B O A R D  P O L I C Y  L E T T E R
26 JANUARY 1972R
ISSUE VIII
 
Remimeo	REVISED & REISSUED 11 OCTOBER 1974 AS BPL
SCN Orgs 	CANCELS
Academies 	HCO POLICY LETTER OF 26 JANUARY 1972
Level 4	ISSUE VIII
Students	SAME TITLE

SCIENTOLOGY LEVEL 4 STANDARD
ACADEMY CHECKSHEET
(HAA) Hubbard Advanced Auditor

THIS COURSE CONTAINS KNOWLEDGE VITAL TO SUCCESSFUL LIVING.

PREREQUISITE: 	Provisional Class 3. (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 Four technology.

It deals with the technology of “Rightness & Wrongness”, the fixed solution or “Service Facsimile”.

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 Advanced   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	_________

		Additions:
		1. 		
		2.		_________

B. 	BOOKS - To be read by end of course.
		1.	Handbook for Preclears	_________
		2.	Scientology Clear Procedure

		Additions:
		1. 		
		2.		_________

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

		Additions:
		1. 		
		2.		_________

D. 	SCALES
	*	HCOB 22 Apr 59	Old & New Reality Scale	_________
	*	HCOB 25 Sep 71R	Tone Scale in Full	_________

E. 	GENERAL COURSE DATA
		HCO PL 14 Feb 65	Safeguarding Technology	_________
		HCOB 3 Mar 69	Case Gain Completing Levels	_________

		Additions: 
		1. 		_________
		2.		_________

F.		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	_________
		Anti Q&A TR	_________
G. 	E-METER DATA
	* 	HCOB 8 Jun 70	Low TA Handling	_________
	* 	HCOB 18 Mar 74 	E-Meter Sensitivity Errors	_________
	* 	HCOB 21 Mar 74 	End Phenomena	_________

I.		METER DRILLS
		HCOB 10 Dec 65	E-Meter Drill Coaching	_________
		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.	_________

		Additions: 
		1. 		_________
		2.		_________

I.		AUDITOR MUST NOTS
	*	HCOB 5 Feb 66	“Letting the PC Itsa”	_________

		Additions: 
		1. 		_________
		2.		_________

J.		STYLES
	*	HCOB 6 Nov 64	Styles of Auditing	_________
	*	HCOB 18 Apr 65	How to Apply Level Processing	_________

		Additions: 
		1. 		_________
		2.		_________

K. 	LEVEL IV PROCESSES
		BTB 9 Jan 72R 	0-IV Expanded Grade Processes - Triples - 
			Part F Grade IV Processes	_________
		USE: BTB 9 Oct 71 R 	Issue VI Rev. 12 Mar 74 
			Level IV Process Drills

		R2-44 MUST & MUST NOT HAPPEN
	* 	BOOK: 	Creation of Human Ability  R2-44	_________
		DRILL: 	TR 400-1	_________
			TR 400-2	_________
		JUSTIFICATIONS
	*	HCOB 21 Jan 60	Justification	_________
	*	HCOB 7 Jul 64	Justifications	_________
	*	HCOB 8 Jul 64	More Justifications	_________
	*	HCOB 10 Jul 64	Overts, Order of Effectiveness	_________
	*	HCOB 26 Dec 68	Third Party Law	_________
		CLAY DEMO:
		1.	A Justification		_________
		2.	How running overt justifications works.	_________

		JUSTIFICATION PROCESS
	*	HCOB 7 Jul 64	Justifications	_________
	*	HCOB 10 Jul 64	Overts, Order of Effectiveness	_________
		DRILL: 	TR 400-3	_________
			TR 400-4	_________

		CERTAINTY PROCESSING
	*	BOOK: Scientology 8-8008 Chapter on Certainty Processing	_________
		DRILL: 	TR 400-5	_________
			TR 400-6	_________

		RISING SCALE PROCESSING
	*	BOOK: Scientology 8-8008 Chapter on Differentiation, Association,
				Identification	_________
	*	BOOK: Creation of Human Ability R2-51 Rising Scale Processing	_________
	*	HCOB 11 Jun 57	CCH 15	_________
	*	BTB 1 Dec 71	Rising Scale Processing	_________
	*	Chart of Attitudes		_________

		DRILL: 	TR 400-7	_________
			TR 400-8	_________

		EFFORT PROCESSING
	*	BOOK: Advanced Procedure and Axioms Section on Effort Processing	_________
	*	BTB 1 Dec 71 Iss IV	Effort Processing	_________

		DRILL: 	TR 400-9	_________
			TR 400-10	_________

		R2-66 ELECTING CAUSE
	* 	BOOK: 	Creation of Human Ability  R2-66	_________

		DRILL: 	TR 400-11	_________
			TR 400-12	_________

		THEORY OF SERVICE FACSIMILIES
	*	HCOB 22 Jul 63	You Can Be Right	_________
	*	HCOB 1 Sep 63	Routine Three SC	_________
	*	HCOB 16 Oct 63	R3SC Slow Assessment	_________
	*	HCOB 23 Aug 66	Service Facsimile	_________
	*	HCOB 30 Nov 66	Assessment for Service Facs	_________

		Additions: 
		1. 		_________
		2.		_________

		TAPES:
	*	27 Aug 63	Rightness and Wrongness	_________
	*	3 Sep 63	R3SC	_________
	*	4 Sep 63	How to Find a Service Fac	_________

		CLAY DEMO:
		1.	A Service Facsimile		_________
		2.	Computation		_________
		3.	Full R3SC action and what happens in the bank	_________

 		LEVEL IV QUAD
		BTB 9 Jan 72R 	0-IV Expanded Grade Processes - Triples - 
			Part F Grade IV Processes	_________
		USE: BTB 9 Oct 71 R 	Issue VI Rev. 12 Mar 74 
			Level IV Process Drills

		DRILL: 	TR 400-13	_________
			TR 400-14	_________

		HAVINGNESS
		BTB 9 Jan 72R 	0-IV Expanded Grade Processes - Triples - 
			Part F Grade IV Processes	_________

		DRILL: 	TR 400-15	_________
			TR 400-16	_________

		Additions: 
		1. 		_________
		2.		_________

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

_____________

L. 	AUDITING SECTION

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

STUDENT ATTEST:		DATE:	

ACADEMY C/S: 		DATE:	

M. 	STUDENT COMPLETION

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

STUDENT ATTEST:		DATE:	

N. 	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:	

O. 	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 IV Release.

STUDENT ATTEST:		DATE:	

P. 	CERTS AND AWARDS

	Provisional Class 4 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
37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 APRIL 1959

OLD AND NEW REALITY SCALE

“Old “ Reality Scale	“New “ Reality Scale

Tone 40 to 20 Postulates	Pan-determined creation

     20 to 4 	Consideration		Self-determined creation

       4 to 2 	Agreements		Experience

     	1.5 	Solid terminals		Confront

     	1.1 	Terminals too solid 	)	Elsewhereness
           	Lines solid	)

	1 to .5 	No terminal	)	Invisibility
		Solid line	)

      .5 to .1 	No terminal	)	Blackness
		Less solid line	)

	.1	No real terminal	)
		No solid line	)	Dub-in
		Substitute terminal	)

	.0	No terminal	)
		No line	)	Unconsciousness

LRH:mp.rd							L. RON HUBBARD
copyright © 1959
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
Remimeo
PR Hats	HCO BULLETIN OF 25 SEPTEMBER 1971RA
D of P Hats	REVISED 4 APRIL 1974

TONE SCALE IN FULL

TONE SCALE EXPANDED	KNOW TO MYSTERY SCALE

SERENITY OF BEINGNESS	40.0		 KNOW
POSTULATES	30.0		 NOT KNOW
GAMES	22.0		 KNOW ABOUT
ACTION	20.0		 LOOK
EXHILARATION	8.0		 PLUS EMOTION
AESTHETIC	6.0
ENTHUSIASM	4.0
CHEERFULNESS	3.5
STRONG INTEREST	3.3
CONSERVATISM	3.0
MILD INTEREST	2.9
CONTENTED	2.8
DISINTERESTED	2.6
BOREDOM	2.5
MONOTONY	2.4
ANTAGONISM	2.0		 MINUS EMOTION
HOSTILITY	1.9
PAIN	1.8
ANGER	1.5
HATE	1.4
RESENTMENT	1.3
NO SYMPATHY	1.2
UNEXPRESSED RESENTMENT	1.15
COVERT HOSTILITY	1.1
ANXIETY	1.02
FEAR	1.0
DESPAIR	.98
TERROR	.96
NUMB	.94
SYMPATHY	.9
PROPITIATION—(HIGHER TONED—SELECTIVELY GIVES)	.8
GRIEF	.5
MAKING AMENDS—(PROPITIATION—CAN’T W/H ANYTHING) 	.375
UNDESERVING	.3
SELF-ABASEMENT	.2
VICTIM	. 1
HOPELESS	.07
APATHY	.05
USELESS	.03
DYING	.0 1
BODY DEATH	0.0
FAILURE	0.0
PITY	-0.1
SHAME—(BEING OTHER BODIES)	-0.2
ACCOUNTABLE	-0.7
BLAME—(PUNISHING OTHER BODIES)	-1.0
REGRET—(RESPONSIBILITY AS BLAME)	-1.3
CONTROLLING BODIES	-1.5		 EFFORT
PROTECTING BODIES	-2.2
OWNING BODIES	-3.0		 THINK
APPROVAL FROM BODIES	-3.5
NEEDING BODIES	4.0		 SYMBOLS
WORSHIPPING BODIES	-5.0		 EAT
SACRIFICE	-6.0		 SEX
HIDING	-8.0		 MYSTERY
BEING OBJECTS	-10.0		 WAIT
BEING NOTHING	-20.0		 UNCONSCIOUS
CAN’T HIDE	30 0
TOTAL FAILURE	-40.0		 UNKNOWABLE

LRH:ams.rd	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1971,1974	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	 

HUBBARD  COMMUNICATIONS  OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 FEBRUARY 1965
(Reissued on 7 June 1967, with the word
Remimeo                              “instructor” replaced by “supervisor”.)
All Hats
BPI
SAFEGUARDING TECHNOLOGY

	For some years we have had a word “squirreling”. It means altering Scientology, off-beat practices. It is a bad thing. I have found a way to explain why. 

	Scientology is a workable system. This does not mean it is the best possible system or a perfect system. Remember and use that definition. Scientology is a workable system. 

	In fifty thousand years of history on this planet alone, Man never evolved a workable system. It is doubtful if, in foreseeable history, he will ever evolve another. 

	Man is caught in a huge and complex labyrinth. To get out of it requires that he follow the closely taped path of Scientology. 

	Scientology will take him out of the labyrinth. But only if he follows the exact markings in the tunnels. 

	It has taken me a third of a century in this lifetime to tape this route out. 

	It has been proven that efforts by Man to find different routes came to nothing. It is also a clear fact that the route called Scientology does lead out of the labyrinth Therefore it is a workable system, a route that can be travelled. 

	What would you think of a guide who, because his party said it was dark and the road rough and who said another tunnel looked better, abandoned the route he knew would lead out and led his party to a lost nowhere in the dark. You’d think he was a pretty wishy-washy guide. 

	What would you think of a supervisor who let a student depart from procedure the supervisor knew worked. You’d think he was a pretty wishy-washy supervisor. 

	What would happen in a labyrinth if the guide let some girl stop in a pretty canyon and left her there forever to contemplate the rocks? You’d think he was a pretty heartless guide. You’d expect him to say at least, “Miss, those rocks may be pretty, but the road out doesn’t go that way.” 

	All right, how about an auditor who abandons the procedure which will make his preclear eventually clear just because the preclear had a cognition? 

	People have following the route mixed up with “the right to have their own ideas.” Anyone is certainly entitled to have opinions and ideas and cognitions—so long as these do not bar the route out for self and others. 

	Scientology is a workable system. It white tapes the road out of the labyrinth If there were no white tapes marking the right tunnels, Man would just go on wandering around and around the way he has for eons, darting off on wrong roads, going in circles, ending up in the sticky dark, alone. 

	Scientology, exactly and correctly followed, takes the person up and out of the mess. 

	So when you see somebody having a ball getting everyone to take peyote because it restimulates prenatals, know he is pulling people off the route. Realize he is squirreling. He isn’t following the route. 

	Scientology is a new thing- it is a road out. There has not been one. Not all the salesmanship in the world can make a bad route a proper route. And an awful lot of bad routes are being sold. Their end product is further slavery, more darkness, more misery. 

	Scientology is the only workable system Man has It has already taken people toward higher I.Q., better lives and all that. No other system has. So realize that it has no competitor. 

	Scientology is a workable system. It has the route taped. The search is done. Now the route only needs to be walked. 

	So put the feet of students and preclears on that route. Don’t let them off of it no matter how fascinating the side roads seem to them. And move them on up and out. 

	Squirreling is today destructive of a workable system. 

	Don’t let your party down. By whatever means, keep them on the route. And they’ll be free. If you don’t, they won’t. 

	L. RON HUBBARD 
	Founder 

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 MARCH 1969
Remimeo
Class VIII	
Level IV	CASE GAIN
Tech Sec	
Qual Sec	COMPLETING LEVELS

Anyone who interprets “the real gains of a case consist of going up the levels” (which is true and was stated in order to prevent over-review) as meaning that the level a case is on is not to be conclusive or put the pc into good case condition, has a tech alter-is going.

The registrar can use “You need the next level” but when Tech or Qual buy this as an excuse not to run levels right or to get gains on any given level it’s time to look this fact over HARD.

ANY LEVEL IS ITSELF CAPABLE OF STABLE CASE GAIN. If a level does not THEN THE CASE IS LOUSED UP ON EARLIER LEVELS and is a standard case of someone with a lower level out! This is all covered in Class VIII.

This is true of ARC Straight Wire and OT VI alike. The rule holds.

Any level is capable of giving a stable case gain and if it does not THERE IS SOMETHING VERY WRONG with the way it or an earlier level was run.

To chase a pc on up the levels to cure an outness on earlier levels is idiocy. It is WASTING AUDITING. It is a shabby excuse for not setting a case up to be audited or auditing badly.

To solve an earlier out tech situation one does not “give the next level”.

If a pc ends up at Level II (or OT II) without a stable gain attained then the set-up of the case or the handling of it is SOUR.

This is the most elementary situation in case repair.

ANY LEVEL is capable of case gain and of being stable, the pc feeling good, etc. The drive to get the next level is very natural but when it becomes obsessive to get a case gain then it isn’t the next level that’s needed.

ARC Straight Wire is more tech than Man ever had before. It produces a stable gain. This is true of every level on up.

We have just had a PreOT whose case at every level “was going to be solved by the next level”. People kept saying he “needed the next level” to solve his case. Bull. He got all the way to OT II before I caught wind of it. He “had to have OT III” to solve his case according to the Qual Sec.

That case probably never made ARC Straight Wire! One or more earlier levels or ruds or 7 cases are out. That’s the trouble with that case.

If you now let him go on to OT III he’d cop it.

The tech you are handling is capable of giving spectacular gains at every level. If it does not then the case has missed somewhere, comes under 7 resistive cases or out ruds or one or more missed or overrun levels.

This is one of those things which seems to have been going around (“needs the next level to solve his case”) for some time without my finding out about it. Sure they need their next level. But do they have their levels up to where they are? If they aren’t in good shape at the end of any one level then there’s a miss on the case and it must be repaired by standard tech.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

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

Reissued from

21st ADVANCED CLINICAL COURSE
TRAINING DRILLS

NAME:   Anti-Q and A TR.

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

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

PURPOSE:

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

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

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

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

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

The Coach flunks for:

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

(b) 	Previous TR.

(c) 	Any upsetness demonstrated by Student.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 JUNE 1970
Remimeo

LOW TA HANDLING

A person whose TA is low is in a state of overwhelm.

Poor TRs or rough auditing easily drive the TA down.

A TA can go low during a run like on engrams, and can come back up when actual erasure occurs.

Usually a person whose TA goes below 2.0 when run on incidents too steep for him will get low TA.

A low TA is of course any TA below 2.0.

An occasional cause of this is as simple as the meter not being trimmed.

Sweaty hands, improper electrodes, and sometimes a faulty meter also cause a “low TA” to appear.

Heavy processes like LX 1-2-3 are sometimes an overwhelm.

An invalidative look on an Examiner’s face can drive a TA down a bit. Cold cans can send it UP high.

Lack of rest or time of the day gives some cases a low or high TA. At 2:00 a.m. TAs often are very high, for instance.

Persons with low TAs tend to be somewhat inactive in life and non-causative.

When audited with poor TRs or on processes too steep some persons’ TAs go low (below 2.0).

An F/N is NEVER an F/N when above 3.0 or below 2.0.

Life repairs and auditing repairs, light processes and no goof auditing are the proper actions for low TA cases.

Auditors whose pcs’ TAs go low should look to the flawlessness of their auditing, the ease of their TRs and refuse any heavy overwhelm type C/Ses for such pcs.

Good Two-Way Comm on troubling subjects, use of prepared lists on life, mild close to objective processes, no forcing over protests, never running processes that don’t read first, getting the pc out of being effect and toward being cause, extroverting the pc’s attention with objective processes all work well on low TA cases.

The actual technical reason for low TAs is found in higher levels and does not concern and would be of no use to lower level pcs.

Take it easy. Don’t goof as auditor or C/S are the keynotes of low TA cases.

My opinion on this is that people worry too much about low TAs.

On Flag where auditing is done like silk we haven’t seen any low TAs for ages.

LRH:dz.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 18 MARCH 1974
Remimeo

E-METERS
SENSITIVITY ERRORS

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

The setting is different for almost every pc.

TOO LOW

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

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

TOO HIGH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus uncharged areas are run and charged ones are missed.

The result is very chaotic to repair.

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

SUMMARY

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

Don’t get repairs.

Get wins.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 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 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 5 FEBRUARY 1966
Issue II
Remimeo
Franchise
LEVEL 0

“LETTING THE PC ITSA”
THE PROPERLY TRAINED AUDITOR

The most painful thing I ever hope to see is an auditor “letting a pc Itsa”.

I have seen auditors let a pc talk and talk and talk and talk and run down and talk and run down and talk again until one wondered where if anywhere that auditor had been trained.

In the first place such an auditor could not know the meaning of the word ITSA.

The word means “It is a ........”

Now how an auditor letting a pc talk believes he is getting a pc to spot what IT is is quite beyond me.

This pc has been talking all his life. He isn’t well. Analysts had people talk for five years and they seldom got well.

So how is it supposed to happen today that a pc, let talk enough, will get well.

It won’t.

The auditor does not know the very basics of auditing skills. That’s all. These are the TRs.

An auditor who can’t do his TRs can’t audit. Period.

Instead he says he is “letting the pc Itsa”.

If by this he means he is letting the pc drive all over the road and in both ditches, then this isn’t auditing.

In auditing an auditor guides. He gives the pc something to answer. When the pc answers the pc has said “IT IS A ......” and that’s Itsa.

If the pc answers and the auditor acknowledges too soon the pc tends to go into an anxiety—he has been chopped. So he talks more than he wanted.

If the pc answers and the auditor does not acknowledge, then the pc talks on and on, hoping for an acknowledgement that doesn’t come, “runs dry”, tries again, etc.

So premature or late-or-never acks result in the same thing—the pc running on and on and on.

And they call it “letting the pc Itsa”. Bah! If a pc talks too much in session he either is getting cut off too fast by the auditor or hasn’t got an auditor at all. It isn’t “Itsa”. It’s lousy TRs. (The one single exception is the pc who had years in analysis but even he begins to get better with proper TRs used on him.)

The proper cure is to drill the auditor until the auditor realizes:

1. 	The auditor  asks the questions.

2. 	The pc says what is the answer, “It’s a .......”

3. 	The auditor acks when the pc has said it to the pc’s satisfaction and

4. 	The auditor acks when the pc has finished saying “It’s a .......”

And that’s Itsa.

Scientology auditing is a precision skill, not a gag blop goo slup guck blah.

1. 	The auditor wants to know ........

2. 	The pc says it is ........

1.2.1.2.1.2. etc.
TECH SAVVY

Now an auditor who doesn’t know his technology about the mind and his processes of course never knows what to ask. So he or she simply sits like a lump of sacking hoping the pc will say something that makes the pc feel better.

A sure sign that an auditor doesn’t know an engram from a cow about processes is seeing a pc “Itsa” on and on and on.

In Scientology we do know what the mind is, what a being is, what goes wrong in the mind and how to correct it.

We aren’t psychoanalysts or psychiatrists or Harley Street witch doctors. We do know

The data about beings and life is there in Scientology to be learned.

It isn’t “our idea” of how things are, or “our opinion of” ....

Scientology is a precision subject. It has axioms. Like geometry. Two equilateral triangles aren’t similar because Euclid said so. They’re similar because they are. If you don’t believe it, look at them.

There isn’t a single datum in Scientology that can’t be proven as precisely as teacups are teacups and not saucepans.

Now if we get a person fresh out of the study of “the mystical metaphysics of Cuffbah” he’s going to have trouble. His pcs are going to “Itsa” their heads off and never get well or better or anything. Because that person doesn’t know Scientology but thinks it’s all imprecise opinion.

The news about Scientology is that it put the study of the mind into the precise exact sciences. If one doesn’t know that, one’s pcs “Itsa” by the hour for one doesn’t know what he is handling that he is calling “a pc”.

By my definition, an auditor is a real auditor when his or her pcs DON’T overtalk or undertalk but answer the auditing question and happily now and then originate.
So how to tell an auditor, how to determine if you have trained one at last, is DO HIS PCS ANSWER UP OR DO THEY TALK ON AND ON.

If I had an auditor in an HGC whose pcs yapped and yapped and ran dry and yapped while the auditor just sat there like a Chinese pilot frozen on the controls, I would do the following to that “auditor”:

1. 	Remedy A, Book of Case Remedies.

2. 	Remedy B, Book of Case Remedies.

3. 	Disagreements with Scientology, technology and orgs and Scientology personalities all found and traced to basic and blown.

4. 	A grind study assignment of the Scientology Axioms until the “auditor” could DO THEM IN CLAY.

5. 	A memorization of the Logics, Qs (Prelogics) and Axioms of Dianetics and Scientology.

6. 	TRs 0 to 4 until they ran out of his or her ears.

7. 	TRs 5 to 9.

8. 	Op Pro by Dup until FLAT.

9. 	A hard long study of the Meter.

10. 	The ARC triangle and other scales.

11. 	The Processes of Level 0.

12. 	Some wins.

And I’d have an auditor. I’d have one that could make a Grade Zero Release every  time.

And it’s lack of the above that causes an “auditor” to say “I let the pc Itsa” with the pc talking on and on and on.

Scientology is the breakthrough that made the indefinite subject of Philosophy into a precision tool.

And pcs get well and go Release when it is applied.

                                        					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 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 18 APRIL AD 15
Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students
Sthil Execs
Sthil Staff Auditors
HOW TO APPLY LEVEL PROCESSING

(FOR HGCs AND ACADEMIES AND
COURSES)

HCO Secs, Org Secs, Assn Secs
take notice!

The advent of levels and their final forms now being released bring us into a new phase in auditing.

You no longer have to “audit the pc in front of you” but need now only audit with the process next in line.

Level processes must be audited in sequence in the level itself.

Levels must be audited in sequence.

Therefore all that is required of the auditor is to do a good technical job of auditing, avoiding Q and A and alter-is like the plague.

Your Comm Course and Upper Indoc TRs and your meter drills from The Book of E-Meter Drills are now the only drills permitted.

Only alter-is of routine auditing can cause case failure.

Directors of Processing must-must-must be alert for departures from standard level processing and stamp it out quickly. If they do not do so they will have case trouble.

The Levels are designed for all cases from psycho to OT. It now does not matter what condition a case is in. You just start at the lowest process of the lowest level on all cases begun. Flatten that. Go to the next process of the level. Flatten that. When all processes of that level are flat the pc is examined and given a GRADE CERTIFICATE for the level completed and may go to the next level. And the first process of that level is flattened and so on.

Even The Book of Case Remedies is handled at its own place in its own level and is not used below or above that place.

Our technical reach is now so effective that you need no analysis of the case. You just run the levels.

You do not estimate a pc’s level. You ask for his Grade Certificate and if he hasn’t one, just start at the lowest level, skip any level already run and do on up.

You’ll not only catch all cases. You will get maximum TA on each pc in that fashion.

One must not skip around within the level or amongst levels.

Screwy application such as giving the first command of an alternate command process and then “getting the TA out of the second command”, or any departure from good old standard auditing must be jumped all over hard.

Rewording a process given in the levels can be catastrophic. It’s worded that way for a reason. Clear the command well with the pc but never vary the given wording.

These actions with the new levels will be found magical.

Directors of Processing must not tolerate any slightest goof, any Q and A, any variation of any kind whatever and must be very severe with anyone who messes these processes up. They are violently strong processes from bottom to top and they must be handled with exact duplication and skill.

In Academies this injunction is particularly urgent. Standard student auditing can work wonders with these processes unless an Instructor advises or permits alter-is.

The processes developed are too powerful to admit of goofs and departures and unusual solutions. If anyone reports “it didn’t work” you had better get in there fast as that auditor really goofed and didn’t run the process the way it was given in the HCO B.

The most banal, routine, grind auditing will produce results splendidly. The flighty, undisciplined, Q and Aed, alter-ised fooling about will rapidly ditch the pc.

I am putting strong tools in your hands. Don’t play about with them. They might explode on you. Give them the respect they deserve and every case will come up bright and progress rapidly.

Something new is here. Just follow the new map even dully and the pc will arrive. Louse it up and it will get awful.
--------------

All auditors at a higher meter class run all lower level processes with a meter providing only that they can get the pc to hold the cans.

For a meter classed auditor there are no unmetered processes except ones like 8C and even then the pc is checked on a meter.

It does not matter how low on the levels an auditor begins to use a meter as a student. Just don’t ask him to do much with it until the training level calls for meter training.

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

Ds of T and Ds of P and Examiners must be very careful of false reports in case folders regarding what was run. They should regard an illegible report as a no report. They must also be alert for false attestations concerning grade requests for a pc and for training check sheet completion. It is a false attestation to declare an incomplete grade or check sheet complete or done when it is not.
--------------

New ethics policies are levelled primarily at making auditing and training honest and flawless.

I can give you all the processes. It is however necessary that they be honestly run and honestly reported.

Only in that way can you make releases and clears.

The renumbering of levels and grades will be released in Auditor 8. They make it easier to audit and train.

The materials for each level will shortly be released in HCO Bs.

From Academies and courses I want auditors who are trained not to alter-is technical materials.

In HGCs I want auditing exactly by the book.

It’s easier to do training and processing that way.

And you will get all the results you could ever use—but only if it’s by the book, unaltered in application.

It will be the easiest auditing you ever did.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: ml.rd 
Copyright © 1965 
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

9 OCTOBER 1971 R
REVISED & REISSUED 17 JUNE 1974 AS BTB
ISSUE VI
CANCELS
Remimeo	HCO BULLETIN OF 9 OCTOBER 1971
Level IV	ISSUE VI
Checksheets	SAME TITLE
S.H.Orgs
Class III
& Above
Auditior Drills Series 6R

DRILLS FOR AUDITORS
LEVEL 4 PROCESS DRILLS

PURPOSE: To improve the quality of auditing by familiarizing auditors with the exact procedure of each auditing action through the use of drills.

HOW TO USE: These drills are in order by levels. The first number indicates the level taught on. Those that begin with TR 400- are level four drills- Unbullbaited drills end with odd numbers and bullbaitad drills end in even numbers.

The drills are done within the basic format of the unbullbaited and bullbaited drills, as in the front of this drillsheet.

Simply start with the first actions and work through the pack applying the unbullbaited and bullbaited drills until you are thoroughly farniliaar with each separate audit B action and can apply it flawlessly, even with distractionsZ

If a student has trouble on a drill cut back the gradient and locate whether the student has a misunderstood or has a skipped gradient. Handle either or both with standard study tech. This can lead back to outnesses on basics such as TRs, codes or scaler. Whatever it is find out why and handle. Standard classroom word clearing tech must be thoroughly used. Always coach on a gradient, and build them up to get tough.

Note: If coach upset occurs because of restimulation, fruit words should be inserted in the place of the process Key Words, for bullbuited drills.

FORMAT FOR UNBULLBAITED DRILLS:

NAME: Auditing on a doll unbullbaited.

COMMANDS: As for each separate process. 

PURPOSE: To train the student to be able to coordinate and apply the commands and procedures of each separate auditing action with the actual doingmess of auditing.

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 on the table just in front of the B-meter.

5. 	Have worksheets and lists readily available in sequence required for the session.

Auditor starts the session (drill) and runs it as a standard session with the particular auditing action being taken up on the doll, keeping full session admin and using all standard procedures of the auditing action.

The drill is done on a steeper and steeper gradient until the student can very quickly do the action correctly.

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

FORMAT TO BE USED FOR BULLBAITED DRILLS:

NAME: Auditing bullbaited.

COMMANDS: As for each separate auditing action.

PURPOSE: To train the student to be able to coordinate 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 and auditor forms, as needed. In the chair opposite the auditor is the coach (bullbaiter), as pc.

TRAINING STRESS: The drill is the same as for auditing on a doll except that the “pc” coach bullbaits the student auditor, using fruit answers during the session in an attempt to throw the student off session. On any list the coach squeezes the cans to simulate reads. He still uses fruit answers, (six apples, blue pears) when asked to speak, but as the student auditor reads off the list item (Ex: L3RD he squeezes the cans for reads.

When bullbaiting an auditing action the coach should throw in various signs of pc out of sessionness. (Per HCOB on good and bad indicators) The student must:

1. 	Obnose the out of sessionness.

2. 	Align this to the process run.

3. 	Handle.

The pc bullbaiter can throw in situations, originate troubles, or gains, be tricky etc, but he must never lose sight of HCOB 24 May 68 “Coaching” especially the second paragraph, “Coach with reality.”

Once the coach throws out a situation, etc., he must allow the student auditor to carry 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”, “flunk”, or “thats it”. Flunks are given for any improper commands, procedure comm lags, break in TRs or improper session admin,

Each drill is to be done thoroughly, building up speed of auditor commands and actions. “Its the number of auditing commands per unit of auditing time which makes gains in a session.” LRH
These are the drills that train the student auditor to handle all the elements in a session, so be exact and be real.

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

TR 400-1  R2 - 44 MUST & MUST NOT HAPPEN UNBULLBAITED
TR 400-2  R2 - 44 MUST & MUST NOT HAPPEN BULLBAITED
	Ref. Creation of Human Ability R2-44

(Use Basis Drill Format)

STEPS:

1. 	Give your pc the R-factor you are going to run a Grade 4 process called “Must & Must Not Happen”.

2. 	Clear words as necessary.

3. 	Clear the flow one commands and tell pc process will be run alternately.
	F1: 	“Tell me some things you wouldn’t want to have happen again.”
		“Tell me some things you would like to have happen again.”

4. 	Say “This is the process” and run alternately to EP.

5. 	Clear F2 and run as in step 4.
	F2: 	“Tell me some things another wouldn’t want to have happen again”
		“Tell me some things another would want to have happen again”

6. 	Clear F3 and run as in step 4.
	F3 	“Tell me some things others wouldnet want to have happen again.”
		“Tell me some things others would like to have happen again.”

TR 400-3 	JUSTIFICATION PROCESS UNBULLBAITED
TR 400-4 	JUSTIFICATION PROCESS BULLBAITED
	Ref. HCOB 7 Jul 64 Justifications
	HCOB 10 Jul 64 Overts, Order of Effectiveness

(Use Basic Drill Format)

STEPS:

1. 	Give the pc the R-factor you are going to run a Grade 4 process called Justifications,

2. 	Clear the words as necessary.

3. 	Clear the commands:
	F1: 	“In this lifetime what overt has another committed?”
		“How has he justified it?”

4. 	Say “This is the process.” and give the command.

5. 	When pc gives you an overt, acknowledge pc and ask:
	“How has he justified it?”

6. 	Run the second question repetitively until no more answers to it or pc has a Major Cog, F/N and VGIs.
	NOTE: Only when you have all justifications and Cogs possible, ask for a new overt from the pc.

7. 	Then run F2 per steps 2 to 6.
	F2: 	“In this lifetime what overt have you committed? “
		“How have you justified it? “

8. 	Then run F3 per steps 2 to 6.
	F3: 	“In this lifetime what overt have others committed?”
		“How have they justified it?”

TR 400-5 	RISING SCALE PROCESSING UNBULLBAITED
TR 400-6 	RISING SCALE PROCESSING BULLBAITED 
	Ref: Scientology 8-8008 chapter on Differentiation, Association, Identification 	Creation of Human Ability R2-5 
	HCOB 11 JUN 57 CCH-15 Training & CCH Processes 
	BTB 1 DEC 71 Rising Scale Processing 
	Chart of Attitudes

(Use Basic Drill Format)

STEPS:

1. 	Give pc an R-factor you will be running a process called “Rising Scale Processing”.

2. 	Clear the words of the commands and clear the commands.

3. 	Clear each pair of bottom and top buttons as you get to them.

4. 	The commands are:

A. 	“Get the idea of (bottom of scale eg. dead)”.

B. 	“Do you have that idea?”

C. 	“Alright. Now change that idea as nearly as you can to (top of scale. eg. Survive)”

D. 	“OK. How close did you come”

E. 	“Thank you” .

5. 	These commands are run repetitively A-E, A-E, A-E on the same pair ( e.g. dead - survive) until the end phenomena of F/N, Cog, VGIs on the pair being run is reached.

Example: 	(pair dead - survive)

a. 	commands for the pair are cleared.

b. 	commands are run A-E, A-E, A-E, A-E to F/N, Cog, (e.g. “Gosh I’m going to survive”) VGIs.

c. 	Commands with next pair (wrong - right} are cleared.

d. 	Commands are run A-E, A-E to F/N, Cog, VGIs on that pair, and so on until all twelve pairs have each been run to F/N, Cog, VGIs which gives twelve F/Ns on the process.
6. 	All twelve pairs are run each to its own EP. One never runs a few pairs and leaves it there. Once Rising Scale is started, all twelve pairs must be run.

7. 	The drill is passed when the auditor can do it flawlessly with excellent TRs.

TR 400-7 	EFFORT PROCESSING UNBULLBAITED
TR 400-8 	EFFORT PROCESSING BULLBAITED
Ref: Advanced Procedures & htioms
BTB 1 DEC 71 ISS IV Effort Processing

(Use Basic Drill Format)

STEPS:

1. 	Tell pc you are going to run a Grade 4 process called Effort processing.

2.	Clear words as necessary.

3.	Clear the phrase “physical disabilities”.

4. 	Clear the question, “What physical disabilities do you have?”

5. 	Ask pc the question and note down reads on each disability as pc says it.

6. 	When pc says he has told you all of them tell him you are now going to have him clear and demo the word effort. Clear effort in dictionary. (Or can use 8-80 glossary)

7. 	When done tell him to put the cans down for a moment.

8. 	Tell him to go to the wall and shove against it. Ack him when done and tell him to sit down and pick up the cans.

9. 	Tell him to re-experience the effort of shoving agalnst the wall. Acknowledge pc .

10. 	Now take the largest reading disability. (Any disability run must be one that reads)

11. 	Clear the command: “Get the (disability) effort.”

12. 	Clear the words “counter effort”. (Can use 8-80 glossary.)

13. 	Clear the command: “Get the(disability) counter-effort.” & say “This is the process.”

14. 	These commands are run alternate-repetitively (effort, counter-effort, effort, counter-effort, effort, etc.) until (a) the emotion concerning the disability is voiced by the pc. (b) the consideration is voiced by the pc. The process is continued on the disability being run until both the emotion and the consideration are voiced by the pc. This is the EP of the item being run, it’s always accompanied by F/N and VGIS.

15. 	Then take the next largest reading disability and run the process on it to EP.

16. 	All reading disabilities are run. The pc can be asked for other disabilities when all reading ones already given by the pc are run. The process is run until the pc gives no more reading disabilities.

17. 	Care must be taken not to chop the pc when he mentions the emotion. Get the emotion and the consideration.

TR 400-9 	R2 - 66 ELECTING CAUSE UNBULLBAITED
TR 400-10 R2 - 66 ELECTING CAUSE BULLBAITED
	Creation of Human Ability R2-66 

(Use Basic Drill Format}

STEPS:

1. 	Tell pc you are now going to run a Grade 4 process called Electing Cause.

2. 	Clear words as necessary,

3. 	Clear the commands: “Point out some things which are causing things.” “Point out some more things that are causing things”

4. 	Say “This is the process” and run repetitively to EP.

TR 400-11 LEVES FOUR TRIPIE UNBUDIBAITED
TR 400-12 LEVEL FOUR TRIPLE BULLBAITED 
Ref: HCOB 1 SEP 63 R3SC
Tape 6309C05 SHspec 303 Ser Fac Assessment

( Use Basic Drill Format)

STEPS:

1. 	Tell pc you are going to run an Expanded Grade 4 process called Level 4 Triple.

2. 	Clear the word “computation” Have pc give you exasmles of computations. Do not get pc to give “Service Facsimile” as examples of “computation” as you don’t want him listing by accident. He can use mathmatical examples.

3. 	Clear “Service Facsimile”.

4. 	Have your admin for the session already set up .

5. 	Tell pc you will now clear the F1 listing question.

6. 	Clear the question and write down what pc says noting if the question read on clearing.

7. 	If read on clearing say “This is the process” and list it. If not proceed per standard listing procedure following the Laws of L&N. Use suppress and inval on a non reading list question.

8. 	However the question will usually read and so list per Laws of L&N to a BD F/N item.

9. 	Indicate the item to pc. Circle item & mark ‘IND’ on worksheet and also note what the indicators and Cogs are.

10. 	Tell pc you will now run the item in brackets.

11. 	Clear the bracket commands for F1:

1. 	“In this LT how would (list item) make another right?”

2. 	“In this LT how would (list item) make you wrong?”

3. 	“In this LT how would (list item) help another escape domination?”
4. 	“In this LT how would (list item) help another dominate you?”

5. 	“In this LT how would (list item) aid anothers survival?”

6. 	“In this LT how would (list item) hinder your survival?”

12. 	Ask pc question 1; let him enswer it. Only repeat the question if pc needs it and just let him answer and answer and answer. (Unwind as in clocks)

13. 	Let pc come to a Cog or run out of answers or try to answer the next question prematurely then switch question to the second question. Treat this the same way.

14. 	Let pc come to a Cog or run out of answers or accidently start to answer the first question again then go back to the first question and so on back and forth.

15. 	On a big Cog, F/N, VGIs, end off the process and go on to Flow 2

16. 	If pc runs out of answers on questions 1 and 2, without EP having been reached, go on to question 3 and handle as in steps 12, 13, 14, & 15, using question 4 as necessary.

17. 	Use remaining brackets in the same manner as in step 16.

	NOTE: The idea is not to beat the process to death. You are only trying to end the compulsive character of the Service Facsimiles and get it off automatic and get pc to see it better.

18. 	Occasionally you may not get a Cog and EP on running the brackets or it may not run at all in brackets; in this case you would then prepcheck the Service Facsimile. (Ref: Tape 6309C05 SHspec 303 Ser Fac Assessment)

19. 	If you need to prepcheck give your pc an R-factor on what you will be doing.

20. 	Clear the prepcheck button (If not previously cleared.)

21. 	Clear preface given below and proceed to prepcheck “In this lifetime on (Ser Fac) has anything been (Prepcheck button)?”

22. 	Clear and run F2 as in steps 5 to 21.

TR 400-13 HAVINGNESS UNBULLBAITED
TR 400-14 HAVINGNESS BULLBAITED

(Use Basic Drill Format)

STEPS:

1. 	Tell pc your now going to run the Grade 4 Havingness process.

2. 	Clear the F1 command. Say “This is the Process” and run to EP.

3. 	Repeat step 2 on F2 and F3

COMMANDS:

F1: 	“Tell me a flow you know something about.”
F2: 	“Tell me a flow another could know something about.”

F3: 	“Tell me a flow someone could get others to know about.”

Revised & Reissued as BTB 
by Flag Mission 1234

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

Authorized by AVU
for the 
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
of the 
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY 
BCDS:MD:AL:JW:mh 
Copyright © 1971, 1974 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

R2-44: MUST AND MUST NOT HAPPEN

Exerpted from the Book: The Creation of Human Ability

A preclear is stuck on the track where motionlessness occurs. One of the reasons he has used to fight was to make something happen or to keep something from happening. Thus it is of interest in the case to undo these stuck points in the preclear. There are many ways these could be undone, but there is apparently only one way that is actually effective.  This is done with the following commands. ‘Tell me some things you wouldn’t want to have happen again’, ‘Tell me some things you would like to have happen again’. The preclear will get, in accordance with these commands, various recalls, incidents, facsimiles, or environmental situations, or future fears or hopes, and may be steered more directly into these. I first discovered this process by running concepts, but in the running of concepts it has a very limited workability. By pointing out live or imaginary situations great workability is achieved.  The auditor must be very careful to do this process long enough so as not to leave the preclear hung up in an incident.

This is the basic key of time.  

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JANUARY AD10
Fran Hldrs
HCO Secs
Assn Secs
HCO and HASI Staffs
JUSTIFICATION

When a person has committed an overt act and then withholds it, he or she usually employs the social mechanism of justification.

We have all heard people attempt to justify their actions and all of us have known instinctively that justification was tantamount to a confession of guilt. But not until now have we understood the exact mechanism behind justification.

Short of Scientology Auditing there was no means by which a person could relieve himself of consciousness of having done an overt act except to try to lessen the overt.

Some churches used a mechanism of confession. This was a limited effort to relieve a person of the pressure of his overt acts. Later the mechanism of confession was employed as a kind of blackmail by which increased contribution could be obtained from the person confessing. Factually this is a limited mechanism to such an extent that it can be extremely dangerous. Religious confession does not carry with it any real stress of responsibility for the individual but on the contrary seeks to lay responsibility at the door of the Divinity—a sort of blasphemy in itself. I have no axe to grind here with religion. Religion as religion is fairly natural. But psychotherapy must be in itself a completed fact or, as we all know, it can become a dangerous fact. That’s why we flatten engrams and processes. Confession to be non-dangerous and effective must be accompanied by a full acceptance of responsibility. All overt acts are the product of irresponsibility on one or more of the dynamics.

Withholds are a sort of overt act in themselves but have a different source. Oddly enough we have just proven conclusively that man is basically good—a fact which flies in the teeth of old religious beliefs that man is basically evil. Man is good to such an extent that when he realizes he is being very dangerous and in error he seeks to minimize his power and if that doesn’t work and he still finds himself committing overt acts he then seeks to dispose of himself either by leaving or by getting caught and executed. Without this computation Police would be powerless to detect crime—the criminal always assists himself to be caught. Why Police punish the caught criminal is the mystery. The caught criminal wants to be rendered less harmful to the society and wants rehabilitation. Well, if this is true then why does he not unburden himself? The fact is this: unburdening is considered by him to be an overt act. People withhold overt acts because they conceive that telling them would be another overt act. It is as though Thetans are trying to absorb and hold out of sight all the evil of the world. This is wrong-headed, by withholding overt acts these are kept afloat in the universe and are themselves as withholds entirely the cause of continued evil. Man is basically good but he could not attain expression of this until now. Nobody but the individual could die for his own sins—to arrange things otherwise was to keep man in chains.

In view of these mechanisms, when the burden became too great man was driven to another mechanism—the effort to lessen the size and pressure of the overt. He or she could only do this by attempting to reduce the size and repute of the terminal. Hence, not-isness. Hence when a man or a woman has done an overt act there usually follows an effort to reduce the goodness or importance of the target of the overt. Hence the husband who betrays his wife must then state that the wife was no good in some way. Thus the wife who betrayed her husband had to reduce the husband to reduce the overt. This works on all dynamics. In this light most criticism is justification of having done an overt.
This does not say that all things are right and that no criticism anywhere is ever merited. Man is not happy. He is faced with total destruction unless we toughen up our postulates. And the overt act mechanism is simply a sordid game condition man has slipped into without knowing where he was going. So there are rightnesses and wrongnesses in conduct and society and life at large, but random, carping 1.1 criticism when not borne out in fact is only an effort to reduce the size of the target of the overt so that one can live (he hopes) with the overt. Of course to criticise unjustly and lower repute is itself an overt act and so this mechanism is not in fact workable.

Here we have the source of the dwindling spiral. One commits overt acts unwittingly. He seeks to justify them by finding fault or displacing blame. This leads him into further overts against the same terminals which leads to a degradation of himself and sometimes those terminals.

Scientologists have been completely right in objecting to the idea of punishment. Punishment is just another worsening of the overt sequence and degrades the punisher. But people who are guilty of overts demand punishment. They use it to help restrain themselves from (they hope) further violation of the dynamics. It is the victim who demands punishment and it is a wrong-headed society that awards it. People get right down and beg to be executed. And when you don’t oblige, the woman scorned is sweet-tempered by comparison. I ought to know—I have more people try to elect me an executioner than you would care to imagine. And many a preclear who sits down in your pc chair for a session is there just to be executed and when you insist on making such a pc better, why you’ve had it, for they start on this desire for execution as a new overt chain and seek to justify it by telling people you’re a bad auditor.

When you hear scathing and brutal criticism of someone which sounds just a bit strained, know that you have your eye on overts against that criticised person and next chance you get pull the overts and remove just that much evil from the world.

And remember, by and by, that if you make your pc write these overts and withholds down and sign them and send them off to me he’ll be less reluctant to hold on to the shreds of them—it makes for a further blow of overts and less blow of pc. And always run responsibility on a pc when he unloads a lot of overts or just one.

We have our hands here on the mechanism that makes this a crazy universe so let’s go for broke on it and play it all the way out.

								L. RON HUBBARD 
LRH :js.rd 
Copyright © 1960 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 DECEMBER 1968
Remimeo         

(Note: This data is turned out as an HCO B and a Pol Ltr [issued as each one] as may apply very broadly in both the OEC and Level IV or above Courses.)

THE THIRD PARTY LAW

I have for a very long time studied the causes of violence and conflict amongst individuals and nations.

If Chaldea could vanish, if Babylon turn to dust, if Egypt could become a badlands, if Sicily could have 160 prosperous cities and be a looted ruin before the year zero and a near desert ever since—and all this in SPITE of all the work and wisdom and good wishes and intent of human beings, then it must follow as the dark follows sunset that something must be unknown to Man concerning all his works and ways. And that this something must be so deadly and so pervasive as to destroy all his ambitions and his chances long before their time.

Such a thing would have to be some natural law unguessed at by himself.

And there is such a law, apparently, that answers these conditions of being deadly, unknown and embracing all activities.

The law would seem to be:

A THIRD PARTY MUST BE PRESENT AND UNKNOWN IN EVERY QUARREL FOR A CONFLICT TO EXIST.

or

FOR A QUARREL TO OCCUR, AN UNKNOWN THIRD PARTY MUST BE ACTIVE IN PRODUCING IT BETWEEN TWO POTENTIAL OPPONENTS. 

or

WHILE IT IS COMMONLY BELIEVED TO TAKE TWO TO MAKE A FIGHT, A THIRD PARTY MUST EXIST AND MUST DEVELOP IT FOR ACTUAL CONFLICT TO OCCUR.

It is very easy to see that two in conflict are fighting. They are very visible. What is harder to see or suspect is that a third party existed and actively promoted the quarrel.

The usually unsuspected and “reasonable” third party, the bystander who denies any part of it is the one that brought the conflict into existence in the first place.

The hidden third party, seeming at times to be a supporter of only one side, is to be found as the instigator.

This is a useful law on many dynamics.

It is the cause of war.

One sees two fellows shouting bad names at each other, sees them come to blows. No one else is around. So they, of course, “caused the fight”. But there was a third party.

Tracing these down, one comes upon incredible data. That is the trouble. The incredible is too easily rejected. One way to hide things is to make them incredible.

Clerk A and Messenger B have been arguing. They blaze into direct conflict. Each blames the other. NEITHER ONE IS CORRECT AND SO THE QUARREL DOES NOT RESOLVE SINCE ITS TRUE CAUSE IS NOT ESTABLISHED.

One looks into such a case THOROUGHLY. He finds the incredible. The wife of Clerk A has been sleeping with Messenger B and complaining alike to both about the other.

Farmer J and Rancher K have been tearing each other to pieces for years in continual conflict. There are obvious, logical reasons for the fight. Yet it continues and does not resolve. A close search finds Banker L who, due to their losses in the fighting, is able to loan each side money, while keeping the quarrel going, and who will get their lands completely if both lose.

It goes larger. The revolutionary forces and the Russian government were in conflict in 1917. The reasons are so many the attention easily sticks on them. But only when Germany’s official state papers were captured in World War II was it revealed that Germany had promoted the revolt and financed LENIN to spark it off, even sending him into Russia in a blacked out train!

One looks over “personal” quarrels, group conflicts, national battles and one finds, if he searches, the third party, unsuspected by both combatants or if suspected at all, brushed off as “fantastic”. Yet careful documentation finally affirms it.

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

This datum is fabulously useful.

In marital quarrels the correct approach of anyone counseling, is to get both parties to carefully search out the third party. They may come to many reasons at first. These reasons are not beings. One is looking for a third party, an actual being. When both find the third party and establish proof, that will be the end of the quarrel.

Sometimes two parties, quarreling, suddenly decide to elect a being to blame. This stops the quarrel. Sometimes it is not the right being and more quarrels thereafter occur.

Two nations at each other’s throats should each seek conference with the other to sift out and locate the actual third party. They will always find one if they look, and they can find the right one. As it will be found to exist in fact.

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

There are probably many technical approaches one could develop and outline in this matter.

There are many odd phenomena connected with it. An accurately spotted third party is usually not fought at all by either party but only shunned.

Marital conflicts are common. Marriages can be saved by both parties really sorting out who caused the conflicts. There may have been, in the whole history of the marriage, several, but only one at a time.

Quarrels between an individual and an organization are nearly always caused by an individual third party or a third group. The organization and the individual should get together and isolate the third party by displaying to each other all the data they each have been fed.

Rioters and governments alike could be brought back to agreement could one get representatives of both to give each other what they have been told by whom.

SUCH CONFERENCES HAVE TENDED TO DEAL ONLY IN RECRIMINATIONS OR CONDITIONS OR ABUSES. THEY MUST DEAL IN BEINGS ONLY IN ORDER TO SUCCEED.

This theory might be thought to assert also that there are no bad conditions that cause conflict. There are. But these are usually REMEDIAL BY CONFERENCE UNLESS A THIRD PARTY IS PROMOTING CONFLICT.

In history we have a very foul opinion of the past because it is related by recriminations of two opponents and has not spotted the third party.

“Underlying causes” of war should read “hidden promoters”.

There are no conflicts which cannot be resolved unless the true promoters of them remain hidden.

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

This is the natural law the ancients and moderns alike did not know.

And not knowing it, being led off into “reasons”, whole civilizations have died.

It is worth knowing.

It is worth working with in any situation where one is trying to bring peace.

								L. RON HUBBARD 

LRH:rw.rd 
Copyright © 1968 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 JULY 1964

Remimeo
Franchise
Sthil Students

SCIENTOLOGY III & IV

JUSTIFICATIONS

The reasons overts are overts to people is JUSTIFICATIONS.

If you ask a pc what overt he has committed, and then ask him why it wasn’t an overt, you will find that it wasn’t an overt and therefore didn’t relieve as an answer because it was all justified.

One of the powerful new overt processes (as given by me on recent tapes) is:

1. 	In this lifetime what overt have you committed?

2. 	How have you justified it?

2. is run flat until the overt given in 1. is knocked out. Then a new overt is found and 2. is done thoroughly and repetitively on it.

This is not a new form of process but these are very new commands.

Note it is not an alternate command. Note that a cycle of action is completed with question 2. or 1. before you leave off processing this particular overt. Only when you have all the justifications and cognitions possible on 1. do you ask for a new overt from the pc.

This cracks the general irresponsibility the auditor is met with in trying to get O/W to benefit the irresponsible case.

“In this lifetime” is added because the pc who can’t face his overts not only justifies them but goes way back into his past lives to find overts instead of getting off the simple this lifetime ones.

This is not the same process as plain “What have you done?” in which any action done by the pc is accepted as the answer.

However in simple general O/W you will find the pc is not answering the auditing question but is answering “What have I done that caused my trouble?” The pc is running “What action that I have done explains what has happened to me? “

Therefore running justifications off is a further south process than any earlier version of O/W and is very effective in raising the Cause Level of the pc.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 JULY 1964
Remimeo
Franchise	SCIENTOLOGY III & IV
Sthil Students

MORE JUSTIFICATIONS

The following list of Scientology Justifications was compiled by Phyll Stevens and several other Course Students and is issued to show how one can get around getting off an overt and stay sick from it.
                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

SOME FAMOUS JUSTIFICATIONS

It wasn’t really an overt because .....

It wasn’t me it was just my bank
You can’t hurt a thetan
He was asking for a motivator
He’s got overts on me
I’ve got a service fac on that
His overts are bigger than mine
My intentions were good
He’s a victim anyway
I had by-passed charge
I was just being self-determined
I’ve come up to being overt
It’s better than suppressing
I’ll straighten it out next lifetime
He must have done something to deserve it
He was dragging it in
I was in an ARC break
He needed a lesson
He’ll have another lifetime anyway
It’s only a consideration anyhow
It’s not against my moral code
Codes are only considerations
They couldn’t have it
They weren’t willing to experience it
I don’t see why I have to be the only one to take responsibility
It’s about time I was overt
They are only wogs anyhow
They are so way out they wouldn’t realize it
He’s such a victim already, one more motivator won’t make any difference
They just can’t have 8-C
I can’t help it if he reacts
He’s too critical
He must have missed W/Hs
Why should I limit my causativeness just because others can’t take it
It was my duty to tell the truth

LRH: nb .rd 
Copyright © 1964 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 JULY 1964

Remimeo 
Sthil Students 
Franchise

OVERTS—ORDER OF EFFECTIVENESS IN PROCESSING
(STAR RATED except for Forbidden Words List)

It will be found in processing the various case levels that running overts is very effective in raising the cause level of a pc.

The scale, on actual tests of running various levels of pc response, is seen to go something like this:

I ITSA — Letting a pc discuss his or her guilt feelings about self with little or no auditor direction.

I ITSA — Letting a pc discuss his or her guilt feelings about others, with little or no auditor direction.

II REPETITIVE O/W — Using merely “In this lifetime what have you done?” “What haven’t you done?” Alternate.

III ASSESSMENT BY LIST — 	Using existing or specially prepared lists of possible overts, cleaning the meter each time it reads on a question and using the question only so long as it reads.

IV JUSTIFICATIONS — Asking the pc what he or she has done and then using that one instance (if applicable) finding out why “that” was not an overt.

Advice enters into this under the heading of instruction: “You’re upset about that person because you’ve done something to that person.”

Dynamics also permissively enter into this above Level I but the pc wanders around amongst them. In Level III one can also direct attention to the various dynamics by first assessing them and then using or preparing a list for the dynamic found.

RESPONSIBILITY

There is no reason to expect any great pc responsibility for his or her own overts below Level IV and the auditor seeking to make the pc feel or take responsibility for overts is just pushing the pc down. The pc will resent being made feel guilty. Indeed the auditor may only achieve that, not case gain. And the pc will ARC break.

At Level IV one begins on this subject of responsibility but again it is indirectly the target. There is no need now to run Responsibility in doing O/Ws.

The realization that one has really done something is a return of responsibility and this gain is best obtained only by indirect approach as in the above processes.
ARC BREAKS

The commonest cause of failure in running overt acts is “cleaning cleans” whether or not one is using a meter. The pc who really has more to tell doesn’t ARC Break when the Auditor continues to ask for one but may snarl and eventually give it up.

On the other hand leaving an overt touched on the case and calling it clean will cause a future ARC Break with the auditor.

“Have you told all?” prevents cleaning a clean. On the unmetered pc one can see the pc brighten up. On the meter you get a nice fall if it’s true that all is told.

“Have I not found out about something?” prevents leaving an overt undisclosed. On the unmetered pc the reaction is a sly flinch. On a metered pc it gives a read.

A pc’s protest against a question will also be visible in an unmetered pc in a reeling sort of exasperation which eventually becomes a howl of pure bafflement at why the auditor won’t accept the answer that that’s all. On a meter protest of a question falls on being asked for: “Is this question being protested?”

There is no real excuse for ARC Breaking a pc by

1. 	Demanding more than is there or

2. 	Leaving an overt undisclosed that will later make the pc upset with the auditor.

FORBIDDEN WORDS

Do not use the following words in auditing commands. While they can be used in discussion or nomenclature, for various good reasons they should be avoided now in an auditing command:

Responsibility	(ies)
Justification	(s)
Withhold	(s)
Failed	(ures)
Difficulty	(ies)
Desire	(s)
Here
There
Compulsion	(s) (ively)
Obsession	(s) (ively)

No unusual restraint should be given these words. Just don’t frame a command that includes them. Use something else.

WHY OVERTS WORK

Overts give the highest gain in raising cause level because they are the biggest reason why a person restrains himself and withholds self from action.

Man is basically good. But the reactive mind tends to force him into evil actions. These evil actions are instinctively regretted and the individual tries to refrain from doing anything at all. The “best” remedy, the individual thinks, is to withhold. “If I commit evil actions, then my best guarantee for not committing is to do nothing whatever.” Thus we have the “lazy”, inactive person.
Others who try to make an individual guilty for committing evil actions only increase this tendency to laziness.

Punishment is supposed to bring about inaction. And it does. In some unexpected ways.

However, there is also an inversion (a turn about) where the individual sinks below recognition of any action. The individual in such a state cannot conceive of any action and therefore cannot withhold action. And thus we have the criminal who can’t act really but can only re-act and is without any self direction. This is why punishment does not cure criminality but in actual fact creates it; the individual is driven below withholding or any recognition of any action. A thief’s hands stole the jewel, the thief was merely an innocent spectator to the action of his own hands. Criminals are very sick people physically.

So there is a level below withholding that an auditor should be alert to in some pcs, for these “have no withholds” and “have done nothing”. All of which, seen through their eyes is true. They are merely saying “I cannot restrain myself” and “I have not willed myself to do what I have done.”

The road out for such a case is the same as that for any other case. It is just longer. The processes for levels above hold also for such cases. But don’t be anxious to see a sudden return of responsibility, for the first owned “done” that this person knows he or she has done may be “ate breakfast”. Don’t disdain such answers in Level II particularly. Rather, in such people, seek such answers.

There is another type of case in all this, just one more to end the list. This is the case who never runs O/W but “seeks the explanation of what I did that made it all happen to me”.

This person easily goes into past lives for answers. Their reaction to a question about what they’ve done is to try to find out what they did that earned all those motivators. That, of course, isn’t running the process and the auditor should be alert for it and stop it when it is happening.

This type of case goes into its extreme on guilt. It dreams up overts to explain why. After most big murders the police routinely have a dozen or two people come around and confess. You see, if they had done the murder, this would explain why they feel guilty. As a terror stomach is pretty awful grim to live with, one is apt to seek any explanation for it if it will only explain it.

On such cases the same approach as given works, but one should be very careful not to let the pc get off overts the pc didn’t commit.

Such a pc (recognizable by the ease they dive into the extreme past) when being audited off a meter gets more and more frantic and wilder and wilder in overts reported. They should get calmer under processing, of course, but the false overts make them frantic and hectic in a session. On a meter one simply checks for “Have you told me anything beyond what really has occurred?” Or “Have you told me any untruths?”

The observation and meter guides given in this section are used during a session when they apply but not systematically such as after every pc answer. These observations and meter guides are used always at the end of every session on the pcs to whom they apply.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

CERTAINTY PROCESSING

Exerpted from Book: Scientology 8-8008

	The anatomy of maybe consists of uncertainties and is resolved by the processing of certainties. It is not resolved by the processing of uncertainties.

	An uncertainty is held in suspense solely because the preclear is holding on so hard to certainties. The basic thing he is holding on to is “I have a solution,” “I have no solution.” One of these is positive, the other is negative. A complete positive and a complete negative are alike a certainty. The basic certainty is “There is something,” “There is nothing.” A person can be certain there is something, he can be certain there is nothing.

	“There is something,” “There is nothing” resolves chronic somatics in this order. One gets the preclear to have the center of the somatic say “There is something here,” “There is nothing here.” Then he gets the center of the somatic to say “There is nothing there,” “There is something there.” Then the auditor has the preclear toward the somatic say “There is something there,” “There is nothing there.” And then he gets the preclear to say about himself “There is something here.” “There is nothing here.” This is a very fast resolution of chronic somatics; quite ordinarily three or four minutes of this will resolve an acute state and fifteen or twenty minutes of it will resolve a chronic state.

	This matter of certainties goes further. It has been determined by my investigations that the reason behind what is happening is the desire of a cause to bring about an effect. Something is better than nothing, anything is better than nothing. Any circuit, any effect, any anything, is better than nothing. If you will match terminals in brackets “There is nothing,” you will find that a lot of your preclears become very ill. This should be turned around into “There is something.”

	The way one does Matched Terminals is to have the preclear facing the preclear or his father facing his father; in other words, two of each of anything, one facing the other. These two things will discharge one into the other, thus running off the difficulty. By bracket we mean, of course, running this with the preclear putting them up as himself to himself as though they were put up by somebody else, the somebody else facing the somebody else, and the matched terminal again put up by others facing others.

	The clue to all this is positive and negative in terms of certainties. The positive plus the negative in conflict make an uncertainty. A great number of combinations of things can be run. Here’s a list of the combinations: --

	The button behind sex is “I can begin life anew,” “I cannot begin life anew,” “I can make life persist,” “I cannot make life persist,” “I can stop life,” “I cannot stop life, can change life,” “I cannot change life,” “I can start life”, “I cannot start life.”

	A very effective process,

	“Something wrong .., “

	“Nothing wrong ... “  with “you, me, they, my mind, communications, various allies.”

	A very basic resolution of the lack of space of an individual is to locate those people and those objects which you’ve been using as anchor points such as father, mother and so forth and putting them into matched terminal brackets with this: -- “There is father,” “There is no father,” “There is grandfather,” “There is no grandfather.” In the compulsive line this can be changed to “There must be no father,” “There must be a father.” One takes all the allies of an individual and runs them in this fashion.

	The basic law underneath this is that a person becomes the effect of anything upon which he has had to depend. This would tell you immediately that the sixth dynamic, the MEST universe, is the largest dependency of the individual. This can be run out, but then any dynamic can be run out in this fashion. “There is myself,” “There is no self,” and so on up the dynamics. “(Any dynamic) is preventing me from communicating,” “(Any dynamic) is not preventing me from communicating” is intensely effective. Any such technique can be varied by applying the sub-zero scale as found earlier in this book.

	One runs any certainty out because he knows that for this certainly there is an opposite negative certainty and that between these lies a maybe, and that the maybe is suspense in time. The basic operation of the reactive mind is to solve problems. It is based on uncertainties about observation. Thus one runs out certainties of observation. The most general shotgun technique would have to do with “There is sex,” “There is no sex,” “There is force,” “There is no force.” This could be run, of course, in terms of matched terminal brackets or even as concepts, but one must not neglect to run the overt act phenomenon which is to say getting somebody else getting the concept.

	The processing out of certainties would then embrace “I have a solution,” “There is no solution.” These two opposite ends would take care of any individual who was hung on the track with some solution, for that solution had its opposite. People who have studied medicine begin by being certain that medicine works and end by being certain that medicine doesn’t work. They begin by studying psychology on a supposition that it is the solution, and finish up that it is not the solution. This also happens to superficial students of Dianetics and Scientology, thus one should also run “Dianetics is a solution,” “Dianetics is not the solution,” This would also get one off the maybe on the subject.

	We are essentially processing communications systems. The entire process of auditing is concentrated upon withdrawing communications from the preclear as predicated on the basis of the body and the preclear cannot handle communications. Thus “The preclear can handle communication,” “The preclear cannot handle communications” is a shotgun technique which resolves maybes about his communications.

	An intensely interesting aspect of Certainty Processing is that it shows up intimately where the preclear is aberrated. Here is the overall basic technique. One runs “There is...,” “There is not...” the following: Communication, talk, letters, love, agreement, sex, pain, work, bodies, minds, curiosity, control, enforcement, compulsion, inhibition, food, money, people. ability, beauty, ugliness, presents and both the top and bottom of the Chart of Attitudes, positive and negative in each one.

	Basic in all this is the urge of the preclear to produce an effect, so one can run “I can produce an effect upon mama,” “I cannot produce an effect upon mama,” and so forth for all allies and one will resolve the fixations of attention on the part of the preclear. Thus fixations of attention are resolved by Certainty Processing, processing out the production of effect.

	One can occasionally, if he so desires, process the direct center of the maybe, which is to say doubt itself, in terms of Matched Terminals. This, however, is risky for it throws the preclear into a general state of doubt.

	The key to any such processing is the recovery of viewpoints. “I can have grandfather’s viewpoint,” “I cannot have grandfather’s viewpoint,” and so on, particularly with sexual partners, will prove intensely interesting on a case. “There are viewpoints,” “There are no viewpoints,” “I have a viewpoint,” “I don’t have a viewpoint,” “Blank has a viewpoint,” “Blank has no viewpoint,” resolves problems.

	One should also realize that when one is processing facsimiles, he is processing at once energy, sensation and aesthetics. The facsimile is a picture. The preclear is being affected by pictures mainly, and so “There are no pictures,” “There are pictures,” forwards the case toward handling pictures; which is to say facsimiles.

	A person tends to ally himself with somebody whom he considers capable of producing greater effects than himself, so “I, she, he, it can create greater effects,” “I, she, he, it can create no effect,” is quite effective.

	When one is processing, he is trying to withdraw communications. Reach and Withdraw are the two fundamentals in the action of theta. Must Reach and Cannot Reach, Must Withdraw and Cannot Withdraw are compulsions which, when run in combination, produce the manifestation of insanity in a preclear.

	“I can reach,” “I can’t reach,” “I can withdraw,” “I can’t withdraw,” open up into the fact that remembering and forgetting are dependent upon the ability to reach and withdraw. You will find that a preclear will respond to “You must” or “You can,” “You must not,” “You cannot,” “There is,” “There is not,” forgetting and remembering.

	The only reason a person is hanging on to a body or facsimile is because he has lost his belief in his ability to create. The rehabilitation of this ability to create is resolved -- for instance, in a person who has had an ambition to write with “I can write,” “I cannot write” -- and so forth. The loss of this creative ability made the person hang on to what he had. The fact that a preclear has forgotten how to or no longer can himself generate force makes him hold on to stores of force. These are very often mistaken by the auditor for facsimiles. The preclear doesn’t care for the facsimile, he simply cares for the force contained in the facsimile because he knows he doesn’t have any force any more.

	It should be kept in mind that reaching and withdrawing are intensely productive of reaction in a preclear. But that preclear who does not respond to reaching and withdrawing and certainty thereon, is hung up in a very special condition:  he is trying to prevent something from happening, he is trying to maintain control. If he prevents something from happening, he also prevents auditing from happening. He has lost allies, he has had accidents, and he is hung up at all those points on the track where he feels he should have prevented something from happening. This is resolved by running “I must prevent it from happening,” “I cannot prevent it from happening.” “I must retain control,” “I must lose all control.”

	Blackness is the desire to be an effect and the inability to be cause.

	“I can create grandfather (or ally),” “I cannot create grandfather (or ally),” solves scarcity of allies. “I want to be aware,” “I want no awareness,” is a technique which is basic in attitudes. Run this as others, in matched terminal brackets or in Expanded GITA.

	Certainty there is a past, certainty there is no past; certainty there is a future, certainty there is no future; certainty it means something else, certainty it does not mean anything else; certainty there is space, certainty there is no space; certainty there is energy. certainty there is no energy; certainty there are objects, certainty there are no objects.  	
		
DIFFERENTIATION, ASSOCIATION AND IDENTIFICATION

	A special condition of start, change and stop manifests itself in the very woof and warp of the MEST universe and can be plotted on the tone-scale.

	Differentiation is at the top of the tone-scale and is a condition of the highest level of sanity and individuality. Association or similarity is a condition which exists from the upper to the very low range of the scale. And identification is at the bottom of the scale.

	The condition of the preclear can be established readily by his ability to associate. He can, however, associate much too well. Association is the essence of logic. Logic is the gradient scale of relating facts one to another. As logic reaches the lower part of the scale, this relationship becomes finer and finer until at last identification is reached and thought could be expressed in terms of A = A = A = A.

	An excellent rendition of this -- although one not related workably to experience and which did not have with it a truly workable therapy -- is to be found in general semantics in the book Science and Sanity by Alfred Korzybski. Insanity is the inability to associate or differentiate properly. Experience itself becomes ungovernable at the lowest depth of identity. The more fixed the identity of the person may be, the less the experience of which he is capable. Fame has at its end a completely fixed identification which is timeless, but which unfortunately is matter and which equally unfortunately, is inaction.

	The widest possible differentiation exists at the moment of creation. At this moment, one is committed to a cycle of action which, as it continues, is less and less governable by himself and is more and more governed by his environment. As his degree of havingness increases, he is increasingly governed by what he has had and what he has, and this determines what he will have which, of course, is less freedom, less individuality and more havingness.

	Association expresses itself in the preclear in terms of the way he thinks. When he reaches a low level of association, he supposes himself to be thinking connectedly, but is actually thinking in a completely disassociated fashion, for he identifies facts with other facts which should not be identified. The actions of a man about to die or in extreme fear are not sane. Identification brings as its manifestation a solidity to all things including thought. The auditor who processes a preclear very low on the tone-scale who is neurotic or psychotic will readily discover that thoughts are objects to this preclear and that time itself is a matter of enormous concern to the preclear in many cases. Thoughts and incidents and symbols are objects. This is commonly seen in the society in the matter of over-concern about words. A person who has sunk low enough on the tone-scale so that words have become objects and must be handled as such, and exist without any real relationship to ideas, will stop a flow of ideas by an outrage of his word sense which, if he is low on the tone-scale, is easily outraged.

	Differentiation, association and identification belong, rightly, on the tone-scale, and can be processed as part of the scale above. But they are a close gauge of thought itself and of ideas. An adequate tone-scale can be drawn for any individual using only the above three words.

	The auditor will very often find an individual who is intensely logical and quite brilliant who is yet very difficult to process. This person has agreed with the MEST universe to such a degree that his association has assumed the proportions of near-solidity; the facsimiles and ridges of this individual have become much too solid and are consequently quite difficult to process. This condition of solidity may refer only to the body of the preclear which itself is old, and it may be found that the thetan -- the preclear himself -- is quite vital and capable of wide differentiation, but that this differentiation is being grossly limited by the ridges and facsimiles which surround the body. Such bodies have a heavy appearance. It requires an enormously powerful thetan to handle them in spite of the solidity of the ridges surrounding the body.

	Mathematics could be said to be the abstract art of symbolizing associations. Mathematics pretends to deal in equalities but equalities themselves do not exist in the MEST universe, and can exist only conceptually in any universe. Mathematics are a general method of bringing to the fore associations which might not be perceived readily without their use. The human mind is a servo-mechanism to all mathematics. Mathematics can abstractly form by their mechanics coincidences and differences outside the field of experience in any universe and are enormously useful. They can best be used when considered to be a shorthand of experience and in the light that they can symbolize what is beyond actuality. The essence of mathematics lies in differentiation, association, identification, which is to say, equalities must not be viewed as fixed in the real universe. Absolutes are unobtainable in experience but may be symbolized by mathematics.  

Logic

	Logic is a gradient scale of association of facts of greater or lesser similarity made to resolve some problem of the past, present or future, but mainly to resolve and predict the future. Logic is the combination of factors into an answer. The mission of the analytical mind when it thinks, is to observe and predict by the observation of results. Easily the best way to do this is to be the objects one is observing: thus, one can know their condition completely. However, if one is not sufficiently up the scale to be these objects it is necessary to assume what they are. This assumption of what they are, the postulating of a symbol to represent the objects and the combination of these symbols when evaluated against past experience or “known law,” bring about logic.  				

	The genesis of logic may be said to be an interchange of two viewpoints, via other dimension points by which one of the viewpoints holds the attention (one of the most valuable commodities in the universe) of the other viewpoint by being “logical” about why that viewpoint should continue to look. The basis of logic is “it is bad over there” or “there is a hidden influence which you cannot estimate but which we will try to estimate,” “therefore, you should continue to look towards me.” At its best, logic is rationalism, for all logic is based upon the somewhat idiotic circumstance that a being that is immortal is trying to survive. Survival is a condition susceptible to non-survival. If one is “surviving,” one is at the same moment admitting that one can cease to survive, otherwise one would never strive to survive. An immortal being striving to survive presents immediately a paradox. An immortal being must be persuaded that he can not survive or that he is not or might become not, before he would pay any attention to logic. By logic, he can then estimate the future. Probably the only reason he would want to estimate the MEST universe, aside from amusement, is to keep alive in it, or to maintain something in a state of life in it. 

	Logic and survival are intimate, but it must be remembered that if one is worried about his own survival and is striving for his own survival, he is striving for the survival of an immortal being. Bodies are transient, but bodies are an illusion. One could bring himself up the tone-scale to a point where he could create an imperishable body with ease.

	It is interesting that those people who are the most logical are those people who in processing have to know before they are. When they are sent somewhere, they want to know what is there before they get there. There would be no point in going there if they knew, and if everyone knew what was there before they went there. Yet they will attempt to predict what is going to happen there and what is there by knowing. This knowingness is in terms of data and should not be confused with knowingness in terms of actual beingness.  				
  	Logic is the use of data to produce knowingness; as such it is very junior to knowing something by being it.

	If you were to double-terminal an individual who is customarily very logical, his body facing his body in terms of mock-up and each of the terminals being very logical, a surprising violence of interchange would take place. This is because logic is mainly aberration. The work which lies before you is a discussion of beingness and is the track of agreement which became evidently the MEST universe. Therefore this work appears to be logical but it appears also to be the central thread of logic. 

	Apparently, these conclusions were reached by logic; they were not, they were reached by observation and by induction. That when tested they proved themselves in terms of behavior demonstrates not that they are logical, but that they are, at least to a large extent, a discussion of beingness. Scientific logic and mathematical logic have the frailty of trying to find out what is there before one goes there. One cannot ever be, if he has to know a datum about the beingness first. If one is afraid to be, one will become, of course, logical. This is no effort to be abusive upon the subject of logic or mathematics, it is only necessary at this point to indicate a certain difference between what lies before you and a logical arrangement of assumption.  			

Patterns of Energy

	Energy forms into many patterns. The geometry of this formation would make an intensely interesting study. The patterns, however, are formed by postulates and have no other existence.

	The patterns of energy are viewed by the thetan in terms of pressors, tractors, explosions, implosions, pressor ridges, tractor ridges, pressor-tractor ridges, and balls and sheets.

	The pressor is a beam which can be put out by a thetan which acts as a stick and with which one can thrust oneself away or thrust things away. The pressor beam can be lengthened and, in lengthening, pushes away.  				

	A tractor beam is put out by a thetan in order to pull things toward him. The tractor beam is an energy flow which the thetan shortens. If one placed a flashlight beam upon a wall and then, by manipulating the beam, brought the wall closer to him by it, he would have the action of a tractor beam. Tractor beams are used to extract perceptions from a body by a thetan. Pressor beams are used to direct action. Tractors and pressors commonly exist together, with the tractor as a loop outside the pressor. The two together stabilize one another.

	An explosion is an outflow of energy usually violent but not necessarily so, from a more or less common source point.

	An implosion could be likened to the collapse of a field of energy such as a sphere toward a common center point, making an inflow. It can happen with the same violence as an explosion, but does not necessarily do so.

	A pressor ridge would be that ridge formed by two or more pressor beams operating against each other in conflict.

	A tractor ridge would be that ridge formed by two tractor beams in conflict operating against each other.

	A pressor-tractor ridge would be a combination of pressor-tractor flows in sufficient collisions as to form a solidification of energy.

	A ridge is a solid body of energy caused by various flows and dispersals which has a duration longer than the duration of flow. Any piece of matter could be considered to be a ridge in its last stage. Ridges, however, exist in suspension around a person and are the foundation upon which facsimiles are built.

	Two explosions operating against each other may form a ridge.

	Two implosions operating away from each other may form a ridge. An explosion and an implosion operating together -- or many explosions and implosions operating together -- may form a ridge.

	These manifestations of energy are used in handling energy, either in processing or in action.  				

Black and White

	Black and white are the two extreme manifestations of perception on the part of the preclear.

	The thetan perceives best his own energy, but when he perceives energy he desires to perceive it in white or in color. Color is a breakdown of whiteness. Seeing whiteness or color, the thetan is able to discern and differentiate between objects, actions and spatial dimensions.

	Energy can also manifest itself as blackness. A space containing black energy would be black, but a black space may be a space existing only without energy in it. This point of identification is quite aberrative, and drills to permit the thetan to handle blackness are mandatory in processing. If one remembers one’s fear of blackness when a child, and that evil is represented as blackness, one will see the necessity for doing this. Blackness is the unknown, for it may contain energy or it may be empty or may be black energy.

	Black energy flows are common on the tone-scale of wavelengths. There is, for instance, what is known as the black band of sound.

	Some thetans will not perceive anything at all because they conceive themselves to be surrounded by blackness and are not sure whether the blackness has substance or is simply empty, and they have a timidity to discover which. Such a case is resolved by making the case drill with blackness until blackness can be turned on and off and located in time and space. Although this is briefly mentioned, it is a point of the largest importance.

	Black and white running and black and white aesthetic running were old processes which are not necessarily vital today to processing. However, white energy runs easily, and where the preclear has a black spot of energy somewhere on an organ or somewhere in the environment of the body, the auditor asks him to turn it white in order to let it flow away. It may not flow away if it is black, either because it does not belong to the preclear (in which case he would see it as black) or because it is simply a spot of space with which he is not familiar. By turning it white he is able to handle it for he now knows it to be filled with his own energy.

	One can run own determinism, other determinism, as concepts. In this case the preclear runs the one as long as he gets an area white and then runs the other to continue its whiteness. In such a way all the energy in the area is drained away.

	The most common manifestation of a ridge is to have one side of a ridge white and the other side black. This is because the preclear conceives one side of it to have on it his own energy and the other side to have on it energy belonging to another. By running the concept that it is his own and then running the concept that it is another’s, one runs both sides of a ridge, if he is running ridges.

	Although live energy is generally conceived to be white, it can also be black. In running a preclear with an E-meter, it will be discovered as long as a flow is white and as long as a flow is running, that the needle will gradually rise. When a point of blackness appears in the field, the needle will halt and either will not rise again or will flick as the preclear gets a somatic. This flick is characteristic of the somatic. The stuck needle is characteristic of a black field. The auditor can sit watching a needle and be able to tell the preclear whenever the preclear has had a black area appear in the field. It is notable that somatics only occur in the presence of a black patch. This means that the unknown characteristic of the blackness is something the preclear has been holding away from him so as not to have it or that black wave energy is that energy used to impress pain. The latter case is the more probable although a great deal of work must be done upon this to establish beyond doubt the manifestation of blackness.

	A preclear who cannot see color in his facsimiles, cannot see it because he is unable to use energy with which to perceive. He will see things in terms of blackness or whiteness.  				

  	He may be able to get black and white or he may be able to get only blackness. In the latter case he finds blackness in some way profitable and desirable; and running the concept of havingness, will have and have had blackness, and using drills in handling blackness -- moving it from space to space in the environment and moving it into yesterday and tomorrow -- will bring about control of blackness on the part of the preclear.  				   

Perception

	The entire subject of perception is the subject of energy. As the preclear goes down the tone-scale, he is less capable of differentiation and is thus less and less capable of handling energy and is more and more subject to energy, until at last he will not emanate or handle energy. Even in the higher ranges of this descent his perception begins to diminish.

	The rehabilitation of perception is essentially the rehabilitation of force. Force is rehabilitated by rehabilitating the control of energy. This is done by ARC processing and in many other ways. The chief way in which this is done is by establishing the preclear’s ability, by creative processing, to handle blackness.

	An entire science called perceptics can easily be constructed and is mentioned in the original thesis (1948).

	The rehabilitation of sight in the blind, hearing in the deaf, the ability to speak, anaesthesia of the body or body areas or the genital organs, depends upon the rehabilitation of the preclear’s ability to handle energy. Creative processing, with particular attention to handling blackness, is essential in this process.  				     

Force

	In the axioms, force is defined as random effort. Effort is defined as directed force.

	Force is essentially measured effort. It is quite common for individuals to be so protesting at what the MEST universe is doing that they abandon any and all force and, if asked to reassume force or use it, suppose that one is asking them to condone and assume punishment and destruction since these in the MEST universe are done with heavy quantities of force. There is, however, a gradient scale of force, for any energy manifestation may be called force. Even matter contains force.

	For the purposes of processing, in order to avoid upsetting the preclear, who usually has very bad connotations with the word force, the auditor stresses instead the “handling of energy.”

	The use of energy would encompass any activity having to do with energy or matter.  				 

Responsibility

	The responsibility level of the preclear depends upon his willingness or unwillingness to handle energy. That preclear who is protesting against energy in any direction is abandoning responsibility in greater or lesser degree.

	One obtains randomity (see Axioms) by abandoning responsibility in some sphere. He will then find himself in conflict in that sphere.

	The gradient scale of responsibility is as follows: at 40.0 responsibility manifests itself as will and can be so pervasive that there is no randomity. This would be full responsibility.

	At 4.0 responsibility would manifest itself in terms of action where roughly half one’s environment or space had been selected for randomity and for which one would take no responsibility. At 20.0 responsibility would be 50 per cent of the total energy existing.

	At 4.0 we find homo sapiens in his narrow environment disagreeing by using the emotion of enthusiasm with an existing state of affairs and directing energy toward the righting of that state of affairs. Even so, responsibility is low at this level.

	At 2.0 blame enters the tone-scale as a major factor. This is the level of the tone-scale where fault is envisioned for the first time. Above this level there is sufficient breadth of understanding to see that interdependencies and randomities can exist without fault and blame. At 2.0, with the emotion of antagonism, an individual is assigning blame for lack of responsibility rather than trying to enforce responsibility.

	At 1.5 blaming is almost the sole activity of the individual, and, while taking no real responsibility himself, yet he blames all on his environment and does so with violence.

	At 1.1 one pretends to take some responsibility in order to demonstrate that others are at fault but one has no real responsibility.

	At 0.9 or around the level of fear, one does not think in terms of responsibility but is willing to accept all blame in an effort to escape all punishment.

	At 0.75, grief, the individual blames himself, and accepts the fault for what has occurred.

	At 0.375, apathy, there is no question of either blame or responsibility. At this level one has become MEST.

	On the tone-scale in Science of Survival one will find what might be expected to happen to materiel and communication and persons in the vicinity of those below 2.0 on the tone-scale. This stems normally from responsibility, or rather, its lack.

	The keynote of responsibility is the willingness to handle energy. The rehabilitation of the thetan in the handling of energy brings about a rise in responsibility. If a person is low on the tone-scale and still exhibits responsibility, then his energy activity initially must be enormous for any segment of responsibility to exist low on the scale.

	The processing of responsibility is one of the most vital processes. If one processes responsibility itself, he can expect sooner or later a theta clear. He would process it by brackets.  				

	There is a condition known as the “glee of insanity.” This is essentially a specialized case of irresponsibility. A thetan who cannot be killed and yet can be punished, has only one answer to those punishing him, and that is to demonstrate to them that he is no longer capable of force or action and is no longer responsible. He therefore states that he is insane, and acts insane and demonstrates that he cannot possibly harm them as he lacks any further rationality. This is the root and basis of insanity. Insanity is the only escape possible besides death.

	Death has the value of convincing others that one can no longer be punished or feel. As long as one has a body, which can die, there is a limit to the amount he can be hurt. When there is no body, and there is no limit to the amount he can be hurt, his only answer is this plea of complete irresponsibility which is the “glee of insanity.” This is found as an actual energy manifestation in the vicinity of sanitoria and can be felt as an emanation from the insane.

	If the preclear is unable to conceive of “being happy about being insane” (which he usually cannot), get him to get the feeling of anticipation for a vacation. This is irresponsibility in one sense and in actuality, when deepened, becomes the “glee of insanity.”

	Happiness is the overcoming of not insurmountable obstacles toward the known goal of havingness. Stepping away from this track, feeling that one’s work is too hard, these are forsakings of responsibility. A common method employed by low-toned people to reduce the power and ability of an individual and so place him under control is to convince him that he is tired and overworked. If they can so convince him, they can then get him to take a vacation. An examination of an individual who has been subjected to this will show that he was happiest when he was working and that before he “needed a vacation” many people worked on him to convince him that he should not work so hard, and thus turned what was actually play to him into work. Society almost demands that a man consider whatever he is doing as work and demands that he consider work as an unhappy thing. In looking around the society at those who gain easily, one finds only people who take a great deal of joy in working and who never think in terms of a vacation.

	To run the bracket on responsibility, one would run the desire on the part of the preclear to be responsible, his desire not to be responsible, times when he has been forced to be responsible, times when he has been forced not to be responsible, times when he has been restrained from being responsible, times when he has been restrained from being not-responsible, times when he has been sympathized with because of his responsibilities and then all this as a bracket, the preclear doing it to others and others doing it to others. This run round and round as brackets produces marked results.

	The joy of responsibility and the joy of irresponsibility should also be run in terms of brackets.

	This becomes most effective when run in terms of responsibilities of having, the irresponsibilities of having, the responsibilities and irresponsibilities of having had, and of will have.

	Before this has been run very long on some individuals, the glee of insanity will manifest itself and it must be very thoroughly run out. It is often a hectic, uncontrolled laughter. This should not be confused with line-charge laughter to which it is a cousin; a preclear who starts laughing over the serious things of his past is breaking locks, and can be made to laugh in this fashion for many hours if the chain reaction is started. The laughter which accompanies the “glee of insanity” has no mirth in it whatever.

	Peculiar to this is what might be called the attitude of MEST. MEST is not responsible for anything. That preclear who has as his goal complete irresponsibility has also as his goal being complete MEST.

	MEST has no space of its own, it causes no action except when acted upon, and it owns nothing but is itself owned.  				

	Slaves are made by giving them freedom from responsibility.

	The thetan high on the scale can make space or own space, has wide choices of action, and can create, change or destroy anything he wishes.

The Chart of Attitudes

	In order to do rising-scale processing (as covered later), the auditor should know very well his Chart of Attitudes and the reasons underlying each column.  

Survives	Right 	Fully responsible	Owns All  
Dead	Wrong 	No responsibility	Owns nothing  
Everyone	Always	Motion source	Truth  
Nobody	Never 	Stopped 	Hallucination  
Faith	I know	Cause	I am  
Distrust	I know not	Full effect	I am not  
Win	Start 	Difference	Being  
Lose	Stop	Identification	Had

	 This chart on the upper line in each of the above represents from 27.0 to 40.0. The lower line under each one represents 0.0.

	Each one of these is a gradient scale with many intermediate points. In rising-scale running, one seeks the attitude of the preclear nearest to the lowest end of this scale and asks him to do a rising-scale to see how high he can change his postulate toward the upper end of the scale.

	The last line is, of course, a repeat without the intermediate position of the earlier interdependencies of experience.  				    

Survival

	One of the first principles in the MEST universe, and that principle which, when discovered. resolved the problems of the mind, is the lowest common denominator of all MEST universe existence; the goal of life in the MEST universe is survival and only survival.

	Survival equates behavior in homo sapiens or in any life form. It also covers the wide field of ethics. The principle of survival was never intended to embrace theta itself for this has, of course, immortality and does not even necessarily move in MEST time.

	Survival is nothing if not dependent upon havingness, action and beingness. It is most ordinarily viewed as the attempt in a life form to persist in a state of existence as long as possible.  				 

Right -- Wrong

	Rightness is conceived to be survival. Any action which assists survival along the maximal number of dynamics is considered to be a right action. Any action which is destructive along the maximal number of dynamics is considered to be wrong. Theoretically, how right can one be? Immortal!  How wrong can one be? Dead!

	After a certain point on the tone-scale is reached by the preclear, he will tend instinctively to seek out and do right actions, but ordinarily homo sapiens is thoroughly engrossed in being wrong. Social politeness, with its violation of the Code of Honor, is quite non-survival. It might also be said, How wrong can one be? Human!

	The accident prone and no-responsibility case in general is so intent on being wrong that he is incapable of conceiving right.

	All jurisprudence is built upon the principle that sanity is the ability to differentiate right from wrong. Jurisprudence does not, however, give a definition of either rightness or wrongness. Thus, for the first time with this principle, rules of evidence and other matters in law can be established with some accuracy.

	Absolute rightness, like absolute wrongness, is unobtainable. Rightness and wrongness are alike relative states.  				

Responsibility

	 (See text above.)  				   

Ownership

	In view of the fact that time can be conceived to be havingness and in view of the fact that time itself is one of the most puzzling concepts which homo sapiens has ever sought to master, the whole question of ownership is subject to grave error, particularly on the part of homo sapiens.

	Discussions in the above text demonstrate that individuality depends upon high-tone level and freedom, whereas identity, as such, would be at a complete level of reduction, a condition analogous to MEST.
	It has long been recognized that “a rich man may as well try to get into Heaven as a camel through the eye of a needle.” The auditor will suddenly discover this truth when he tries to process many rich and successful men. These have carried ownership to such an extent that they are themselves thoroughly encased in energy which is solidifying into MEST itself. Instead of having things, they themselves are had by things. Their freedom in motion is enormously reduced, although they have tricked themselves into believing that possession will increase that freedom.

	The auditor will find his preclear upset nowhere on the tone-scale as he will on the subject of ownership. A childhood, for instance, is intensely upset by the subject of ownership since the child is given to understand that he owns certain things and is then commanded in every action he takes with those items. A child cannot have possession, free and clear, of anything in the average family. He is given shoes and is told to take care of them and is punished if he does not take care of them although he apparently owns them. He is given toys and is harassed whenever he abuses them. He finally becomes convinced that he owns nothing and yet he is in a state of anxiety about owning things. Therefore he will try to possess many things and will completely overestimate or underestimate the value of what he has. The auditing of childhood ownership is a fruitful field for the auditor.

	That preclear who is upset on the subject of time, even faintly, is, and has been, enormously upset on the subject of ownership, since havingness and its manifestations are themselves the MEST universe trick of giving us an illusion of time.  			

Everyone -- Nobody  	     

	(See material above on Identity versus Individuality.)

	It may be confusing to the preclear that being everybody can be conceived at both ends of the tone-scale. The difference is that at the bottom end of the scale, the preclear is making the mistake of considering the “somebodies” around him as MEST. He can be their MEST identities. At the top of the scale, while still retaining his own identity, he can be anyone’s identity but this is on a theta level and is disassociated from MEST. That preclear who goes around believing he is other people is usually at the bottom end of the tone scale and has confused his own body with the bodies he sees because he does not have a proper view of his own body and so can easily mistake it for the bodies of others.

	When an individual is low on the tone-scale, he easily does a life continuum for others because he himself is so encased in MEST and so poorly recognizes his own identity that he can conceive himself to be anyone without knowing what he has done.

	The question of valences and life continuums is difficult to resolve in direct ratio that the preclear conceives himself to be MEST.

	MEST, lacking the ability to create space and to produce directive action is, of course, nobody. When a man is convinced he is a nobody he has been convinced at the same time that he is MEST.  				

Always -- Never

	We have already seen that objects give us the illusion of time. The ability to create objects is interchangeable with the ability to have an actual forever.

	There would be an illusory forever which would be dependent upon the duration of an object and its apparent solidity. One might also say that the MEST universe seeks to own one by pretending that immortality is something difficult to buy and is only purchased by achieving an identity or being an object. The ultimate in this is, of course, being a part of the MEST universe. One might say jocularly that every planet in the MEST universe was once one or more people. A considerable reaction can be got from a preclear by making him conceive a feeling of devotion toward the “older” gods who were here and who built this universe and who have left it to him. Deeply religious feelings are very often based upon this idea. Some astonishing reactions can occur in a preclear when running this concept.

	The real way to be assured of a great deal of time is to be able, of course, to create time, and this would be to a thetan the true concept of always. Time is created, at least in this universe, by creating energy and objects, and by being able to make the universe agree with oneself, not by having the universe continually making one agree with it.  			    

Motion Source -- Stopped

	The ability to cause motion is dependent, whether the individual realizes it or not, upon the ability to conceive space. Creation of space is the first requisite for the creation of motion.

	When one can no longer create space and cannot conceive any space to be his own, he can be considered to be stopped.

	That individual who is tremendously concerned with being stopped is losing his ability to create space. When he is no longer able to create space, he is himself MEST.  				

	Somebody once said that it was a poor man who was not king in some corner. One might add to this that one is not only poor but he does not exist when he cannot create a corner. One could obtain a very amusing viewpoint of this by watching the conduct of a dog who, theta-motivated like every life form, is bravest in his own front yard; and even a mastiff proceeds with some caution when in the front yard of a Pekinese. This is a case of ownership of space and, in some slight degree, the ability to create a space to own.

	One processes this by moving mock-ups into an auto created space.  			     

Truth -- Hallucination

	The highest one can attain to truth is to attain to his own illusions. The lowest one can descend from truth is a complete acceptance of MEST universe reality, for this below a certain level becomes scrambled and brings on the condition known as hallucination. Hallucination is not self-generated; it comes about only when a person is an effect to such an extent that he is almost dead.

	What is commonly believed to be truth is agreement upon natural law. This would be the truth of the MEST universe which would be the lowest common denominator of agreement upon any one subject. Where the MEST universe is concerned, acceptance of such truths is dangerous.

	In Scientology one is studying the lowest common denominators of agreement which bring about an acceptance of the MEST universe and prohibit the creation of one’s own universe, which latter ability alone makes possible perception of the MEST universe which is itself an agreed-upon illusion.

	Truth in Scientology is the study of the lowest common denominator of agreement, plus the establishment of the true ability of the thetan. The true ability of the thetan is a truth much higher than the truth of the MEST universe itself and, if it has ever before been known, the difficulties of communicating it have been such as to inhibit its promulgation.  				

	It can be seen there is truth above what passes for “truth” in the MEST universe. Scientific truths gained from deductive observations of behavior of the MEST universe are themselves manifestations of agreements on the part of beings -- thetans -- who are capable of much wider creation and agreement than that represented in the MEST universe.

	We have answered in Scientology a good portion of “what is truth?”  			
	 
Faith -- Distrust

	There is no more over-rated quality in existence than faith.

	The subject who, under the hands of a hypnotist operator, conceives an enormous agreement with the hypnotist, is experiencing faith as it is commonly understood. In this state the subject can perceive anything which the hypnotist may direct.

	In order to understand faith, one must be able to differentiate between faith-in and faith. The difference between these two conditions is a direction of flow which earlier we found to be reality itself. Faith-in is an inflow of agreement and the placing of one’s beingness and doingness under the control of another, and is, in other words, the sacrifice of one’s universe. This is the basic mechanism wherein, all along the whole track, thetans have been recruited in some cause or mystery, and have surrendered to this their own identity and ability. A little of this goes a very long distance. It is in essence the basic trick of hypnotism and by it one can convert and reduce the abilities of a subject for any purpose.

	Faith-in is an inflow and brings about the acceptance of reality other than one’s own. Faith itself would be without flow where one was in a full state of beingness and, with this condition, one could occasion faith itself to occur within his own universe, or could occasion people to have faith in him.  		

	The auditor will find one of the more aberrative phases of the preclear in his failure to obtain from others faith in himself, and his acquiescence to their demands on any dynamic that he have faith in them.

	Because it is entirely true that a being lacking in faith is low in tone, the fact can be traded upon with great ease.

	Distrust is not the lowest end of the scale, but begins to set in as a neurotic or psychotic condition at about 1.5. Actually faith interchanges with distrust in gradient levels all the way down the tone-scale and they alternate one with the other as one goes deeper and deeper into the MEST universe. The lowest level of this scale is not distrust but complete faith-in, which is the condition held by MEST which is supine to any sculptor.

	This column might also be called the column of belief -- disbelief or the column of reality -- unreality. The auditor can expect the preclear as he rises up the tone-scale to pass through the various shades of distrust and the various shades of faith. This is often quite upsetting to the preclear for he cannot conceive himself to be rising in tone.

	It is very noteworthy that a preclear, when low in tone at the beginning, will pass inevitably through various strata of revulsion for the MEST universe and then for his own universe. The revulsion he can conceive for the MEST universe objects and for being in the MEST universe can become unthinkably distressing to him. When this condition has occurred, the auditor can be reassured by the fact that the preclear is rising in scale but has hit upon one of the levels of this column, and that a higher level and a more comfortable one immediately succeeds as processing is continued. This is simply a problem of reversing directions of flow. If the auditor is running flows he will find that an inflow is shortly succeeded by an out-flow and this out-flow is shortly succeeded by another in-flow. These are in essence agreements and disagreements alternating one after the other and each one is slightly higher on the tone-scale than the last.  				

I Know -- I Know Not

	Epistemology has long been the senior study of philosophy; Scientology is itself the science of knowing how to know.

	The study of knowledge is in essence, in the MEST universe, a study of data. Data in the MEST universe are usually recorded in facsimiles. Thus one can go in two directions toward knowledge. The first is knowing what one is, and the second is knowing what has happened to one in the MEST universe and searching for identity in the MEST universe.

	There is no more tragic track than the sordid ransacking of facsimiles to discover TRUTH for all one discovers is what is true for the MEST universe. This wandering and endless trail is bleak with the bones of lost beingness. Earlier explorers have, almost without exception, destroyed themselves in this search for TRUTH in the MEST universe, for all they discovered was further and further agreement and more and more facsimiles and all they achieved as individuals were the traps and snake-pits of implants on the whole track.

	To stand at last near the heights of discovered beingness has withered the sadness of standing on other men’s bitter and, until now, probably unrewarded search. It was necessary to ransack the facsimiles, which are themselves one’s sole inheritance for travail in the MEST universe, to discover the common denominators of facsimiles and to discover that they were only facsimiles, how they were created and how experience was impressed upon the individual. One might well have the feeling of having narrowly escaped a terrible tragedy when he views the thinness on which he stood to view this brink of oblivion, for it was obviously never intended that anyone should recover from participation or even spectatorship in or of the game called MEST universe. Dante’s inscription above the portals of Hell might very well be written best on the gates of entrance into this universe.

	The common denominator of all difficulty an individual has in the MEST universe may be summed up under the heading “facsimiles.” Originally, in his own universe, he used the mechanism of energy creation to make objects. In the MEST universe this ability reduces to the use of energy solely for the recording of data about the MEST universe so that one can agree with that data. And in this process lies death, not only as a body periodically but as a thetan.

	What has commonly been mistaken for knowledge has been the MEST universe track of seeking agreement with the MEST universe by discovering all possible data about what one should do in order to agree with the MEST universe. The more data one achieved, the more facsimiles he had; the more facsimiles he had, the more MEST he was. It was necessary to win through this trap in order to recognize, isolate and evaluate the common denominators of facsimiles, and to discover that self-created energy has been utilized to enforce agreement upon oneself so as to enslave one’s beingness and lead it to its final destruction.

	No adventure in the MEST universe can exceed the adventure of making orderly anatomy from the chaos of commingled matter, energy and space which comprise the planets, galaxies and island universes of this Black Beyond which awaited to devour the universe self-constructed of any thetan or group of thetans. The slaying of a roaring beast of fire held in it, in olden times, less action and danger.

	These lines are not written from any self-congratulatory motive, for fame is a rock. But by these lines the auditor may be impressed by the actuality of what he handles, and so that he can appreciate his own gallantry in fronting an adversary of such insentient brutality.

	The road to knowledge led through the anatomy of the space and energy masses called the MEST universe. The data did not lie in the MEST universe. The ransacking of facsimiles for data about one’s identity, about one’s “past history” in the MEST universe, should be tolerated by the auditor only insofar as it gives him materials for creative processing. He should never directly begin the direct processing of facsimiles, whether engrams or secondaries, save only in the case of an assist. He needs only to know so much of a preclear’s beingness on the whole track to know what to mock up for the preclear’s running.

	The difficulty the preclear is having is not so much the content of various facsimiles but, on this high echelon of Scientology on which we are now operating, the fact that he has facsimiles. The path of better techniques is the path toward permitting the preclear to step away from all his facsimiles.

	The track to knowledge, then, has two directions. It is possible at this time to take the better path. The essence of true knowledge is the essence of existing so that one can create beingnesses and data to know. All other data are junior to this.

	A control operation of some magnitude was once perpetrated in the late 18th century. It was stated with great authority that anything worth knowing would always be beyond the bounds of human experience. This sought, knowingly or unknowingly, further to block the search for beingness. It should never be considered by anyone or under any circumstances that anything which can affect him could be beyond his ability to know the full nature of what he is experiencing. If any lesson is contained in Scientology, it is the lesson that the gates to all knowingness are open.

	One should have the knowledge of the composition of the MEST universe as a fox might have use for the knowledge of a trap. It is cruelty to make a theta clear without at the same time educating him so as to permit him to avoid those pitfalls which brought him where he is found -- in a MEST body on a planet named Earth (Solar System, Galaxy 13, MEST Universe).

	Top-scale knowing would be top-scale ability to create beingness. The identity assigned to one by others and the data contained in facsimiles are knowingness not worth having.  				
	
Cause -- Full Effect

	Above the level of all else on the Chart of Attitudes is Cause. Causation is the highest attainment which can be envisaged by the thetan, but this is not necessarily the highest possible attainment, and much higher levels may be envisionable by the thetan when he has attained high on the level of causation.

	To be Full Cause, one would have to be able to cause space and many other manifestations. Everyone, to a greater or lesser degree, attempts to be cause until he is at last the full effect. The fullest effect in this universe is to be MEST itself.

	One of the principles of causation is outlined in the cycle of action, but it is not necessarily true that one can only cause a cycle of this pattern or that one must cause cycles at all, for it is excellent processing to mock-up with reverse cycles going from death back to creation with objects which one has mocked up.

	It is one of the “facts” of objects that space and energy must have been caused before the object could exist in the MEST universe. Thus any object has prior cause. For this reason when anyone in the MEST universe begins to study in order to resolve some of the riddles of the MEST universe, he falls into the trap of supposing all cause to be prior and time itself to exist. This would make one the later effect of everything he caused. In other words, if he made a postulate, he would then immediately afterwards become the effect of that postulate. Causes motivated by “future” desire, enforcement and inhibition of havingness, do not lie in the past but only in the condition of havingness in this universe which states that any object must have had a “prior” cause.

	The preclear has become aberrated by the process of making an effect out of him and taking from him the ability to be cause by convincing him that it is better to be an effect.

	Freud had one of the major aberrations in view when he declared his libido theory in 1894 and decided therein that sex was the only aberration. It is certainly a major one in homo sapiens, for in sex one desires to be the cause of little or nothing and desires to be the effect of pleasurable sensation.

	Anything in the MEST universe which one desires, he desires because it will have a pleasant effect on him. Thus he is searching for sensation caused exterior to himself which will make on him an effect. How much of an effect can he become? MEST! The snare of pleasurable sensation leads one to accept energy other than one’s own. Desire for this energy or objects then puts one in the condition of being an effect. When one is surrounded by as many powerful possible energy sources as one finds in the MEST universe, he cannot but become a low level cause.

	When a preclear is at a level on the tone-scale where he is concerned with bad and good (above 8.0 both these are seen broadly enough to understand that they are viewpoints) he is very concerned if he thinks that he is or could be bad cause and is desirous of being what he considers good cause. He judges these things by moral codes and so bends his conduct as to make bad cause antipathetic to himself and others. Thus he gives away responsibility for bad cause and in that very action becomes the effect of bad cause. When he has found himself to be what he considers bad cause, he ceases to “trust” himself and begins to blame himself and then others.

	All angels have two faces. They are commonly represented in mythology as having a black and white face. To be complete cause, theoretically, a person would have to be willing to be bad cause and good cause. Only in this wise, in the MEST universe, could he escape the liability of becoming the effect of bad cause.

	The criminal who has elected himself bad cause through having found it impossible to trust himself (and a criminal career always begins at the moment when the criminal-to-be loses his self-respect; a career of prostitution cannot begin until self-respect is lost; and self-respect is only lost when one considers himself to be bad cause) can only escape becoming an effect by fighting all good cause. The reformation or reclamation of the criminal does not depend upon punishment, which only seeks to make him more MEST than he is, nor yet upon good cause, which he must fight, but upon the reestablishment of the criminal’s self-respect; for only after this is he capable of being good cause.

	An entire process evolves around “what would you cause on (each one of the dynamics)?” An assessment of the preclear with a meter should seek to establish where the preclear feels he would be bad cause, for it is on this point that he will be found to have lost his self-respect and where it will be discovered why he cannot trust himself. Self-trust, self-respect and the ability to be cause are conditions in the same order of magnitude and can be interchangeably approached.  				

I Am -- I Am Not

	On the Chart of Attitudes which accompanies the Handbook for Preclears, it will be found at 22.0 “I am myself.” The only true identity is “myself.” It is not a name, it is not a designation. Orders, titles, ranks, praise and enduring fame alike do not bring about the condition “I am” or an actual identity; they bring about instead an identification, with all the liabilities of identification. The finality of identification is 0.0 or lower on the tone-scale.

	The concept of infinite mind is not new, but it has always been assigned to another beingness than self. The preclear will be found to be intensely aberrated who has sworn allegiance to some infinite beingness and has then agreed that all space belonged to that beingness, and that the rights of creation and energy belonged to that beingness and did not belong to self. This is a handy and, to the very badly aberrated, acceptable method of denying any responsibility for anything. It is also the shortest route toward I AM NOT. Infinite mind is individualistic. All mankind does not depend upon or share a portion of the infinite mind. On the contrary, the highest individualism attainable is the individualism of the infinite mind. It was beyond the power and grasp of the intellect applying itself to the field of philosophy, to conceive a multiplicity of infinite minds, and these commentators had agreed sufficiently with the MEST universe to conceive that the only space was the MEST universe space and they could not understand that this was an illusion, and that the existence of space does not depend upon existing space. Just as there can be an “infinity” of ideas, so can there be an “infinity” of “infinities” of space. Two beings theoretically, each with an infinite mind, and each capable of the production of an infinity of space, could yet co-produce sufficient space to communicate with each other. This may be difficult to conceive until one has attained a level of the tone-scale sufficient for an expansive viewing of his potentialities, at which moment it becomes simplicity itself.
	There is a psychosis which has as its manifestation the illusion that one is God and the ruler of the universe. This psychosis comes about from the effort of an individual who is well below complete agreement with the MEST universe, to shift into the valence of what he has already accepted to be the creator of the universe. Instead of being himself, he has become unable even to be a MEST body in a sane condition, has conceived God to be MEST, and has then shifted into the valence of God. God, in this case, will be found to be conceived to be a MEST object. As an aside to this, below the level of complete agreement that the MEST universe is the only reality, begins the state which could be described by the statement, “I agree, I am still agreeing, and yet you are still punishing me.” The unfortunate fact about the MEST universe is that it is MEST and is designed to punish and cares nothing about agreement with it beyond the point that one agrees with it, and has no spirit of fair play whereby punishment ceases when one has acknowledged the winner. Recognition of this brings on insanity in an effort to further back away from responsibility and further escape from punishment. In the MEST universe, this escape from punishment is, of course, impossible. Thus there is a level below 0.0 for any immortal being.

	One of the first confusions on the part of the preclear which the auditor will encounter is the fact that the preclear considers himself to be in the state of I AM when he has a body and a name. This is high-tone compared to the sub-zero state in which the thetan quite often finds himself, but it is very far from optimum. Here the preclear is confusing identity with his own sense of beingness. His sense of beingness does not depend upon and, indeed, is confused by a MEST identity such as a name assigned to him and a body with which he can be recognized.

	To a large degree the society of Earth requires, as part of its structure, names and the means to identify. The state finds itself very satisfied whenever it increases its ability to readily identify its citizenry, and will resort to almost any pretext to collect the fingerprints and dossier of one and all.

	Identity is such a liability and is so thoroughly MEST that individuality is really not possible in the presence of sharply defined identity. Reaching down into the sub-zero tone-scale, the thetan finds it expedient not only to mask his beingness, but to hide his identity with great thoroughness even from himself. This passion for non-identity is the spasm of clinging to the last shreds of individuality which would otherwise be lost. Thetans from some of the corps operating in space have thoroughly agreed to be amongst themselves completely black, the better to hide in the blackness of space. This blackness is found in the occluded case in many instances.

	The commonest plea on the part of the preclear is “Who am I?” He feels that if he could only answer this, he would be happy. He then ransacks his facsimiles for all of his past identities on his many spirals and as these amount to hundreds of millions, he finds no surcease. He succeeds only in damaging himself with the many injuries contained in facsimiles through which he is searching. He is identifying to the point where he is searching not for the state of I AM but for WHAT HAVE I BEEN LABELLED? The attainment of the state of I AM depends upon one’s ability to again be able to create space, energy and objects in and for his own universe, by himself or in co-operation with other thetans, and the rehabilitation of the many additional abilities of the thetan for the creation of energy is but one of a very large number. Thus the state of I AM is reached through creative processing and postulate processing rather than the processing of MEST universe facsimiles or endless searching with an E-meter to discover what one has been.

	There are gods above all other gods. Anything which has wide acceptance and has been successful, wherever suns shine and planets swing, is based upon some fundamental truth. There is no argument here against the existence of a Supreme Being or any devaluation intended. It is that amongst gods, there are many false gods elected to power and position for the benefit and use of those who would control and make into the basest slaves the most sublime beings. As an ancient Greek said, when one has examined the descriptions of God written by men, he finds in that Being at best a thirst for self-aggrandizement and adulation which would be disgusting in any man. Man has sought to make his God a god of mud because the Early Greek and even more distant peoples, made idols in the form of men by which they thought to entrap the beingness of some local divinity who troubled them; more modern man has fallen into the error of making God into the body of a homo sapiens and posting him somewhere on high with a craving for vengeance and a pettiness in punishment matched only by the degradation of homo sapiens himself.

	There are gods above all other gods, and gods beyond the gods of universes, but it were better, far better, to be a raving madman in his cell than to be a thing with the ego, cruelty, and jealous lust that base religions have set up to make men grovel down.  				

Win -- Lose

	It is noteworthy that as the preclear ascends the tone-scale, his desire to win increases. Those low on the tone-scale, even when they think they are trying to win, will almost uniformly set up their problems and solutions so that they will lose.

	Homo sapiens has little converse with true competence. There is an astonishing level of winningness above 4.0 where competence becomes a joy like poetry.

	Regret of competence ensues when one has employed competence to injure another being drastically. The duellist begins with joy in competence of sword-handling and before long, because of the counter-emotion he receives from his practice of the art, conceives disgust for competence. In a later life, he will carry this into everything he does, so fearing that he will employ competence to injure that he dares not practice competence in the smallest things; and by failing to practice competence, so introduces losingness, to the injury of himself and others. A man who instinctively recoils from competence and perfection, at the wheel of a car, will sometimes cause an accident rather than avoid one if competence of a high order is required in the avoidance.

	To win one must wish to win; when one no longer desires to win, one no longer desires to live.  (Note -- The remaining three columns of the chart of attitudes are covered broadly in the earlier text.)  		  

The Emotional Scale and Sub-Zero Tone-Scale

	The emotional scale has been covered often and exhaustively elsewhere. As has been discussed in this text, it is dependent upon that characteristic of energy known as affinity which itself is established by flows, dispersals and ridges.

	Below zero on the tone-scale is applicable only to a thetan.

	It has been quite commonly observed that there are two positions for any individual on the tone-scale. This occurs because there is a position for the composite of the thetan plus his MEST body operating in a state of unknowingness that he is not a MEST body, and behaving according to social patterns, which give him some semblance of sanity. The other position on the tone-scale is the position of the thetan himself, and it is necessary for us to demonstrate a negative scale in order to find the thetan at all.

	For the thetan you will find the scale as follows:  			

	40.0   	Serenity of beingness  				
	8.0   	Exhilaration  				
	4.0   	Enthusiasm  				
	3.0   	Conservatism  				
	2.5   	Boredom  				
	2.0   	Antagonism  				
	1.8   	Pain  				
	1.5   	Anger  				
	1.2   	No-sympathy  				
	1.0   	Fear  				
	0.9   	Sympathy  				
	0.8   	Propitiation  				
	0.5   	Grief  				
	0.375 	Making amends  				
	0.05  	Apathy  				
	0.0   	Being a body  			
	 -0.2   	Being other bodies  			
	 -1.0   	Punishing other bodies  			
	 -1.3   	Responsibility as blame  			
	 -1.5   	Controlling bodies  			
	 -2.2   	Protecting bodies  			
	 -3.0   	Owning bodies  			
	 -3.5   	Approval from bodies  			
	 -4.0   	Needing bodies  			
	 -8.0   	Hiding  			

	This sub-zero tone-scale shows that the thetan is several bands below knowingness as a body, and so he will be found in the majority of cases. In our homo sapiens he will be discovered to be below zero on the tone-scale. The zero-to-four plus tone-scale was formulated on, and referred to, bodies and the activity of thetans with bodies. In order, then, to discover the state of mind of the thetan, one must examine the sub-zero scale. He has some trained patterns as a body which make it possible for him to know and to be. As himself, he has lost all beingness, all pride, all memories and all self-determined ability, but yet has an automatic response-mechanism in himself which continues furnishing his energy.

	EACH ONE OF THE ABOVE POINTS ON THE SCALE IS RUN AS POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE. Example: The beautiful sadness of needing bodies. The beautiful sadness of NOT needing bodies. The beauty of being responsible for bodies, the beauty of NOT being responsible for bodies. Each one is run as itself and then as the reverse with the addition of NOT.

	The sub-zero to 40.0 scale is the range of the thetan. A thetan is lower than body death, since it survives body death. It is in a state of knowingness below 0.375 only when it is identifying itself as a body and IS, to its own thinking, the body. The BODY-PLUS-THETAN scale is from 0.0 to 4.0, and the position on this scale is established by the social environment and education of the composite being and is a stimulus-response scale. The preclear is initially above this 0.375 on the BODY-PLUS-THETAN range. Then, on auditing, he commonly drops from the FALSE TONE of the BODY-PLUS-THETAN scale and into the true tone of the thetan.

	This is actually the only self-determined tone present -- the actual tone of the thetan. From this sub-zero he quickly rises up scale through the entire range as a thetan and generally settles at 20.0 and in command of the body and situations. The course of auditing then takes the preclear, quite automatically, down from the FALSE TONE of the BODY-PLUS-THETAN scale to the actual tone of the thetan. Then the tone of the thetan rises back up the scale level by level.

	It is not uncommon to find the preclear (who IS the thetan) quite raving mad under the false “veneer” of social and educational stimulus-response training and to discover that the preclear, while behaving quite normally in the BODY-PLUS-THETAN state, becomes irrational in the course of auditing. BUT DESPITE THIS, the preclear is actually being far more sane and rational than ever before and the moment he discovers himself as himself, as THE source of energy and personality and beingness of a body, he becomes physically and mentally better. Thus the auditor must not be dismayed at the course of tone, but should simply persevere until he has the thetan up into rational range. A raving mad thetan is far more sane than a normal human being. But then, as you audit, observe it for yourself.  				

The Dichotomies

	While the auditor can do much solely by reducing facsimiles, he soon will find that his preclears are not always able to erase facsimiles easily. He will find occasionally that he often has a difficult time when a particularly heavy facsimile is in restimulation and, do what he will, the auditor may find his preclear’s tone remains unchanged and that the preclear’s attitudes have not evolved to a better high.

	We now come to “The Governor” mentioned in a lecture in the autumn of 1951. The speed of a preclear is the speed of his production of energy.

	The most important step in establishing a preclear’s self-determinism, the main goal of the auditor, is the rehabilitation of the preclear’s ability to produce energy.

	A being is, apparently, an energy production source. How does he produce live energy without mechanical means, cellular activity, or food?

	The basic principle of energy production by a being has been copied in electronics. It is very simple. A difference of potential of two areas can establish an energy flow of themselves. Carbon batteries, electric generators, and other producers of electrical flows act on the principle that a difference of energy potential in two or more areas can cause an electrical impulse to flow between or amongst them.

	The preclear is static and kinetic, meaning he is no-motion and motion. These, interplaying, produce electrical flow.

	A preclear as a static can hold two or more energy flows of different wavelengths in proximity and between them obtain a flow.

	A preclear can hold a difference of flow between two waves and a static so long (and arduously) that the effect of a discharging condenser can be obtained. This can “explode” a facsimile.

	The preclear flows electrical currents of command at the body. These hit pre-established ridges (areas of dense waves) and cause the body to perceive or act. The preclear takes perception from the body with tractor beams. He holds the body still or braces himself against it by wrapping a tractor (pulling) beam around it while he places a pressor (pushing) beam at his back to command himself into action. (You can almost break a preclear’s spine by asking him to contract his own tractor around his body and yet withhold the pressor against his spine.)

	All an auditor really needs to know about this is the elementary method of using a difference of potential. That creates energy.

	The only thing wrong with a preclear with an aged MEST body is that he has too many facsimiles of his tractors and pressors handling his own MEST body and the rickety state of the body feeds back “slowness” so that he thinks his energy is low -- and until worked with some method such as this, facsimiles do not reduce.

	Any difference of potential played one against the other creates energy. Aesthetic waves against a static produce energy. Aesthetic waves against analytical waves produce energy. Analytical waves against emotional waves produce energy. Emotional waves against effort waves produce energy. Effort against matter produces energy.  				

	The last is the method used on Earth in generating electrical current for power. The others are equally valid and produce even higher flows. This is a gradient scale of beingness, from the zero-infinity of theta to the solidity of matter.

	The differences of potential most useful are easy to run.

	This is, actually, alternating current running. There can be DC running or chain fission running but these are very experimental at this writing.

	AC is created by the static holding first one, then the other, of a dichotomy of two differences of potential. A flow is run in one direction with one of the pair, then in the other direction with the other.  The dichotomies are:

	1.	Survive 	12. Faith
		Succumb		Distrust

	2. 	Affinity 	13. Imagine
		No affinity		Truth

	3. 	Communication	14. Believe
		No communication 		Not believe

	4. 	Agree	15. Always
		Disagree 		Never

	5. 	Start	16. Future
		Stop		Past

	6. 	Be	17. Everyone
		Be not		Nobody

	7. 	Know	18. Owns all
		Know not 		Owns nothing

	8. 	Cause	19. Responsible
		Effect		Not responsible

	9. 	Change	20. Right
		No change		Wrong     

	10. Win	21. Stay
		Lose		Escape     

	11. I am	22. Beauty
		I am not 		Ugliness  				

     	23. Reason	27. Sane
		Emotion		Insane     

	24. Emotion	28. No sympathy
		Effort		Sympathy     

	25. Effort	29. Sympathy
		Apathy		Propitiation     
				And the state of Static, 
	26. Acceptance		a motionlessness		    				Rejection		sometimes necessary to run.   

	How are these used?

	One asks the preclear to flow agreement, then disagreement. He flows a feeling, a thought (NEVER the phrase!) of “agreement” out or in, in the direction he chooses relative to himself. He lets this flow until it turns smoky grey or white, then black. Then he changes the direction of flow and gets the thought or feeling of “disagreement”. He runs this until it turns grey or white, then black. When this has turned black or dark, he again runs “agreement” in its direction until he gets grey or white, then again black. Now he reverses the flow and flows the thought “disagreement” until he gets grey or white, then blackness. And so on and on.

	It will be noted that at first it may take some little time for a flow to run from black through white to black. As the preclear continues to run, after minutes or many hours, he begins to run faster, then faster and faster, until at last he can keep a flow blazing and crackling.

	A method of aberrating beings was to give them white and black energy sources in their vicinity. These show up on a very low tone occluded case as blazing white and shining white. That is an electronic incident, not his own energy flow. These run blazing white in one direction for minutes or hours before they go black. They then run the other way, blazing white, almost as long.

	WHEN BLACK PREDOMINATES IN SUCH INCIDENT WHAT HE “HAS TO DO” TO GET THE INCIDENT ALL WHITE.

	As the preclear runs, he finds the speed of the change of flow changes, more and more rapidly until it runs like a vibration. This vibration, theoretically, can increase to a strong current which becomes so great it is well to ground your preclear by using an E-meter or letting him hold a wire in each hand which is connected to a bare water pipe or radiator. Otherwise, his MEST body may be damaged by the flow.

	Run a dichotomy only against its mate. Run in alternating directions until the flow turns black.

	Don’t run a black “flow.” It doesn’t flow or run out.  			

	 Methods a Running

	There are many methods of running facsimiles and of handling ridges and flows. These have been covered in other publications; all of them have validity and can advance cases.

	In the present publication there are only two processes which are stressed and these processes are superior to others published prior to December 1st, 1952. A great many tests have established the fact that two processes, both of them simple, produce far better results than any of the others.

	The title “Scientology 8-8008” means the attainment of infinity by the reduction of the MEST universe’s apparent infinity to zero and the increase of the zero of one’s own universe to an infinity of one’s own universe. This road is attained by postulate processing and creative processing.

	To run any incident or use any process it is necessary for the auditor to have a very sound idea of what he is doing, and to this end it is recommended that he know and be able to use the following:

  	Processing  		     
The Code  		     
The Theta Entity  				
The Entities  		     
Running Engrams  		     
Running Secondaries  		     
Running Locks  		     
Concepts and Feelings  		     
Running Ridges (Circuits)  		     
Running Live Flow  		     
Freeing the Thetan by Concept and Feeling  		     
Freeing the Thetan by Present and Future  		     
Randomity  		     
Freeing by Dichotomies  		     
Freeing by Tone Scale  		     
Freeing the Thetan by Orientation  		     
Freeing the Thetan by Positioning and Exhaustion of Flows  	

Postulate Processing

	Actually energy is produced by the thetan simply by postulating that it will be in existence. What he says will be so, becomes so for him; if he becomes extremely powerful, it becomes so for others. This condition has been misused by most thetans who, often in the past, have been afraid of making postulates that will come true. They believe that if they say a thing will happen, it will then happen -- to such an extent that they now revulse against stating anything will happen.

	Another aberrative condition with regard to postulates is that for the sake of randomity, the thetan at some time or another has set up the postulate that every time he makes a postulate a reverse postulate will occur which he will not know about, in such a way that he can “play chess with himself” without spoiling the game by knowing what his left hand is doing when his right makes the move.

	It is not true that postulates have to be located all through the facsimiles and worn out by repetition. It is just as easy to make new postulates; but first one must recover from the depths to which his postulates have taken him. The most dangerous postulates are those postulates where one decided to agree with something which would become aberrative.

	You can see by examining any facsimile in the preclear related to an accident that the most aberrative things in that facsimile are what the preclear himself decided.

	Postulates are accompanied by evaluations and conclusions. It is often possible to “loosen” a postulate by discovering to the preclear why he made it, or what data he was using at the time.

	As a preclear becomes very aberrated and believes himself to be more and more MEST, his postulates become as unwieldy to use as actual objects, and he finds them as difficult to change as objects.

	When doing creative processing and moving objects and energy in created space and time, the preclear is doing this by making postulates. It comes as a shock to some preclears that they are handling time by shifting space. One handles time by simply saying that he had a thing and now he does not have it, or that he will have or will view a thing in the future. One does not shift time by shifting space, nor does one continue to look at something he has put into the past. He says it is in the past and so it becomes in the past.

	When the thetan is unable to handle postulates about time, the auditor should ask him about some MEST universe incident such as breakfast, and then enquire how he remembered that he had breakfast, and if he will have something to eat on the morrow, and then how he knows he will have something to eat on the morrow. He does not look at his breakfast to find out if he had breakfast, he knows that he ate breakfast; and he does not go into tomorrow to find out if he will probably eat on the morrow, he knows -- or, at least, believes it possible -- that he will eat on the morrow. Moving time, as in any other postulate, is knowingness not viewingness. An object goes into the past in the same space as it was in, in the present; and in the future may be in the same space as it was in in the past. The space does not change the condition of havingness changes, and one estimates this by some degree of knowingness.

	The entire subject of postulates is the subject of certainty and self-belief. That preclear who has a low self-belief finds it difficult first, to make a postulate which he will believe and second, to undo one he has made. Creative processing and postulate processing alike remedy this.

	Rising-scale processing is another way of doing postulate processing. One takes any point or column of the Chart of Attitudes as given in this text, which the preclear can reach, and asks the preclear then to shift his postulate upwards toward a higher level.

	In order to do this the auditor says, “Now, on the subject of rightness and wrongness, how wrong do you think you generally are?” The preclear tells him. The auditor says, “How high can you shift this attitude toward believing yourself right?” The preclear shifts the attitude as high as he can. The auditor takes this as the next level from which he will work upward until he attains as nearly as possible a postulate which will “hold” to the effect that the preclear believes himself right. Rising-scale processing should not be confused with the processing of flows. One can process all these columns in terms of flows. Rising-scale processing is simply a method of shifting postulates upward toward optimum from where the preclear believes he is on the chart. Rising-scale processing is essentially a process directed toward increasing belief in self by using all the “buttons” on the Chart of Attitudes.

	The preclear is generally found to be quite uncertain about his postulates. He does not know whether or not what he says will take effect or, if he says it and if it takes effect, if it will not rebound upon him. He becomes afraid to make postulates for fear he will make some postulate destructive to himself or others and may even discover himself making postulates to convince himself he should be ill.

	One has to tell oneself what to be before one is. Recovery of this ability is the essence of processing a thetan.  				

	Postulate processing is a very vital process to apply to the thetan: when he is exteriorized, he can change his postulates rapidly. If he finds himself thinking slowly and doing other things which are not optimum when he is outside, One can better his situation and condition by asking him to change postulates.  			

Creative Processing

	Standard Operating Procedure for theta clearing is the backbone of processing in Scientology. It is easily followed but the auditor should have an excellent command of all types of processing in order to use it more successfully.

	SOP is most easily done and most successfully by an auditor who is a theta clear. Auditors who are not theta clear seldom understand it, and a low-toned uncleared auditor who cannot himself leave his body very often acts to pin a preclear inside his body. It is noteworthy that many auditors have been unable to obtain successes with theta clearing before they themselves have been cleared, but immediately after the auditor was cleared, he was successful with each successive case without exception. The fear of some thetans from various causes of leaving the body causes the auditor -- who is the thetan -- to make other thetans stay in bodies, and it is actually quite dangerous to be audited by auditors who are not theta clears. The process is not dangerous; uncleared auditors are.  		     

Standard Operating Procedure, Issue 3

	  This process is done in steps. The auditor with EVERY preclear makes no other judgment than to begin with Step I and, failing to accomplish that immediately, to go to Step II; if he fails to accomplish this immediately, he goes to Step III; and so on. When he is able to accomplish a step he labels the case as that step number, i.e., a III. He then begins working with that step. After a few hours’ work, he again starts at the top with the preclear with Step I and progresses on through. Eventually the preclear becomes a Step I.

	 STEP I -- POSITIVE EXTERIORIZING: Ask the preclear to be a foot back of his head. If he does, make him go back further, then up, then down, practising placement in space and time. Then one asks him to see if there are any items in the body he would like to repair and proceeds to let the preclear repair them according to the preclear’s own ideas as to how he should do it. Then educate the preclear by making him create and destroy his own illusions into finally getting a certainty of illusion and from this a certainty of perceiving the real universe with all perceptions. (Note. The most real universe is, of course, one’s own illusory universe and should be completely rehabilitated before one attempts to perceive or handle or worry about the MEST universe. Rehabilitated, sonic, visio, etc. of the MEST universe are very clear and very certain. Clear perception in early stages is not a test of being outside. The only test is whether the preclear KNOWS he is outside.) Failing the first line of this step, go to Step II.

	STEP II -- BY ORIENTATION: Ask the preclear, still inside, to locate the inside of his forehead. Ask him to put a pressor beam against it and push himself out the back of his head. Supplement this by asking him to reach out through the back of his head and grab the wall with a pulling beam and pull himself out. Ask him to steady himself outside and then, by means of beams, to raise and lower himself while outside and to move to various parts of the room while still outside. Use creative processing. By orientation as a thetan, placing himself as a thetan in time and space, he becomes sure of his whereabouts. Have him find and cast off old lines which have their terminals fixed to him. Have him find those lines wherever they are and attach them to radiators and water taps as the energy will drain out of him. (The II ordinarily has enough lines to cause him to snap back in the head when he releases beams.) Failing this, go to Step III.

	  STEP III -- SPACE PROCESSING: In that the MEST universe has forced upon the thetan its spatial dimensions and directions, the thetan is likely to become a point which is being subjected to all the counter-efforts and counter-emotions of his environment, for his entire concept of space is being determined by the MEST universe. Have the thetan, still inside, find his feet in the opposite direction from where the MEST body is located by the MEST universe. Have him turn the feet around. Have him create differences in his body and reverse various limbs and positions according to his viewpoint, each one in disagreement with the MEST universe, particularly as appertaining to gravity and other influences. This sets up an ability to disagree with the MEST universe in terms of space. Have him locate his eyes in the back of his head, on the soles of his feet and in other places. Have him assume other bodies, each time changing them slightly, and putting them away. Then have him gather himself into his normal MEST universe spatial areas and go to Step I.

	  STEP IV -- RIDGE RUNNING: Ask the preclear to give himself a command to walk. Let him locate the white flow line which results inside his head. When this line goes dark, have him locate the tiny ridge inside the skull that stopped it. Have him run the flow from this barrier (these barriers, are tiny ridges and each has a thought with it such as “Can’t walk” or “Too bored to walk”) back toward the spot where he told himself to walk. It will run white for a moment, then go black. Have him give himself the command to walk again and “watch” this flow line. It may run through two or three tiny barriers and then stop. Again have him run the “objection” to walking. Have him watch this “objection” flow until it goes black. Then have him give himself the command to walk again and so on and so on. He will wind up at some outside point. Now have him give himself the command “Listen” and have him run this and its back flows on “black and white” until he is exterior on the subject of listen. Then use the command “Talk” similarly. Then the command “Nod,” then the command “Move,” etc. Give “Look” last for it may “blind” his perception of black and white. He may each time get out to a distance in another quarter. If he can do all this, start with Step I again. Failing this step, failing to “see” black and white energy manifestations, go to Step V.

	STEP V -- BLACK AND WHITE CONTROL PROCESSING: Give the preclear a complete E-meter assessment, using the principles of what he would create or destroy or would not create and would not destroy. Use this data to make mock-ups. Then have the preclear create and perceive black spots and then white spots, black crosses and white crosses, and move these here and there through the room or through his own space. Turn them on and off, interchange them, put them in yesterday, put them in tomorrow, make them get larger, make them get smaller; each time doing as much as the preclear can do. Each time one asks him to perceive one of his own created illusions in terms of black and white spots or crosses, one attempts to coax him into successful control of it. Audit very persuasively and lightly. This preclear ordinarily is frightened of blackness because it either can contain dangerous things or contains nothing, and he cannot differentiate which. Thus he cannot control blackness and, in being unable to control blackness, flounders in it. He also has a more basic computation: that blackness is the only safe thing in which to hide and, therefore, blackness is a thing to have. Further, blackness “takes” things for him. This preclear may be afraid of the police, may believe himself to have a hideous body, thetawise, and has many other reasons why he cannot exteriorize. Drills on creating and perceiving black and white should be continued until he can handle each easily. The trouble with this preclear and preclears lower than this is that they have agreed too heavily with the MEST universe and must be very cautious in confronting it, since in that direction they conceive to lie a much more complete defeat even than that from which they are now suffering. Audit him also very heavily on Creative Processing.
	Then go through steps again. If the preclear is immediately perceived to have little or no reality on ANY incident, go to Step VI.

	STEP VI -- ARC STRAIGHT WIRE: Drill, by direct questioning, on locks until the preclear can remember something really “real” to him, something which he “really loved,” something with which he was in communication. Then drill him on creating illusions until he is certain he has created one which really isn’t real, which he is certain HE put the emotion and perceptions into. Then go through steps again. Failing Step VI after a quick test, go to Step VII.

	STEP VII -- PRESENT TIME BODY ORIENTATION: Have preclear locate a part of his body and recognize it as such. Have him locate furniture, fixtures, auditor in room. Have him locate the town and country he is in. Get him to find something in present time which is really real to him, with which he can communicate. Work on this until he can do this. Then go to Step VI. Then go to Step I.  			

General Processing

	Anything which rehabilitates the self-determinism of a preclear, whether education, change of environment, running facsimiles, theta clearing or the creation of one’s own universe, is valid processing. Any one of these will raise the tone of the preclear markedly. At the end of 80,000 hours of investigation of beingness in the MEST universe, I have concluded that those processes which make it possible for the preclear to disagree with the MEST universe also make it possible for him to handle the MEST universe, or to create his own or be part of a group which creates a universe, as the case may be. 

	Scientology 8-8008 is remarkable for its ability to better the beingness and action potentials of the individual. It is, sadly enough, the only technique which I have seen produce excellent and fast results in the hands of trained auditors. Mainly the reason is that homo sapiens has and will continue to use, any technique delivered into his hands for the control and enslavement of others, for homo sapiens is frightened. Even when an auditor was competent with earlier techniques, it would often occur that his preclear would return into his past environment and would relapse. 

	This occurred because others had a vested interest in the preclear’s continuation in a state of aberration; and others would lose no moment in starting again to crush this preclear down the tone-scale to a point where they conceived he was more easily controlled. Mest is the most easily controlled item in the MEST universe, and the closer a human being could be pressed toward MEST, the easier, it was thought, to control him. 

	That his value and ethical sense deteriorated in direct ratio to the degree he was depressed down the tone-scale, was overlooked by the homo sapiens who had a passion for slavery. 

	The primary benefit of Scientology 8-8008 is that it works so swiftly even when indifferently used that the persons in the environment of the preclear are over-reached rapidly by the preclear and find themselves subject to his control when they act to continue his aberration. 

	Further the auditor is seldom aware of the height his preclear attains until the preclear has attained it. Processing has always worked in the hands of a competent auditor; and it were better for any technique, no matter how dangerous, to be known to Man if it could benefit at least a few, for homo sapiens has no psycho-therapy. In Dianetics he had his first thoroughly validated psychotherapy and Dianetics worked and still works uniformly in the hands of those skilled in its application. 

	In Scientology in general, and in theta clearing in particular, the upper limits of homo sapiens as such have been transcended and it would not be good semantics to call a theta clear a homo sapiens or even, exactly speaking, a person, for he is a thetan with a body he uses for purposes of action and communication, and his viewpoint is quite altered. His general health is more or less directly under his control, but there is no goal for the body as a final goal in Scientology, for the body is a tool. The genetic entity which built the human body really wanted to be served. 

	The complexities and ridges which he developed speak of a craving for energy and self-service which could only be the basest aberration, and, true enough, the genetic entity is aberrated almost beyond belief, as any thetan discovers when he seeks to clear the genetic entity. 

	The body is quite alive and self-motivated without the thetan, as the thetan soon discovers; but it is so used to taking orders from successive lines of thetans which themselves some day would probably become part of this complex system of ridges, that its “mental activities” are quite stupid. The thetan who has lived in this association and has believed himself to be the body is early quite appalled at the character of the genetic entity who is cowardly, a thing of stimulus-response, without further will or goals than to grow a body, and obsessed entirely with the idea of growing one. 

	The thetan can repair the body quite easily if he so chooses, but quite often sees it as a pointless activity; for one’s personality is not even faintly dependent upon the body but is only debased by association with one. When one has learned to control a body from a distance, he is usually content to let it get along as best it can, for the reduction of all counter-efforts of the genetic entity would be a reduction of the entire body. The genetic entity has his whole track and has had his own travails. In other parts of space, not too incredibly, “dolls” are used by thetans -- things which can be animated easily by theta energy and which are disposable and which do not have the uncomfortable circumstance of being themselves any more alive than any other MEST.

	The MEST universe itself has a considerable cravingness in it. It is composed of energy which was emanated in order to have, and the energy still contains as its basic characteristic Have and Not Have, and is itself, when contacted, found to possess a craving which does not make the MEST alive but which speaks of that which made the MEST. This cravingness is an essential part of all matter. Certain metals contain the desire to be had much more than others, and certain other metals contain the craving not to be had. This is one way of looking at positive and negative reactions. 

	The body’s being composed of such energy makes it feel as though it is holding on to the thetan. Nothing is really holding on to the thetan since he has no substance which can be held. Even the genetic entity does not hold on to the thetan, but probably considers him some sort of far off commanding god -- if he thinks of the thetan at all.

	Space has its own demanding quality and insists on its dimensions being accepted by anything in the universe, for it was erected and is erected on a command basis in the MEST universe.

	Processing must resolve this havingness on the part of matter, and the commandingness on the part of space. To confront these directly is, for most preclears, an impossibility, for it only drives them further into an apathy of agreement with MEST. The preclear has long contested with the MEST universe and has continually sought to create his own universe only to find the MEST universe declaring itself stronger each time and compressing the illusion to nothing.

	The war cry of the MEST universe is: “Must have gotten it somewhere,” and “It must have gone somewhere.” It will not tolerate the vaguest possibility that one created himself or could destroy anything himself. The whole sub-zero scale is a manifestation of one’s efforts to combat this demandingness on the part of the MEST universe. Hiding, protecting, owning, are all mechanisms to answer the question, “Where did you get it?” “What did you do with it?” The MEST universe, in this light, is essentially a police universe, for it operates upon force and intolerance and demands with pain that its laws be accepted. In that its laws are based solely upon agreement, it is only necessary to discover how one can disagree with them to abolish what has been called “natural law” for oneself. Upon the abolishment of this agreement depends the health, progress and advancement of the thetan. 

	This universe is a major expanding trap of finite dimensions and rather idiotic simplicity. If one were to leave the MEST universe, one would solely create space of his own and maintain enough knowledge of what could happen with regard to the MEST universe to defeat its encroachment and its salesmen. No universe, however cunningly constructed, is entirely proof against this expanding trap. The MEST universe is a game which has gone on too long and of which even the players are tired. Earth could be considered to be at this time an egress terminal.

	It is noteworthy that one must not accept or know any of these conditions to have these processes work. They act very swiftly and uniformly on any homo sapiens and upon other beings. A considerable number of the principles which have been discovered in Scientology exist above the MEST universe. The MEST universe itself might be considered to be the “inevitable average” of illusion once it starts in a certain direction. We have in natural law as applied to the MEST universe the sum of agreement upon illusion. Tracing the principles of Scientology as they apply specifically to the MEST universe, is the tracing of the agreements which brought about the MEST universe. The axioms of 1951 are, in the main, a tracing of this agreement. 

	The inevitability and “diabolical accuracy” of these predictions of human behavior depend upon their being held in common by Man, which they are. They extend as well to other beings below the level of player in this universe and have applied to many sets of players, while much of the data which has been recovered in this investigation seems, to the narrow scope of homo sapiens, quite wild, the wildness depends on the absence of investigation in the past and can be compared only to the stupidity which remained ignorant of them; for these matters were an unseen and insidious causation underlying the grief of Earth, at best a pawn in a minor game in a minor galaxy.  				

The Anatomy of Space

	Before energy can exist in this universe, space must exist. His inability to create space is one of the most aberrative characteristics of the thetan whom we find in a MEST body. He has become reduced to a point even in his own concept, and perhaps even less than a point for he has no space of his own but must depend upon bodies and other conditions to believe that he has space.

	It is of the utmost importance for the auditor to understand space. Space can be considered to be a viewpoint of dimensions. It does not matter how many dimensions there are or what conditions are set up for these dimensions: the resulting condition is known as “space.” There are only three dimensions in space in the MEST universe. Throughout all of its galaxies it has only length, breadth and depth. Space warps and other things of equal interest can exist in one’s own universe, but they do not exist as such, evidently, in the MEST universe.

	The assignation of dimension is the essence of space, but even before dimension can be assigned, one must have viewpoint. If one is assigning dimension from his viewpoint, he is cause; if dimension is being assigned to his viewpoint, he is effect. He is cause or effect to the degree that he can assign dimension and call it space.

	The preclear has a viewpoint and is the center of that viewpoint. Splitting his attention often finds him occupying several viewpoints. He is capable of assuming many. Where he is aware of being aware is, however, his central viewpoint; and, although this may be communicated with or interlocked to some other viewpoint which he could call his own -- even on some other planet or here on earth -- he is yet as himself the center of assignation of dimension where he is and as he is.

	In many preclears this becomes so blurred that he does not know whether he is in or out of the body. Here even the center of viewpoint has been overridden by MEST assignation of dimension.

	An essential in agreement with any illusion is the acceptance of the dimensions it assigns or that one may assign to it, Space is no more complicated than this, but when a preclear has been overridden by enforced assignation of dimension to an enormous degree, his own viewpoint may be found to be scattered or dispersed. It is this condition which finds the preclear unable to tell whether he is in or out of his body; when this condition exists he is in the state of being incapable of confronting the MEST universe, even to the point of asserting the ownership of a center of viewpoint.

	The solution of this problem is simple, in principle, although it may require many hours of auditing. Where the preclear has a certainty of center of viewpoint he exteriorizes immediately and can become a theta clear in a very few hours; when he has been compressed by counter-efforts and emotions into an acceptance of MEST dimension to the point where he cannot even be certain of a center of viewpoint, it is necessary to recover this center of viewpoint in order to recover a point from which space can be assigned and, even more importantly to the auditor, where the preclear can be exteriorized easily and in a knowing condition.

	One of the first “tricks” in auditing is to get the preclear to look from the center of his head at his environment and the room. He very often sees it clearly and as it is and does, by this, adjust his vision to see through his ridges. Even an occluded case can sometimes do this, and can then be exteriorized rapidly. The next “trick” is to find some segment of the environment which the preclear can see and ask him what is in the areas where he can see nothing or does not wish to see. He will say this or that may be in these areas. The auditor then has him create those things or change those things and shift those things which he is afraid may be in those areas until he is no longer interested, at which time he can envision the actual surroundings. By continuing this “trick” of rehabilitation of potential occupation of space (for a preclear will not occupy space which he considers dangerous), the preclear may be found to exteriorize suddenly and sometimes with violence. In such a case he believes himself to be occupying yet another space, hiding perhaps in the darkness of deep MEST space, as well as in a body. Routine orientation and creative processing remedies this.

	By making the preclear alter the body he is occupying, making mock-ups which he superimposes and changes around in disagreement with the MEST universe -- upside down and right side up -- he becomes better able to have a viewpoint from which he can create space or from which he can at least handle MEST universe space.

	The preclear who does not exteriorize readily is not sure he is here at all and, indeed, he may be co-occupying other areas. A study of the preclear with the E-meter, locating him in other spaces and bringing him into the space where he is being audited, can best be done with creative processing, not by running facsimiles, for these only make him disperse even further. This preclear often has difficulties with time and has space confused with time. Time is not handled by moving space; time is handled simply by having and not having. The MEST universe insists that anything that disappears must have gone somewhere; thus the preclear is saddled with the belief that he must create space to put things in whenever time changes. Having the preclear conceive time change in the space which he occupies by refusing to let him go on looking at it in yesterday or to see it in tomorrow, but simply making him know that it is now in yesterday and the space is the same, does much to rehabilitate his orientation.

	Drills in which space is assigned are highly beneficial to any preclear, and particularly so to those preclears who do not exteriorize readily or who cannot easily find themselves when they are out of their body. Simply have the preclear disagree with dimensions round him and see them with purposeful, creative distortion and he will at length focalize his viewpoint so that he can handle space and know that he is the center. A being can be knowingly in many places but being scattered into many places unknowingly is the worst of conditions.  			    

Creation and Destruction

	Self-determinism seeks as its goal the attainment of the goal of theta itself.

	Theta has the capability of locating matter and energy in time and space and of creating time and space.

	Any action requires space and time, for space and time are necessary to motion.

	Motion can be defined as change of location in space, and any change of location requires time.

	Thus we have an interacting triangle, one corner of which could be labelled space, another corner time, and the third energy. Matter is not included in the triangle because matter is apparently cohesion and adhesion of energy.

	The cycle of a universe could be said to be the cycle of creation, growth, conservation, decay and destruction. This is the cycle of an entire universe or any part of that universe; it is also the cycle of life forms.

	This would compare to the three actions of energy which are Start, Change and Stop, where creation is Start, growth is enforced Change, conservation and decay are inhibited Change and destruction is Stop.

	The two extremes of the cycle -- creation and destruction or, in the terms of motion, Start and Stop -- are interdependent and are consecutive.

	There could be no creation without destruction; as one must eradicate the tenement before building the apartment house, so, in the material universe, must destruction and creation be intermingled. A good action could be said to be one which accomplished the maximal construction with minimal destruction; a bad action could be said to be one which accomplished the minimal construction with maximal destruction.

	That which is started and cannot be stopped and that which is stopped without being permitted to run a course, are alike actions bordering upon the psychotic. Unreasonableness itself is defined by persistence in one or the other of these courses of starting something which cannot be stopped (as in the case of an A-bomb) or of stopping something before it has reached a beneficial stage.

	Unlimited creation without any destruction would be insane; unlimited destruction without any creation would be similarly insane.

	In actuality, insanity can be grouped and classified, detected and remedied by a study of creation and destruction.

	An individual will not be responsible for that on which he will not use force. The definition of responsibility is entirely within this boundary. That person will not be responsible in that sphere where he cannot tolerate force, and if one discovers in an individual where he will not use force, he will find where that individual will also refuse to be responsible.

	An assessment of a case can be done by use of the accompanying graph. We see here creation with an arrow pointing straight downward and find there the word insane, and, under this, we list the dynamics. Wherever along any of these dynamics the individual cannot conceive himself to be able to create, on that level he will be found aberrated to the degree that he does not believe himself able to create. This might be thought to introduce an imponderable but such is not the case, for the individual is most aberrated on the first dynamic and, rightly or wrongly, conceives that he could not create himself. This goes to the extent, in homo sapiens, of believing that one cannot create a body and, rightly or wrongly, one is then most aberrated on the subject of his body.

	Potentially, because of the character of theta itself, an individual in an absolute and possibly unattainable state, should be able to create a universe. Certainly it is true that every man is his own universe and possesses within himself all the capabilities of a universe.

	To the extreme right of the graph we have the word destroy and an arrow pointing downwards toward insanity and, beneath this, the list of the dynamics. That individual who can only destroy along any of these dynamics and cannot or will not create could be said to be aberrated on that dynamic. He is aberrated to the degree that he would destroy that dynamic.

	CREATE	GROW CONSERVE DECAY	DESTROY

	START	CHANGE	STOP 
 
	DIFFERENTIATE	ASSOCIATE	IDENTIFY

	 BE	DO	HAVE

	SPACE	ENERGY	MATTER

	 40.0	20.0	0.0
    
	If only this	If only this	If only this    
	insane on	still sane on	insane on     
	subject	subject	subject

	Dynamic 1	Dynamic 1	Dynamic 1

	Dynamic 2	Dynamic 2	Dynamic 2

	Dynamic 3	Dynamic 3	Dynamic 3

	Dynamic 4	Dynamic 4	Dynamic 4

	Dynamic 5	Dynamic 5	Dynamic 5

	Dynamic 6	Dynamic 6	Dynamic 6

	Dynamic 7	Dynamic 7	Dynamic 7

	Dynamic 8	Dynamic 8	Dynamic 8

	Looking again at the column of creation, one finds the individual aberrated anywhere along the dynamics in that column where the individual will only create and will not destroy.

	In the destruction column, one finds the individual aberrated on any dynamic in that column where he will not destroy.

	In the middle ground of the graph, we find that a balance of creation and destruction is sanity, and in the dynamics below it we find the individual sane wherever he will create and destroy.  		

	Use of this graph and these principles enable the auditor to assess hitherto hidden compulsions and obsessions on the part of the preclear. This is an auditing graph. If one looks at it another way than that of an auditor, he finds there laid out what has been occasionally posed as a philosophy of existence. Friedrich Nietzsche, in his book “Thus Spake Zarathustra,” presents as a desirable code of conduct unlimited willingness to destroy. Philosophically the graph has little or no workability. In order to survive in any universe, conduct must be regulated by a sense of ethics. Ethics are possible on a reasonable level only when the individual is high on the tone-scale. In the absence of such height, ethics are supplanted by morals, which can be defined as an arbitrary code of conduct not necessarily related to reason. Should one attempt to regulate his conduct on the basis of unlimited creation or destruction, he would find it necessary to act entirely without judgment to put his philosophy into effect. It is noteworthy that the late Nazi regime can serve as a clinical test of the workability of a scheme of things wherein unlimited creation and destruction are held as an ideal. I heard a rumor lately that Adolf Hitler was dead.  				

Be, Have and Do

	The physicist has long been on a carousel with regard to the component parts of the material universe.

	He has had to define time in terms of space and energy, space in terms of time and energy, and energy in terms of time and space, and matter as a combination of all three. When three factors exist at such an altitude in a science, there can be no further clarification unless the material can be related to experience of an equal magnitude.

	The current definition in Scientology has this liability:  if self-determinism is the location of matter and energy in time and space, and the creation, change and destruction of time and space, then there is no comparable data by which to evaluate this level. The physicist has found the interrelationship of time, space and energy to be invaluable and has, indeed, produced a civilization from this interrelationship. Just as, with our definition of self-determinism, it is possible to de-aberrate an individual and increase his potentialities in a way never before suspected possible, and with a speed which exceeds all past estimates even in the science of Scientology.

	Because we are now working from a higher understanding than time, space and energy, it is possible to compare these to experience in such a way as to broaden their use and modify their force or increase it. Control of time, space and energy comes now well within our capabilities.

	Space, time and energy in experience become Be, Have and Do, the component parts of experience itself.

	Space could be said to be BE. One can be in a space without change and without time; one can also be, without action.

	The essence of time is apparently possession. When possession ceases, the record of time ceases. Without possession change cannot be observed; in the presence of possession change can be observed. Thus it is deduced that time and possession are interdependent.

	The past could be subdivided into Had, Should Have Had, Did Not Have, and Got, Should Have Gotten, Did Not Get, and Gave, Should Have Given, Did Not Give.

	The present could be subdivided into Have, Should Have, Do Not Have, and Giving, Should Be Giving, Not Giving, and Receiving, Should Be Receiving, Not Receiving.

	The future is subdivisible into Will Have, Should Have, Will Not Have, and Getting, Will Be Getting, Will Not Be Getting, and Will Receive, Will Not Receive.

	In each of the above, past, present and future, the word would apply for any individual or any part of the dynamics to all the other dynamics.

	The way one knows there was a past is by knowing the conditions of the past. The most revelatory of these is the facsimile which was taken in the past. However, without any important possession in the present stemming forward from the past, the past becomes unimportant; or, because possession ceased, the past is obliterated. The single matter of the body of a past life not being in the present life invalidates the existence of the past life to the individual who then does not -- or does not care to -- remember it. Yet the facsimiles can be nevertheless effective upon him.

	Similarly the individual does not conceive to any extent time, past the death of his body, since he will have no body.

	Energy, whether in the field of thought, emotion or effort, can be summed into DO. It requires beingness and havingness in order to achieve doingness. Here we have the static of space acting against the kinetic of possession to produce action in the field of thought, emotion or effort, the various categories of doingness.

	Should one care to test this as a process on a preclear, he will find that the missing portions of the preclear’s past have to do with loss of something. Loss itself is the single most aberrative factor in living. It has long been known in this science that the release of a grief charge was an important single improvement in the preclear. Grief is entirely and only concerned with loss or threatened loss. Pain itself can be defined in terms of loss, for pain is the threat which tells one that loss of mobility or a portion of the body or the environment is imminent. Man has pain so thoroughly identified with loss that in some languages the words are synonymous.

	Loss is always identified with HAVE, for if one doesn’t have, one cannot lose.

	The Hindu sought to depart into his Nirvana by refusing to have anything to do with having. He sought thus to promote himself into Being. He saw that so long as he retained a grasp on a body in any degree he was Having, and thus was pressed into Doing.

	Having and Being are often identified to the degree that many people attempt exclusively to Be only by Having. The capitalist judges his own beingness solely by the degree of possession, not even vaguely by the degree of action he is able to execute.

	Possessions absorb and enforce time; only without possessions would one be able to regulate time at will. This is a singular attribute of the cleared theta clear, and to him possession of MEST is extremely unimportant.

	One can make up for a lack of Having by Doing, and by Doing accomplishes Having and thus regulates time.

	Having enhances either Being or Doing, as is sometimes severely recognized by one who would like to take a vacation or a trip to foreign lands.

	Doing can enhance either Being or Having: a balanced Doing slants in both directions, but if one does without Having, his Being increases, as is well known by anyone who insists on doing favors without recompense, and without gain.

	There is an optimum speed of Doing. If one travels less than that speed he has little Being and Having; if one travels greater than that speed, he has to abandon both Being and Having. This is applicable especially to the MEST universe. The case of a race driver is in point. He must assume a contempt for Being and Having in order to achieve the speeds he does.

	When change is too rapid both Beingness and Havingness suffer. When change is too slow both Beingness and Havingness suffer. For Change is essentially the redirection of energy.

	In the assessment of a preclear one can easily trace, by use of the triangle, Be, Have and Do, and by placing this over a second triangle with space at the point of Be, time at the point of Have and energy at the point of Do, where the preclear is overbalanced and why the preclear cannot handle time or why he is trying to occupy too much space without being able to fill it, or why his life is complicated with too much havingness and has reduced his beingness to nought.

	In the MEST universe as well as in a constructed universe, these three factors should be balanced for orderly progress.	

Creative Processing

	The whole of the data covered in this volume is utilized in creative processing. When one has mastered the component parts of the mind and the interrelationships of space, energy, items and experience, he will find creative processing surprisingly easy to apply and productive of very swift results. The goal of this process is the rehabilitation of as much of the thetan’s capability as possible to permit him to utilize or be free of bodies as he chooses and, even in lesser magnitude, to rid the preclear of psycho-somatics, eradicate compulsions, obsessions and inhibitions, to raise his reaction time and intelligence level. This process does whatever has been previously intended by earlier processes -- utilizing a knowledge of these in order to assess the state of the preclear, and in order to parallel this difficulty with creation, change and destruction of mock-ups.

	Gradient scales are vitally necessary in the application of creative processing. The term “gradient scale” can apply to anything, and means a scale of condition graduated from zero to infinity. Absolutes are considered to be unobtainable. Depending on the direction the scale is graduated, there could be an infinity of wrongness and an infinity of rightness. Thus the gradient scale of rightness would run from the theoretical but unobtainable zero of rightness, up to the theoretical infinity of rightness. A gradient scale of wrongness would run from a zero of wrongness to an infinity of wrongness. The word “gradient” is meant to define lessening or increasing degrees of condition. The difference between one point on a graduated scale and another point could be as different or as wide as the entire range of the scale itself, or it could be so tiny as to need the most minute discernment for its establishment. The gradient scale of the creation of a being could be -- but in creative processing generally is not -- concerned with time. In creative processing, the gradient scale, as it would refer to the creation of a person, could be, first, the envisionment of an area where the person might have been or might be; then the envisionment of an area the person commonly frequented; at last, the creation of a footprint the person had made, and then perhaps some article of apparel or a possession such as a handkerchief. The creative steps would then continue until more and more of a person was established, and at last the entire person would have been created. Likewise in the destruction of a person, the gradient scale could, but generally would not, begin with blowing him up or making him grow old. If the auditor finds the preclear diffident about destroying an illusion of some person, the environment can first be diminished slightly; then perhaps the person’s shadow might be shortened, and so on until the entire person could be destroyed. The essence of gradient scale work is to do as much creation, change or destruction in terms of illusion as the preclear can accomplish with confidence, and to go from successful step to greater step until an entire success in destruction, alteration or creation (or their companion states of experience, such as start, change and stop) is accomplished.

	The mind works easily if led through successive successes into a complete confidence. The mind can be confused and set back enormously by demanding that it do too much too fast. The same “too much” can be accomplished by requesting of the mind that it do small portions of the task; this does not mean that processing should go slowly or that illusions which are easy to create, change or destroy should have much time spent on them. It does mean that as soon as an auditor has established a disability on the part of the preclear in creating illusions of certain places, persons, conditions, things, colors or any other thing in this or any other universe, he approaches the subject gradually by gradient scale and by accomplishing repeated successes with the preclear of greater and greater magnitude, finally achieving a complete banishment of the disability.

	The reason a preclear cannot alter a postulate, or change or start or stop, lies in the influence upon him of his agreements and experiences in the MEST and other universes.   	

	To run out these agreements and experiences as such would be, in part, to agree with them over again. The mind is actually quite free to alter postulates and change its own condition, if permitted to do so at a speed that it finds comfortable. The mind will not take wide divergences which seem to it to tend toward its own diminishment or destruction. It was by a gradient scale of agreement that he came at last to accept and very nearly succumb to the MEST universe itself. The build-up of illusion was so slow and insidious that only the closest assessment would reveal to the preclear and the auditor how far these tiny steps of agreement led at last.

	The motto of the MEST universe could be said to be:  “Thou shalt have no force nor illusion, nor thine own space, nor self-made energy or thing, for all illusion is mine and with that thou shalt agree. If thou art, I shall not be.” By a series of minute agreements, the preclear has at last given up all his own belief in his ability to make a universe, or even to create and maintain minor illusions. He does not know or even suspect that he is capable of producing illusions sufficiently strong to be observable by others, and if he thought this were true, he would attribute it to some mysterious thing and, so short and final are the punishments of the MEST universe, he would tend to shy away from this; but upon his ability to create illusion depends the very existence of all his hopes and dreams and any beauty he will ever see or feel. 

	In truth, all sensation which he believes to come from these masses of illusory energy known as the MEST universe, are first implanted through agreement upon what he is to perceive and then perceived again by himself, with the step hidden that he has extended his own sensation to be felt and perceived by himself. He is fully convinced that the MEST universe itself has sensation which it can deliver to him, whereas all the MEST universe has is an enforced agreement which though of no substance, yet by a gradient scale came to be an illusion which seems very masterful to a preclear. 

	To prove the reality and solidity of the MEST universe, the preclear could pound his fist upon a desk and demonstrate that his fist bed met something. He is making again the error of implanting sensation and not knowing he has implanted it, for the fist which he pounds on the desk is a MEST universe fist consisting of MEST universe energy, which is itself a MEST universe agreement, and it is meeting a desk which is MEST universe; he is only demonstrating that when the MEST universe is perceived to impact upon the MEST universe, one can then implant a realistic impact and perceive it for his own wonderful edification. Reality, then, is a delusion because it is one’s own illusion which has been disowned by one and is then received by one as being another thing. 

	Only by shedding all responsibility for one’s own energy can one fall into this covert trap. If one is unwilling to be responsible for energy, he is capable of using energy and then not perceiving that he uses it. One who blames others continually can be discovered to effect most of the things for which he is blaming other people. In such a way, an individual with the “very best MEST universe, Mark 10,000 ears” takes no responsibility for having implanted the sensation of sound in order to receive the sensation of sound. A preclear as he comes up the tone-scale more and more often catches himself doing this, and even though he does not know the principles involved (for no preclear has to be educated in Scientology to receive benefit from it), he recognizes that even in the case of a loud crash, his continuation of association from his environment permits him to perceive with others that a crash has taken place of objects which he with others continuously recreates solidly, and that he must actually cause for his own perception the sound of the crash. In that the beingness of an individual is actually extended for miles in all directions around him, if not much further, any idea or thought or past thought (as there is no past) is part of his beingness, and so he must continually strive to be “faithful to his agreements with the MEST universe.”

	To undo this state of affairs it is only necessary to rehabilitate the awareness of the preclear that he himself is capable of creating illusions. As he rehabilitates this faculty, the preclear, without any coaching or evaluation on the part of the auditor, begins to recognize that his viewpoint is expanding and that he is becoming all-pervasive, but that he can collect his awareness at any point, and that the “brutal reality” all around him is continuously manufactured by himself out of agreements and association with other viewpoints. 

	So long as he is fixed in a condition where he is in agreement with all spaces and viewpoints, he sees and feels automatically with all other such viewpoints. He is above the level of energy, if one can use the term, on the same wavelength with all other beingness, a condition which does not permit differentiation. As he rehabilitates his abilities in independent creation, he can change this “wavelength” at will, and can go into or out of agreement with all other points of beingness. 

	The matter of perceiving, then, becomes entirely a matter of self-choice. It is, for instance, quite startling of a preclear to  discover that as soon as he is free of the ridges of the body (which is to say, when he has discovered he can change his viewpoint) that he is already partly out of agreement with other viewpoints, and that the MEST universe becomes slightly jumbled. He is apt to be very anxious about this, for it is in conflict with the agreements to which he is subject. He immediately may struggle very hard to regain a state of affairs whereby he can view the MEST universe as everyone else views it. 

	Indeed, the auditor must continually be on guard to prevent the preclear from attempting to reassume these agreements. A badly-trained auditor can always be identified by the fact that he shares the preclear’s anxiety that the preclear view the environment as the environment “should be.” The reason why a non-cleared auditor does not do well with these processes is that he is very anxious for the preclear to continue agreement with all others and to perceive the surroundings as exactly when exteriorized as he did when he was looking through MEST eyes and perceptions (which is to say, when the preclear was at his exact, agreed-upon point of viewpoint). 

	The ability to perceive the MEST universe is the ability to agree. The preclear’s accuracy of perception of the MEST universe is of no consequence. An auditor can act to permit or even encourage a preclear to try to see, feel and hear the MEST universe when exteriorized long before the preclear is prepared to do so with equanimity. The auditor when doing this, is dramatizing his own urge to agree with viewpoints and perceive. A preclear who exteriorizes readily may find with a shock that he is not perceiving the MEST universe as he commonly supposes it should be perceived and quickly go back into his body to reassure himself that he is “keeping his contract of agreement.” 

	If the auditor demands that the preclear perceive the environment when exteriorized, then the auditor will discover that the preclear will drop in tone and that, when he has gone into his body once more, a great deal of patient auditing is necessary to regain the preclear’s confidence in himself. The preclear exteriorizing may find himself in all sorts of space and time cross-ups, for he has insufficient command of space and energy to independently sort out viewpoints when unassisted by the orientation of the MEST body itself, which is, of course, in debased and degraded agreement of a very set nature.

	There are two “shuns.” These are invalidation and evaluation. 

	The auditor must eschew them vigorously. The major invalidation which could be practiced in using Scientology 8-8008 would be a demand that the preclear see the environment as it is seen through MEST perception or to criticize him for not being able to do so. The majority of the preclear’s perceptions may be correct but some percentage of his perception is going to be enough “off wavelength” with other agreement viewpoints to cause him to perceive strangely. 

	After a very large amount of auditing, when the preclear has regained his ability to create with considerable solidity his own illusions, it will be found that the preclear can at will perceive the MEST universe and can do so with accuracy. He can further, without the aid of a body, move objects and do a thousand other “interesting tricks” which could very well be viewed with considerable awe, for they have not been seen on earth in recorded history but have lived in legend.

	Using Standard Operating Procedure, Issue 3, as given in this volume, the auditor yet takes a very thorough assessment of his preclear with an E-Meter. He discovers, in accordance with information in this book, what the preclear is unable to start, change, stop; create, alter, destroy; be, do or have; differentiate, associate or identify; on each and every one of the eight dynamics and their component parts. The auditor makes a complete list. This is the Can’t list. Exteriorized, if possible, or interiorized as in the later numbered cases, the preclear is then made to “mock-up” illusions about each one of these Can’ts and to change the size, character and position of the illusion or any part thereof in space, shift it in time simply by knowing it has been shifted by him, until at last the preclear is able to handle the whole object of the Can’t with complete facility.

	Can’ts may be an inability to destroy women or snakes or specific persons, or create machinery, or write legibly. The preclear is requested to accomplish by illusions the smallest gradient of the Can’t with which he can successfully start; and, under auditor direction, by moving this small portion of the whole here and there in space, tipping it this way and that and making it, in particular, disobey “natural laws” in the MEST universe, the preclear is led to an ability to create, change or destroy the Can’t.

	The Can’t is also the Must. Can’t is an inhibition; Must is an enforcement. What must the preclear do and what must be done to him? By whom? By creative processing and gradient scales, he achieves mock-ups until each one of these musts becomes a “Can if I want to, but don’t have to.”

	There are also the Desires. These are the cravings for sensation or possession or identification which brought the preclear into and made him continue agreements. Behind every case the Desires are paramount and of greater importance than the Can’ts. Why does he desire bodies? Why is his second dynamic aberrated? Why does he feel he cannot be free? Can he differentiate between his own actual wantingness and the wantingness of MEST itself which is trying to have him? The desires are resolved by creative processing wherein the preclear does mock-ups of the necessary acts which he desires or the necessary behaviors which brought him into agreement until he can at last laugh at them.

	In that creative processing does not take long in terms of time, the assessment list can afford to be very broad and to cover every possible phase through the system of the dynamics and the cycles of action.

	This is a list of things the preclear must be able to do with an illusion: 
 		     
Create the condition, energy or object  		     
Conserve it  		     
Protect it  		     
Control it  		     
Hide it  		     
Change it  		     
Age it  		     
Make it go backwards on a cycle of action  		     
Perceive it with all perceptions  		     
Shift it at will in time  		     
Rearrange it  		     
Duplicate it  		     
Turn it upside down or on the side at will  		     
Make it disobey MEST laws  		     
Be it  		     
Not be it  		     
Destroy it.

	In order to accomplish these things, if the whole of any condition cannot be fulfilled by gradient scale some tiny portion of the condition must be fulfilled.

	When a small condition has been fulfilled, the condition is then enlarged until the whole condition can be fulfilled.

	That preclear who cannot get even a shadow of an illusion so that he can perceive it in any manner must be coaxed to see white spots, black spots, of his own creation, and to change those in space and time, enlarge and contract them, until he has a certain command and control of black and white. This must be done with such a preclear without regard to the number of hours it takes or the patience of the drill. It can be done with the eyes open or closed, whichever the preclear finds best.

	When the preclear is discovered to be trying to prevent a motion or condition, the auditor should magnify that very condition with new mock-ups related to it, i.e., if objects keep rushing in on the preclear, mock up objects rushing in until the action is enormously magnified but under the preclear’s complete control. If the preclear cannot start something, make him stop it. If he cannot reverse a direction, make him change the nature of the object which he is trying to reverse enough times to permit him to reverse the original disability. If the preclear cannot create something, have him create anything even vaguely associated with it, and by association at last have him mock up the actual thing.

	The essence of creative processing is moving objects in space when they have been mocked up. They are moved near and far, to the right, left, behind the preclear, below his feet, above his head and in front of him. He must know that he has changed the location of the object. If he cannot make a large change, have him do a small change of location. If he cannot do a small change of location, have him alter the object by turning it different colors, or by enlarging or contracting it, or by pushing it away or bringing it near him, until he can make it move sideways. In failing to do this, have him do a change with some allied object.

	The essence of creative processing is a continuation of success. Be careful not to give the preclear things which make him fail. Do not let his failures mount up. Estimate the preclear and pay attention to what he is doing; find out from him continually the condition of his illusions, if you yourself as an auditor cannot see them. Putting objects into yesterday or tomorrow or well into the future or into the past is vitally necessary to processing.

	Control of the illusion is the essence of commands. The preclear must be able to create, grow, conserve, decay and destroy; start, change and stop; be, do and have; differentiate, associate and identify; handle in space, with energy and in time, any object, actual or mythical, in all the eight dynamics, and with high preference given to anything which disobeys “natural laws” of the MEST universe.

	That auditor with a high order of imagination who is himself clear, finds mock-ups very easy to “think up” and request of the preclear, but it is not necessary to have such an imagination, as a routine assessment will discover immediately that the most ordinary things fall into the Can’t, Must and Desire brackets in the preclear’s life.

	The preclear will be discovered on the first dynamic, quite ordinarily, not to be able to create, change or destroy, especially destroy, his own body or bodies in which he thinks he is encased within his own body (old time-track bodies such as a Fifth Invader Force body). He will be found to be incapable in many directions with facsimiles, communication lines and other matters on the first dynamic alone. On the second dynamic, many incapabilities will come to view, and so on along all the dynamics. On the fifth dynamic, he will quite ordinarily be found incapable of handling snakes, spiders, vicious fish, bacteria, wild animals and domestic pets. On the seventh dynamic he will be discovered unable to handle other thetans, even in the most elementary fashion of bringing two dots of light into proximity and then separating them (an exercise which blows head ridges in many preclears quite explosively). On the eighth dynamic his limitations quite ordinarily become too obvious for comment, but on each and every dynamic he must be able to do or fulfil any of the above cycles or conditions.

	Standard Operating Procedure tells how to exteriorize a thetan. Creative processing, rising-scale postulate changing, postulate processing, are then necessary to bring him toward a state of a cleared theta clear. The state of theta clear simply demands that the preclear remains outside his body when the body itself is hurt, and the state is adequate to prevent his being trapped again by a body except in unusual circumstances. There is no guarantee of long continuance in the condition. The state of cleared theta clear is, however, another thing, for it means a person who is able to create his own universe; or, living in the MEST universe, is able to create illusions perceivable by others at will, to handle MEST universe objects without mechanical means and to have and feel no need of bodies or even the MEST universe to keep himself and his friends interested in existence.  	

R2-51: RISING SCALE PROCESSING

Exerpted from the Book: The Creation of Human Ability

This is one of the older processes of Scientology. It consists of the individual being asked to get whatever idea he can about the buttons of the chart of attitudes and then change his ideas upwards. Using this process, the entire endocrine system of the preclear has been altered for the better.

The auditing commands would be dependent upon the chart of attitudes. The buttons of the chart of attitudes are: DEAD - SURVIVE, NOBODY - EVERYONE, DISTRUST - FAITH, LOSE - WIN, RIGHT - WRONG, NEVER - ALWAYS, I KNOW NOT - I KNOW, STOP - START, NO RESPONSIBILITY - FULLY RESPONSIBLE, STOPPED - MOTION SOURCE, FULL EFFECT - CAUSE, IDENTIFICATION - DIFFERENCE, OWNS NOTHING - OWNS ALL, HALLUCINATION - TRUTH, I AM NOT - I AM, HAD - BEING.

The auditing commands involved in this process follow: ‘How close can you come to trusting everybody?  Now do you have that idea?’ and when the preclear has: ‘All right, shift that idea as high as you can toward trust’. Do this many times with the preclear on one item of the list before going on to the next.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 JUNE 1957
REISSUED 12 MAY 1972

Remimeo

TRAINING AND CCH PROCESSES

(Originally issued as an HCO Training Bulletin
from Hubbard Communications Office, Washington, D.C.)

NOTE.. The variations and some of the most potent processes are not included in this Training Bulletin but will appear in the Student Manual when published in September 1957.

NUMBER: Training O

NAME: Confronting Preclear.

COMMANDS: None.

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

PURPOSE: To train student to confront a preclear with auditing only or with nothing.

TRAINING STRESS: Have student and coach sit facing each other, neither making any conversation or effort to be interesting. Have them sit and look at each other and say and do nothing for some hours. Student must not speak, fidget, giggle or be embarrassed or anaten. Coach may speak only if student goes anaten (dope off). Student is confronting the body, thetan and bank of the preclear.

HlSTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington in March 1957, to train students to confront preclears in the absence of social tricks or conversation and to overcome obsessive compulsions to be “interesting”.

NUMBER: Training 1

NAME: Dear Alice.

COMMANDS: A phrase (with the “he saids” omitted) is picked out of the book “Alice in Wonderland” and read to the coach. It is repeated until the coach is satisfied it arrived where he is.

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

PURPOSE: To teach the student to send an intention from himself to a preclear in one unit of time without vias.

TRAINING STRESS: The command goes from the book to the student and, as his own, to the coach. It must not go from book to coach. It must sound natural, not artificial. Diction and elocution have no part in it. Loudness may have.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, April 1956, to teach the communication formula to new students.
NUMBER: Training 2

NAME: Acknowledgments.

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

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

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

TRAINING STRESS: Teach student to acknowledge exactly what was said so that preclear knows it was heard. Ask student from time to time what was said. Curb over and under acknowledgment. Let student do anything at first to get acknowledgments across, then even him out. Teach him that an acknowledgment is a stop, not beginning of a new cycle of communication or an encouragement to the preclear to go on.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956, to teach new students that an acknowledgment ends a communication cycle and a period of time, that a new command begins a new period of time.

NUMBER: Training 3

NAME: Duplicative Question.

COMMANDS: “Do fish swim?” or “Do birds fly?” Communication bridge between.

POSITION: Student and coach seated a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To teach a student to duplicate without variation an auditing question, each time newly, in its own unit of time, not as a blur with other questions; and to teach him how to shift from one question to another with a communication bridge rather than an abrupt change.

TRAINING STRESS: One question and student acknowledgment of its answer in one unit of time which is then finished. To keep student from straying into variations of command. To insist on communication bridge when question is changed. Even though the same question is asked, it is asked as though it had never occurred to anyone before. To teach students that a communication bridge consists of getting three agreements—one agreement to end this question, second agreement to continue session in general and maintain ARC, third agreement to begin a new question. Teach student that preclear is part of these agreements. To teach student never to vary question or shift question or command without a bridge.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, April 1956, to overcome variations and sudden changes in session.

NUMBER: Training 4

NAME: Preclear Originations.

COMMANDS: The student runs “Do fish swim?” or “Do birds fly?” on coach. Coach answers but now and then makes startling comments from a prepared list given by instructor. Student must handle originations to satisfaction of coach.

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

PURPOSE: To teach a student not to be tongue-tied or startled or thrown off session by originations of preclear and to maintain ARC with preclear throughout an origination.

TRAINING STRESS: The student is taught to hear origination and do three things: (1) Understand it; (2) Acknowledge it; and (3) Return preclear to session. If the coach feels abruptness or too much time consumed or lack of comprehension, he corrects the student into better handling.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956, to teach auditors to stay in session when preclear dives out.

NUMBER: Training 5

NAME: Hand Mimicry.

COMMANDS: All commands are by motions of one or two hands. The auditor makes a simple hand motion, holding his hand or hands in the final position. The coach bobs his head as having received it. The coach then, mirror-wise, makes the same motion with his hand or hands. The student then acknowledges. If the motion was not correctly done by coach the student acknowledges doubtfully, then repeats the motion to the coach. If the coach does it well, student thanks coach by shaking own two hands together (prize fighter fashion). Keep motions simple. Student must always be able to duplicate own motions.

POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other at a short distance, coach’s knees inside student’s.

PURPOSE: To educate student that verbal commands are not entirely necessary. To make student physically telegraph an intention. To show student necessity of having preclear obey commands.

TRAINING STRESS: Accuracy of student repeating own commands. Teaching student to give preclear wins. Teaching student that an intention is different from words.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, April 1956, from the principles of body mimicry developed by LRH in Camden, N.J., in 1954.

The following group of processes are usually taught in Upper Indoctrination Course:

NUMBER: Training 6

NAME: Plain 8-C.

COMMANDS: “Look at that wall.” “Walk over to that wall.” “With your right hand, touch that wall.” “Turn around.” All with acknowledgments. Not Tone 40. (Preclear is acknowledged when he originates, no physical contact.)

POSITION: Student and coach both ambulant in a room with no center obstacles. Student walks with coach who does process for student.

PURPOSE: To give preclear reality on environment, control in following directions and havingness. Not all effects fully explored.

TRAINING STRESS: Precision in repetition of commands by student and experience on a gradient scale in directing another body than own. Handling of originations. Acknowledging execution of commands by preclear. When this process develops somatics on a preclear it must be continued until flat.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Camden, 1953. Originally called “Opening Procedure of 8-C”, 8-C being a full auditing procedure aimed at negative thought. The only surviving part of this is now called 8-C and means the above process. Original intention was to place preclear within the control of the auditor so auditing could occur. Proved so successful became an end-all in itself. Nominated in Summary Research Project 1956 as responsible all by itself for approximately 50% of results achieved by auditors across the world.

NUMBER: Training 7

NAME: Hi-School Indoc.

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

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

PURPOSE: To train a student never to be stopped by a preclear. To train him to run fine 8-C in any circumstances. To teach him to handle rebellious people.

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

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London, 1956.

NUMBER: Training 8

NAME: Tone 40 on an Object.

COMMANDS: “Stand up.” “Thank you.” “Sit down on the table.” “Thank you.” These are the only commands used. (If student has trouble with Training 9, have him do Tone 40 on an Object with 8-C commands.)

POSITION: Student standing beside table holding ashtray which he manually makes execute the commands he gives.

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

TRAINING STRESS: have student give orders for a while alone. Then begin to nag him to get them up to Tone 40 commands. Have student silently permeate object with command and an expectancy that it will do it. When student can “see” his intentions going in accurately, when he wonders why object doesn’t instantly obey, when he is not stumbling through energy or depending on his voice, the training process is flat. This process usually takes the most time in training of any process and time on it is well spent. Objects can be ashtrays or rag dolls.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., 1957, for the 17th ACC.

NUMBER: Training 9

NAME: Tone 40 on a Person.

COMMANDS: Same as 8-C. This is not Tone 40 8-C (CCH 12). Student runs fine, clearcut intentions and verbal orders on a coach. Coach tries to break down Tone 40 of the student. Coach commands that are valid are “Start” (to begin), “Flunk” to tell student he has erred and must return to beginning of cycle, and “That’s it” to take a break or stop session for the day. No other statement by coach in session is valid on student and is only an effort to make student come off Tone 40 or in general be stopped.

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

PURPOSE: To make student able to maintain Tone 40 under any stress of auditing.

TRAINING STRESS: The exact amount of physical effort must be used by student plus a compelling unspoken intention. No jerky struggles are allowed since each jerk is 3 stop. Student must learn to smoothly increase effort quickly to amount needed to make coach execute. Stress is on exact intention, exact strength needed, exact force necessary, exact Tone 40. Even a slight smile by student can be a flunk. Too much force can be a flunk. Too little definitely is a flunk. Anything not Tone 40 is a flunk.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., for the 17th ACC.

The following processes are taught in the Communication-Control-Havingness Course:

NUMBER: CCH 0

NAME: Rudiments, Goals and Present Time Problem.

COMMANDS: Establishing session beginning by calling attention to room, auditor and the session to begin. Discussing the preclear’s goals for the session. Auditor asks for present time problem and settles it with problems of comparable magnitude or incomparable magnitude or by Locational Processing. In general, remarks and commands enough to bring about ARC at session’s beginning but not enough to run down havingness of the preclear.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated at a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To make known the beginning of a session to a preclear and the auditor so that no error as to its beginning is made. To put the preclear into a condition to be audited.

TRAINING STRESS: To begin sessions, not just let them happen. To educate the student into the actual elements of a session and condition of preclears. To stress the inability to audit something else when present time problem is not flat. To demonstrate what happens when preclear doesn’t know session has begun or has no goals for it or what happens when present time problem only half flat when other things are engaged upon. Stress that it is done each session. Explain closure mechanism of problem with preclear, the solution of “the liability of solutions”.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Elizabeth, N.J., 1950; Goals in Wichita, Kansas in 1951; Present Time Problem, London, 1952; Rudiments, Phoenix, 1955.

NUMBER: CCH 1.

NAME: * Give Me Your Hand, Tone 40.

COMMANDS: “Give me your hand.” Physical action of taking hand when not given and then replacing it in preclear’s lap. And “Thank you” ending cycle. All Tone 40 with clear intention, one command in one unit of time, no originations of preclear acknowledged in any way verbally or physically. May be run on right hand, left hand, both hands, each one flattened in turn.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated, in chairs without arms, close together. Auditor’s knees both to auditor’s left of preclear’s knees, outside of auditor’s right thigh against outside of preclear’s right thigh. This position reversed for left hand. In both hands preclear’s knees are between auditor’s knees.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate to preclear that control of preclear’s body is possible, despite revolt of circuits, and inviting preclear to directly control it. Absolute control by auditor then passes over toward absolute control of his own body by preclear.

TRAINING STRESS: Never stop process until a flat place is reached. To process with good Tone 40. Auditor taught to pick up preclear’s hand by wrist with auditor’s thumb nearest auditor’s body, to have an exact and invariable place to carry preclear’s hand to before clasping, clasping hand with exactly correct pressure, replacing hand (with auditor’s left hand still holding preclear’s wrist) in preclear’s lap. Making every command(l and cycle separate. Maintaining Tone 40. Stress on intention from auditor to preclear with each command. To leave an instant for preclear to do it by own will before auditor does it. Stress Tone 40 precision. To keep epicenters balanced. CCH I (b) should also be flattened.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in the 17th ACC, Washington, D.C., 1957.

* The name and command for CCH 1 has since been revised to, “Give me that hand.”

NUMBER: CCH2

NAME: * Tone 40 8-C.

COMMANDS: “Look at that wall.” “Thank you.” “Walk over to that wall.” “Thank you.” “With the right hand, touch that wall.” “Thank you.” “Turn around.” “Thank you.” Run without acknowledging in any way any origin by preclear, acknowledging only preclear’s execution of the command. Commands smoothly enforced physically. Tone 40, full intention.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear ambulant, auditor in physical contact with preclear as needed.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate to preclear that his body can be directly controlled and thus inviting him to control it. Finding present time. Havingness. Other effects not fully explained.

TRAINING STRESS: Absolute auditor precision. No drops from Tone 40. No flubs. Total present-time auditing. Auditor turns preclear counterclockwise then steps always on preclear’s right side. Auditor’s body acts as block to forward motion when preclear turns. Auditor gives command, gives preclear a moment to obey, then enforces command with physical contact of exactly correct force to get command executed. Auditor does not check preclear from executing commands.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., 1957, for the 17th ACC.

* The name and command for CCH 2 has since been revised to, “You look at that wall.”

NUMBER: CCH 3

NAME: Book Mimicry.

COMMANDS: Auditor makes a simple or complex motion with a book. Hands book to preclear. Preclear makes motion, duplicating auditor’s mirror image-wise. Auditor asks preclear if he is satisfied that the preclear duplicated the motion. If preclear is and auditor is also fairly satisfied, auditor takes book and goes to next command. If preclear says he is and auditor fairly sure preclear isn’t, auditor takes back book and repeats command and gives book to preclear again for another try. If preclear is not sure he duplicated any command auditor repeats it for him and gives him back the book. Tone 40 only in motions. Verbal two-way quite free.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To bring up preclear’s communication with control and duplication. (Control + duplication = communication.)

TRAINING STRESS: Stress giving preclear wins. Stress auditor’s necessity to duplicate his own commands. Circular motions are more complex than straight lines.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard for the 16th ACC in Washington, D.C., 1957. Based on duplication developed by LRH in London, 1952.

NUMBER: CCH 4

NAME: Hand Space Mimicry.

COMMANDS: Auditor raises two hands, palms facing preclear’s and says, “Put your hands against mine, follow them and contribute to their motion.” He then makes a simple motion with right hand, then left. “Did you contribute to the motion?” “Good.” “Put your hands in your lap.” When this is flat the auditor does this same thing with a half inch of space between his and preclear’s palms. When this is flat auditor does it with a wider space and so on until preclear is able to follow motions a yard away.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated, close together facing each other, preclear’s knees between auditor’s.

PURPOSE: To develop reality on the auditor using the reality scale (solid comm line). To get preclear into comm by control + duplication.

TRAINING STRESS: That auditor be gentle and accurate in his motions, giving preclear wins. To be free in two-way comm.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, 1956, as a therapeutic version of Dummy Hand Mimicry. Something was needed to supplant “Look at me. Who am l?” and “Find the Auditor” part of rudiments.

NUMBER: Training 10

NAME: Locational Processing.

COMMANDS: “You notice that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” Auditor enforces command when needed by turning preclear’s head toward object. Run inside an auditing room or outside. Auditor indicates obvious objects, naming them and pointing to them.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated side by side or facing each other or seated or walking outside.

PURPOSE: To control attention. Since attention is being controlled by facsimiles, an unknown control, supplanting with a known control brings preclear up to present time. See also Pre-Logics. A highly therapeutic process. Can be substituted for Present Time Problem to some degree in cases that cannot run a Present Time Problem as a process.

TRAINING STRESS: That coach (or preclear) always looks in direction of object.
HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Elizabeth, N.J., in June 1950, to bring preclears into auditing room after they had been “brought up to present time”.

NUMBER: CCH 5

NAME: Location by Contact.

COMMANDS: “Touch that (indicated object).” “Thank you.”

POSITION: Auditor and preclear may be seated where the preclear is very unable, in which case they are seated at a table which has a number of objects scattered on its surface. Or auditor and preclear may be ambulant, with the auditor in manual contact with the preclear as is necessary to face him toward and guide him to the indicated object.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the process is to give the preclear orientation and havingness and to improve his perception.

TRAINING STRESS: Training stress is upon gentleness, ARC and the raising of the preclear’s certainty that he has touched the indicated object. It should be noticed that this can be run on blind people.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard from Locational Processing in 1957.

NUMBER: CCH 6

NAME: Body-Room Contact.

COMMANDS: “Touch your (body part).” “Thank you.” “Touch that (indicated room object).” “Thank you.”

POSITION: Auditor and preclear move about together as needed, the auditor enforcing the commands by manual contact using the preclear’s hands to touch objects and touch body parts.

PURPOSE: To establish the orientation and increase the havingness of the preclear and to give him in particular a reality on his own body.

TRAINING STRESS: Training Stress is upon using only those body parts which are not embarrassing to the preclear as it will be found that the preclear ordinarily has very little reality on various parts of his body. Impossible commands should not be given to the preclear in any case.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1957 in Washington, D.C., as a lower step than Body-Room Show Me.

NUMBER: CCH 7

NAME: Contact by Duplication.

COMMANDS: “Touch that table.” “Thank you.” “Touch your (body part).” “Thank you.” “Touch that table.” “Thank you.” “Touch your (same body part).” “Thank you.” “Touch that table.” “Thank you.” “Touch your (same body part).” “Thank you,” etc., in that order.

POSITION: Auditor may be seated. Preclear should be walking. Usually auditor standing by to manually enforce the commands.

PURPOSE: Process is used to heighten perception, orient the preclear and raise the preclear’s havingness. Control of attention as in all these “contact” processes naturally takes the attention units out of the bank which itself has been controlling the preclear’s attention.

TRAINING STRESS: Training stress is on precision of command and motion, with each command in its unit of time, all commands perfectly duplicated. Preclear to continue to run process even though he dopes off. Good ARC with the preclear, not picking one body part which is aberrated at first but flattening some non-aberrated body part before aberrated body part is tackled.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1957 in Washington, D.C., as a lower level process than Opening Procedure by Duplication, or Show Me by Duplication. All contact processes have been developed out of the Pre-Logics.

NUMBER: CCH 8

NAME: Trio.

COMMANDS: “Look around the room (environment) and tell me something you could have.” Run until flat. “Look around the room and tell me something the body (body part) can’t have.” Valence form: “Look around the room and tell me something mother (or other valence) can’t have.” Long form: “Look around the room and tell me what you could have.” Run flat. “Look around the room and tell me something you would permit to remain.” Run flat. “Look around the room and tell me what you could dispense with.” Dispense in long form is sometimes run first when preclear is set on wasting.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated at a comfortable distance both facing toward majority of the room.

PURPOSE: To remedy havingness objectively.

TRAINING STRESS: Run it smoothly without invalidative questions. One of the most effective processes known when thinkingness can be controlled somewhat. Run when havingness drops or for a full intensive.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in 1955. Name derived from the three questions of the long form. Originally called the “Terrible Trio”.

NUMBER: CCH 9

NAME: Tone 40 “Keep it from going away.”

COMMANDS: “Look at that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Walk over to that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Touch that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Keep it from going away.” “Thank you.” “Did you keep it from going away?” “Thank you,” and so forth.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear ambulant. Auditor assisting by manual contact.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the process is to increase havingness of the preclear and bring about his ability to keep things from going away, which ability lost, accounts for the possession of psychosomatic illnesses.

TRAINING STRESS: The training stress is on precision and accuracy and finding out that this is actually Tone 40 8-C with a thinkingness addition. This is the first step on to the route of making things solid.

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

NUMBER: CCH 10

NAME: Tone 40 “Hold it still.”

COMMANDS: “Look at that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Walk over to that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Touch that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Hold it still.” “Thank you.” “Did you hold it still’?” “Thank you,” etc., in that order.

PURPOSE: To improve an individual’s ability to make things more solid and to assert his ability to control his environment.

TRAINING STRESS: Same as CCH 9.

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

NUMBER: CCH 11

NAME: Tone 40 “Make it a little more solid.”

COMMANDS: “Look at that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Walk over to that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Touch that (indicated object).” “Thank you.” “Make it a little more solid.” “Thank you.” “Did you make it a little more solid’?” ‘‘Thank you,” etc., in that order.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear ambulant.

PURPOSE: To assert control over the preclear and increase the preclear’s havingness. To increase the preclear’s reality on the Pre-Logics. To reverse the flow of solids.

TRAINING STRESS: Complete precision of performance, a stress 011 all the CCH 9, CCH 10 and CCH 11, that they include a control of thinkingness of the preclear and therefore should not be run with a tremendous amount of auditor trust of the preclear and should not be run until the lower levels of CCH are to some degree flat as they will give the preclear losses.

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

NUMBER: Training 11

NAME: ARC Straight Wire.

COMMANDS: “Recall something that was really real to you.” “Thank you.” “Recall a time when you were in good communication with someone.”’ “Thank you.” “Recall a time when you really liked someone.” “Thank you.” The three commands are given in that order and repeated in that order consistently.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other at a comfortable distance.

PURPOSE: To give the student reality on the existence of a bank. This is audited on another and is audited until the other student is in present time. It will be found that the process discloses the cycling action of the preclear going deeper and deeper into the past and then more and more shallowly into the past until he is recalling something again close to present time. This cyclic action should be studied and understood and the reality on the pictures the preclear gets should be thoroughly understood by the student. The fact that another has pictures should be totally real to the student under training.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1951 in Wichita, Kansas. This was once a very important process. It has been known to bring people from a neurotic to a sane level after only a short period of application. It has been run on a group basis with success but it should be noted that the thinkingness of the individuals in the group would have to be well under the control of the auditor in order to have this process broadly beneficial. When it was discovered that this process occasionally reduced people’s havingness, the process itself was not generally run thereafter. It is still, however, an excellent process with that proviso, a reduction of havingness in some cases.

NUMBER: CCH 12

NAME: Limited Subjective Havingness.

COMMANDS: “What can you mock up?” “O.K. (to preclear’s answer).” “Mock up (what preclear said he could mock up).” “O.K.” “Shove it in to yourself.” “O.K.” When this is relatively flat, “Mock up (whatever preclear said he could).” “O.K.” “Let it remain where it is.” “O.K.” When this is relatively flat enter on the third part. “Mock up (whatever the preclear said he could mock up).” “O.K.” “Throw it away.” “O.K.” If the preclear cannot throw the object away at once, have him duplicate it many times and move one of them slightly further away from him until he has at last thrown one away. If the preclear cannot mock anything up, remedy his havingness with blackness. If the preclear’s “field” is invisibility, have him put glass objects of many sorts and sizes on a table and one after the other “keep them from going away”. If mock-up disappears have preclear keep on trying at it because he will eventually be able to get it back.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other.

PURPOSE: To Remedy the Havingness of the preclear’s bank.

TRAINING STRESS: Not to give the preclear any losses. He must successfully complete each step and the auditor must do things on a gradient scale until the preclear has successfully completed each command given.

HISTORY: These and other creative processes were developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in the fall of 1952.

NUMBER: CCH 13

NAME: Subjective Solids.

COMMANDS: “What can you mock up?” “O.K. (to preclear’s answer).” (This is asked once every time one changes the type of mock-up.) “Mock up (whatever the preclear said).” “O.K.” “Now make it a little more solid.” “O.K.” “Did you do that?” “Thank you.” Various objects are mocked up and made a little more solid. The preclear can be told to do what he pleases with these. This is not a Tone 40 process.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated.

PURPOSE: To make it possible for the preclear to mock up subjective objects and make them a little more solid, preparatory to running “Then and Now Solids”.

TRAINING STRESS: On knowing what the preclear is doing, how he is doing it, where he is putting the mock-ups, so that the preclear is certainly policed and is certainly doing the process. If the preclear neglects to do the process, even though he receives the command and nods his assent, he is, of course, going out of control of the auditor.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in 1956 in London.

NUMBER: CCH 14
NAME: Then and Now Solids.

COMMANDS: “Get a picture—and make it a little more solid.” “Thank you.” “Look at that (auditor indicates object)—and make it a little more solid.” “Thank you.” These commands are given with a tiny pause between the first and second phrase as it will be found that the glance of the preclear at the object tends to give him the impression that he has already made it a little more solid before the auditor gives the command if this auditing command is broken into two commands.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To straighten out the time track of the preclear. To clear up his bank. To disclose his life computation. To show up the whole track. To give preclear practice in handling time. To get rid of unwanted facsimiles. And in general to handle in its totality the reactive mind.

TRAINING STRESS: On leading up with gradients toward any failure that the preclear may have in making something a little more solid. In keeping the auditor from chasing all over the bank every time the preclear has a second picture show up or a third or a fourth or a fifth on the same command. The auditor wants one picture and wants one thing or the picture itself to be made a little more solid. We do not do two or three pictures and then a room object. The preclear can get easily lost on the track unless this is obeyed. Furthermore, it will be noted that the preclear goes out of present time further and further and then less and less and then further and further and then less and less and this cycle of further into the past and then less into the past finally winds up with bringing the preclear wholly into present time.

HISTORY: Developed from Over and Under Solids, which was developed by L. Ron Hubbard in late 1955 and improved by him in 1956. The process more or less completes the work begun on the reactive mind in 1947. It will be noted that many earlier processes and effects are woven into Then and Now Solids.

NUMBER: Training 12

NAME: Think a Thought.

COMMANDS: “Think a thought.” “Thank you.”

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To give the student some reality on the thinkingness of other people and demonstrate that the control of thinkingness is possible.

TRAINING STRESS: Should be on the fact that after the control of the body has been asserted and control of attention flattened, control of thinkingness can take place. There is really nothing wrong with the preclear except that he cannot control his thinkingness, thus he cannot change considerations at will because he is stopped by the bank. This is the most permissive of such processes since the preclear cannot really help to think a thought and we do not much care whether he thought it or the bank thought it.

HISTORY: Developed in 1955 in Phoenix, Arizona, by L. Ron Hubbard.

NUMBER: CCH 15

NAME: Rising Scale Processing.

COMMANDS: The Chart of Attitudes is employed, the top and bottom buttons of which are: DEAD-SURVIVE, NOBