or Item, that’s it. Don’t use it, don’t list it. Go to the next action on the C/S or end off.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 FEBRUARY 1971
Remimeo
HGC Auditor
Checksheet	C/S Series 24
Academy Level 0
Checksheet
Dn Cse Checksheet	IMPORTANT

METERING READING ITEMS

(NOTE: Observation I have recently done while handling a C/S line has resulted in a necessary clarification of the subject of “a reading item or question” which improves older definitions and saves some cases.)

It can occasionally happen that an auditor misses a read on an item or question and does not run it as it “has not read”. This can hang up a pc badly if the item was in fact a reading item or question. It does not get handled and exists in records as “No read” when in fact it DID read.

THEREFORE ALL DIANETIC AUDITORS WHOSE ITEMS OCCASIONALLY “DON’T READ” AND ALL SCIENTOLOGY AUDITORS WHO GET LIST QUESTIONS THAT DON’T READ MUST BE CHECKED OUT ON THIS HCO B IN QUAL OR BY THE C/S OR SUPERVISOR.

These errors come under the heading of Gross Auditing Errors as they affect metering.

1. 	An Item or Question is said to “Read” when the needle falls. Not when it stops or slows on a rise. A tick is always noted and in some cases becomes a wide read.

2. 	The read is taken when the pc first says it or when the question is cleared. THIS is the valid time of read. It is duly marked (plus any blow down). THIS reading defines what  is a reading item or question. CALLING IT BACK TO SEE IF IT READ IS NOT A VALID TEST as the surface charge may be gone but the item or question will still run or list.

3. 	Regardless of any earlier statements or material on READING ITEMS, an item does not have to read when the auditor calls it to be a valid item for running engrams or listing. The test is did it read when the pc first said it on originating it or in Clearing it?

4. 	That an item or question is marked as having read is sufficient reason to run it or use it or list it. Pc Interest, in Dianetics, is also necessary to run it, but that it did not read again is no reason to not use it.

5. 	When listing items the auditor must have an eye on the meter NOT necessarily the pc and must note on the list he is making the extent of read and any BD and how much. THIS is enough to make it a “reading item” or “reading question”.

6. 	In Clearing a listing Question the auditor watches the meter, NOT necessarily the pc and notes any read while clearing the question.

7. 	An additional calling of the item or question to see if it read is unnecessary and not a valid action if the item or question read on origination or Clearing.

8. 	That an item is marked as having read on an earlier Dianetic list is enough (also checking interest) to run it with no further read test.

9. 	To miss seeing a read on an origin or clearing is a Gross Auditing Error.

10. 	Failing to mark on the list or worksheet the read and any BD seen during pc origination or clearing the question is a Gross Auditing Error.
EYESIGHT

Auditors who miss reads or have poor eyesight should be tested and should wear the proper glasses while auditing.

GLASSES

The rims of some glasses could obstruct seeing the meter while the auditor is looking at the worksheet or pc.

If this is the case the glasses should be changed to another type with broader vision.

WIDE VISION

A good auditor is expected to see his meter, pc and worksheet all at one time. No matter what he is doing he should always notice any meter movement if the meter needle moves.

If he cannot do this he should use an Azimuth Meter and not put paper over its glass but should do his worksheet looking through the glass at his pen and the paper—the original design purpose of the Azimuth Meter. Then even while writing he sees the meter needle move as it is in his line of vision.

CONFUSIONS

Any and all confusions as to what is a “reading item” or “reading question” should be fully cleaned up on any auditor as such omissions or confusions can be responsible for case hang-ups and needless repairs.

NO READ

Any comment that an item or question “did not read” should be at once suspected by a C/S and checked with this HCO B on the auditor.

Actually non-Reads, a non-reading item or question means one that did not read when originated or cleared and also did not read when called.

One can still call an item or question to get a read. That it now reads is fine. But if it has never read at all, the item will not run and such a list will produce no item on it.

It is not forbidden to call an item or question to test it for read. But it is a useless action if the item or question read on origination by the pc or clearing it with him.

IMPORTANT

The data in this HCO B, if not known, can cost case failures. Thus it must be checked out on auditors.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 DECEMBER 1968 REVISED

(Amends HCO Bulletin of 9 January 1968 List L4A)
(ITEM 6 CORRECTED 12 FEBRUARY 1969)

Remimeo	
(Amended 8 August 1970)
(Amended 18 March 1971 )
(Revised 2 June 72)

L4BR
FOR ASSESSMENT OF ALL LISTING ERRORS

ASSESS THE WHOLE LIST  (METHOD 5) THEN TAKE Biggest reads or BDs and handle. Then clean up the list.

PC’S NAME                             	DATE________________

AUDITOR _______________________________________

1. 	DID YOU FAIL TO ANSWER THE LISTING QUESTION? 
	(If it reads, find out what question, clear the question noting whether it reads, if so, list it, find the item and give it to the pc.)
2. 	WAS THE LIST UNNECESSARY? 
	(If it reads, indicate BPC and indicate that it was an unnecessary action.)
2A. 	DID THE QUESTION HAVE NO CHARGE ON IT? 
	(Indicate.)
2B. 	WERE YOU ASHAMED TO CAUSE AN UPSET? 
	(L 1 C after list corrected. )
2C. 	WERE YOU AMAZED TO REACT THAT WAY? 
	(Same as 2B. )
2D. 	THE QUESTION HAD ALREADY BEEN LISTED BEFORE. 
	(Indicate rehab.)
2E. 	YOU HAD NO INTEREST IN THE QUESTION? 
	(Indicate that the auditor missed that it didn’t read.)
3. 	WAS THE ACTION DONE UNDER PROTEST? 
	(If it reads, handle by itsa earlier similar itsa.)
4. 	IS A LIST INCOMPLETE? 
	(If reads, find out what list and complete it, give the pc his item.)
5. 	HAS A LIST BEEN LISTED TOO LONG? 
	(If so, find what list and get the item off from it by nulling with suppress, the nulling question being: “On ____has anything been suppressed?”, for each item on the overlong list. Give the pc his item.)
6. 	HAVE WE TAKEN THE WRONG ITEM OFF A LIST? 
	(If this reads, put in Suppress and Invalidated on the list and null as in 5. above and find the right item and give to the pc.)
7. 	HAS A RIGHT ITEM BEEN DENIED YOU? 
	(If this reads, find out what it was and clean it up with Suppress and Invalidate and give it to the pc.)
8. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN PUSHED OFF ON YOU YOU DIDN’T WANT? 
	(If so, find it and get in Suppress and Invalidate on it and tell pc it wasn’t his item and continue the original action to find the correct item.)
9. 	HAD AN ITEM NOT BEEN GIVEN YOU? 
	(If reads, handle as in 7.)
10. 	HAVE YOU INVALIDATED A CORRECT ITEM FOUND? 
	(If so, rehab the item and find out why the pc invalidated it or if somebody else did it, clean it up and give it to pc again.)
11. 	HAVE YOU THOUGHT OF ITEMS THAT YOU DID NOT PUT ON THE LIST?
 	(If so, add them to the correct list. Renull the whole list and give the pc the item. )
12. 	HAVE YOU BEEN LISTING TO YOURSELF OUT OF SESSION? 
	(If so, find out what question and try to write a list from recall and get an item and give it to the pc.)
13. 	HAVE YOU BEEN GIVEN SOMEBODY ELSE’S ITEM? 
	(If so, indicate to the pc this was not his item. Don’t TRY to find whose it was. )
14. 	HAS YOUR ITEM BEEN GIVEN TO SOMEONE ELSE? 
	(If so, find if possible what item it was and give it to the pc. Don’t try to identify the “somebody else”.)
14A.	WERE EARLIER LISTING ERRORS RESTIMULATED? 
	(Indicate and correct earlier lists then check the current)
14B.	HAD THIS LIST ALREADY BEEN HANDLED? 
	(Indicate. )
15. 	HAS A RELEASE POINT BEEN BY-PASSED ON LISTING? 
	(If so, indicate the overrun to the pc, rehab back.)
16. 	HAS A RELEASE POINT BEEN BY-PASSED ON THE QUESTION ONLY? 
	(If so, indicate the overrun to the pc and rehab back.)
17. 	HAVE YOU GONE EXTERIOR WHILE LISTING? 
	(If so, rehab. If Ext Rundown not given, note for C/S.)
18. 	HAS IT BEEN AN OVERT TO PUT AN ITEM ON A LIST? 
	(If so, find out what item and why.)
19. 	HAVE YOU WITHHELD AN ITEM FROM A LIST? 
	(If so, get it and add it to the list if that list available. If not put item in the report. )
20. 	HAS A WITHHOLD BEEN MISSED? 
	(If so, get it, if discreditable ask “Who nearly found out?”)
21. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN BY-PASSED? 
	(Locate which one.)
22. 	WAS A LISTING QUESTION MEANINGLESS? 
	(If so, find out which one and indicate to the pc.)
23. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN ABANDONED? 
	(If so, locate it and get it back for the pc and give it to him.)
24. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN PROTESTED? 
	(If so, locate it and get the protest button in on it.)
25. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN ASSERTED? 
	(If so, locate it and get in the assert button on it.)
26. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN SUGGESTED TO YOU BY ANOTHER? 
	(If so, get it named and the protest and refusal off.)
27. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN VOLUNTEERED BY YOU AND NOT ACCEPTED? 
	(If so, get off the charge and give it to the pc, or if he then changes his mind on it, go on with the listing operation.)
28. 	HAS THE ITEM ALREADY BEEN GIVEN? 
	(If so, get it back and give it again.)
29. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN FOUND PREVIOUSLY?
	(If so, find what it was again and give it to pc once more.)
30. 	HAS AN ITEM NOT BEEN UNDERSTOOD?
    	(If so, work it over with buttons until pc understands it or accepts or rejects it and go on with listing.)
30A.	WAS THE LISTING QUESTION NOT UNDERSTOOD?
    	(Get defined and check for read. It may be unreading. If so, indicate that an uncharged question was listed because it read on a misunderstood.)
30B.	WAS A WORD IN THE QUESTION NOT UNDERSTOOD?
	(Same as 30A.)
31. 	WAS AN ITEM DIFFERENT WHEN SAID BY THE AUDITOR?
	(If so, find out what the item was and give it to the pc correctly.)
31A.	DID THE AUDITOR SUGGEST ITEMS TO YOU THAT WERE NOT YOURS?
	(Indicate as illegal to do so. Correct the list removing these.)
32. 	WAS NULLING CARRIED ON PAST THE FOUND ITEM?
	(If so, go back to it and get in Suppress and Protest.)
33. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN FORCED ON YOU?
    	(If so, get off the reject and suppress and get the listing action completed to the right item if possible.)
34. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN EVALUATED?
	(If so, get off the disagreement and protest.)
35. 	HAD EARLIER LISTING BEEN RESTIMULATED?
	(If so, locate when and indicate the by-passed charge.)
36. 	HAS AN EARLIER WRONG ITEM BEEN RESTIMULATED?
	(If so, find when and indicate the by-passed charge.)
37. 	HAS AN EARLIER ARC BREAK BEEN RESTIMULATED?
	(If so, locate and indicate the fact by itsa earlier similar itsa.)
38. 	DO YOU HAVE AN ARC BREAK BECAUSE OF BEING MADE TO DO THIS?
	(If so, indicate it to the pc, check the question if reads. Get earlier similar itsa.)
39. 	HAS THE LIST CORRECTION BEEN OVERRUN?
	(If so, rehab.)
39A.	WAS THE LIST DONE WHILE YOU ALREADY HAD AN ARC BRK, PTP, OR W/H?
39B.	COULDN’T YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS BEING DONE?
39C.	COULDN’T YOU UNDERSTAND THE AUDITOR?
39D.	DIDN’T THE AUDITOR ACKNOWLEDGE YOU?
40. 	IS THERE SOME OTHER KIND OF BY-PASSED CHARGE?
	(If so, find what and indicate it to pc.)
41. 	WAS THERE NOTHING WRONG IN THE FIRST PLACE?
	(If so, indicate it to pc.)
42. 	HAS THE UPSET BEEN HANDLED?
	(If so, indicate it to the pc.)
43. 	HAS A LIST PROCESS BEEN OVERRUN?
	(If so, find which one and rehab.)

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

LRH:ldm.rw.dz.rr.nt.bh 
Copyright ©1968, 1972 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 AUGUST 1968
Remimeo
LEVEL III
IMPORTANT—STAR RATED

R 3 H
(Takes precedence over all other HCOBs & Tapes)

The way to handle the ARC Breaks of a case with R3H as the process for Level III is:

1. 	Locate a change in life by listing to a blowdown. Use that period. “What change has happened in your life” is a version of the question.

2. 	Get it dated.

3. 	Get some of the data of it (don’t run as an engram) so you know what the change was.

4. 	Find out by assessment if this was a Break in

Affinity
Reality
Communication or
Understanding

	and have the pc examine that briefly.

5. 	Taking the one found in (4) find out by assessment if it was

Curious about__________
Desired_______________
Enforced______________
Inhibited______________

That is all there is to it.

That was the research process.

It works like a bomb.

To make sure it works well, get in the rudiments before you do it.

It has been said that you can do this several times on a pc beyond a floating needle on one. I have not verified this.

Doing Know—Unknown—Curious, etc. first is definitely wrong. ARC is dominant. ARC is done first as above. Understanding is the composite of ARC and so is added to ARC as U in (4) above.

LRH:jp.s.cden  						L. RON HUBBARD
copyright ©1968 						Founder
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 V
Remimeo
CANCELS BTB 4 JANUARY 1972RB
“0-IV EXPANDED GRADE 
PROCESSES - TRIPLES
PART D GRADE 3 PROCESSES”

( Revisisions in italics )

0-IV EXPANDED GRADE PROCESSES - QUADS 
PART E 
GRADE 3 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.

	CHANGE PROCESS
	(Ref:  Creation of Human Ability,  R2-25.)

F1.	“What does another what changed about you?”
	“What does another what unchanged about you?”

	Run alternately/repetitively to EP. (F/N, Cog, VGIs.)	_________

F2.	“What do you what changed about another?”
	“What do you what unchanged about another?”

	Run alternately/repetitively to EP. (F/N, Cog, VGIs.)	_________
	
F3.	“What do others what changed about others?”
	“What do others what unchanged about others?”

	Run alternately/repetitively to EP. (F/N, Cog, VGIs.)	_________

F0.	“What do you what changed about yourself?”
	“What do you what unchanged about yourself?”

	Run alternately/repetitively to EP. (F/N, Cog, VGIs.)	_________

	R2 - 50  CHANGING MINDS
	(Ref:  Creation of Human Ability R2 - 50)
	Both are done ambulent

	“Walk over to this spot.”
	“Now decide you have to appear there.”
	“Now change your mind and decide you have to appear disappear there.”
	“Now change your mind and decide you have to appear there.”

	To EP	_________

	“A note of warning:  this does not work on interiorized preclears with any great value. This process can be used on a non-exteriorized thetan, however, and on those who are uneasily exteriorized, by having them stand in one place with an idea that they have to appear there, and then change their minds, and disappear there.”  LRH

	R2 - 50  CHANGING MINDS
	(Ref:  Creation of Human Ability R2 - 50)

	“Find something about yourself which you can accept.”

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

	THEN:

	“Find something about yourself which you can reject.”

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

	THEN:

	“Find something in this room which you can accept.”

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

	THEN:

	“Find something in this room which you can reject.”

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

	THEN:

	“Find something about this universe which you can accept.”

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

	THEN:

	“Find something about this universe which you can reject.”

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

	R2 - 65  ALTERATION
	(Ref:  Creation of Human Ability R2 - 65)

PART A:

F1.	“Can you recall a time when you failed to change some energy in this Universe?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F2.	“Can you recall a time when another failed to change some energy in this Universe?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F3.	“Can you recall a time when others failed to change some energy in this Universe?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F0.	“Can you recall a time when you failed to change some energy of your own?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

PART B:

F1.	“Can you recall a time when you failed to change some space of another?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F2.	“Can you recall a time when another failed to change some space of yours?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F3.	“Can you recall a time when others failed to change some space of others?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F0.	“Can you recall a time when you failed to change some space of your own?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

PART C:

F1.	“Can you recall a time when you failed to change anothers body?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F2.	“Can you recall a time when another failed to change your body?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F3.	“Can you recall a time when others failed to change others bodies?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F0.	“Can you recall a time when you failed to change your own body?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

	NOTE:  These Part C questions above are the ones you stress. “he may get nothing on space at all BUT such incidents are in his recall or space would not exist for him at all.”  LRH

PART D:

F1.	“Can you recall a time when you failed to change a memory of yours?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F2.	“Can you recall a time when you failed to change a memory of another?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F3.	“Can you recall a time when others failed to change a memory of others?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F0.	“Can you recall a time when you failed to change a memory of your own?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

PART E:

F1.	“Can you recall a time when another successfully changed something of yours?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F2.	“Can you recall a time when you successfully changed something of another?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F3.	“Can you recall a time when others successfully changed something of others?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F0.	“Can you recall a time when you successfully changed something of your own?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

	R2 - 68  INCOMPREHENSIBILITY
	(Ref:  Creation of Human Ability R2 - 68)

	“Spot something incomprehensible”

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

__________

	HAS IV
	(Ref: HCOB 19 Jan 61 ADDITIONAL HAS PROCESSES.)

F1.	“Get the idea of another changing you.”
	“Get the idea of another not changing you.”

	Run alternately/repetitively to EP. (F/N, Cog, VGIs.)	_________

F2.	“Get the idea of you changing another.”
	“Get the idea of you not changing another.”

	Run alternately/repetitively to EP. (F/N, Cog, VGIs.)	_________

F3.	“Get the idea of others changing others.”
	“Get the idea of others not changing others.”

	Run alternately/repetitively to EP. (F/N, Cog, VGIs.)	_________

F0.	“Get the idea of changing yourself.”
	“Get the idea of not changing yopurself.”

	Run alternately/repetitively to EP. (F/N, Cog, VGIs.)	_________

NOTE:  “The C/S may add “something” (HAS IVa), “somebody” (HAS IVb), or a meter selected terminal (HAS IVc) to these commands at his discretion.”  LRH

_________

	CHANGE, NO CHNAGE & FAILED CHANGE
	(Ref:  HCOB 30 Apr 61R  CHANGE BRACKETS AND COMMANDS)

PART A:

“Sort out ‘Think’ or ‘Get the idea’ by meters reaction. Use the one that produces most fall.”  LRH

“Think (get the idea) of a change.”
“Think of a no-change.”
“Think of a failed change.”

Run in sequence 1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3 etc to EP	_________

PART B:

“Recall a change.”
“Recall a no-change.”
“Recall a failed change.”

Run in sequence 1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3 etc to EP	_________

PART C:

F1.	“What change have you avoided?”
	“What change have you sought?”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F2.	“What change has another avoided?”
	“What change has another sought?”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F3.	“What change have others avoided?”
	“What change have others sought?”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________
F0.	“What change of yourself have you avoided?”
	“What change of yourself have you sought?”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F1.	“What no-change have you avoided?”
	“What no-change have you sought?”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F2.	“What no-change has another avoided?”
	“What no-change has another sought?”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F3.	“What no-change have others avoided?”
	“What no-change have others sought?”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F0.	“What no-change of yourself have you avoided?”
	“What no-change of yourself have you sought?”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F1.	“What failed change have you avoided?”
	“What failed change have you sought?”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F2.	“What failed change has another avoided?”
	“What failed change has another sought?”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F3.	“What failed change have others avoided?”
	“What failed change have others sought?”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F0.	“What failure to change yourself have you avoided?”
	“What failure to change yourself have you sought?”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

PART D:

	15 WAY BRACKET:  CHANGE - NO CHANGE - FAILED CHANGE

1.	“How have you change ____?” (something or somebody)

2.	“How has ____ tried to change you?”

3.	“How has ____ changed another?”

4.	“How has another changed ____?”

5.	“How has ____ changed (self)?”
5a.	“How have you changed yourself?”

6.	“What have you not changed?”

7.	“What has not changed you?”

8.	“What has not changed ____?”

9.	“What has ____ not changed?”

10.	“What has not changed self?”

10a.	“What have you not changed about yourself?”

11.	“What have you failed to change?”

12.	“What has failed to change you?”

13.	“What has failed to change ____?”

14.	“What has ____ failed to change?”

15.	“What has failed to change self?”

15a.	“What have you failed to change about yourself?”

	Run Consecutively to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

_________

	R3H
	(Ref:  HCOB 6 Aug R3H
	          HCOB 1 Aug 68 THE LAWS OF LISTING AND NULLING)

F1.	“1.	Locate a change in life by L&N to BD F/N item:
		“What change has another caused in your life?”

	“2.	Get some data on it (don’t run as an engram) so you know what 
		the change was.

	“3.	Find out by assessment if this was a break in
			Affinity
			Reality
			Communication
		Understanding

	“4.	and have the pc examine that briefly.

	“5.	Taking the one found in ‘3’ find out by assessment if it was
			Curious about	____
			Desired	____
			Enforced	____
			Inhibited	____
			No	____
			Refused	____

		E/S ARC/B etc to EP	_________
LRH”
F2.	1.	Locate a change in anothers life by L&N to BD F/N item:
		“What change have you caused in anothers life?”

	2.	Get some data on it (don’t run as an engram) so you know what 
		the change was.

	3.	Find out by assessment if this was a break in
			Affinity
			Reality
			Communication
		Understanding

	4.	and have the pc examine that briefly.

	5.	Taking the one found in ‘3’ find out by assessment if it was
			Curious about	____
			Desired	____
			Enforced	____
			Inhibited	____
			No	____
			Refused	____

		E/S ARC/B etc to EP	_________

F3.	1.	Locate a change by L&N to BD F/N item:
		“What change have others caused in others lives?”

	2.	Get some data on it (don’t run as an engram) so you know what 
		the change was.

	3.	Find out by assessment if this was a break in
			Affinity
			Reality
			Communication
		Understanding

	4.	and have the pc examine that briefly.

	5.	Taking the one found in ‘3’ find out by assessment if it was
			Curious about	____
			Desired	____
			Enforced	____
			Inhibited	____
			No	____
			Refused	____

		E/S ARC/B etc to EP	_________

F0.	1.	Locate a change by L&N to BD F/N item:
		“What change have you caused in your own life?”

	2.	Get some data on it (don’t run as an engram) so you know what 
		the change was.

	3.	Find out by assessment if this was a break in
			Affinity
			Reality
			Communication
		Understanding

	4.	and have the pc examine that briefly.

	5.	Taking the one found in ‘3’ find out by assessment if it was
			Curious about	____
			Desired	____
			Enforced	____
			Inhibited	____
			No	____
			Refused	____

		E/S ARC/B etc to EP	_________

	HAVINGNESS

F1.	“What could another make unknown to you about that (room object)?”

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F2.	“What could you make unknown to another about that (room object)?”

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F3.	“What about that (room object) could someone make unknown to others?”

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F0.	“What about that (room object) could you make unknown to yourself?”

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

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:KU:DM:JE:JG:RS:MH:AL:lf
Copyright © 1972, 1974, 1976
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED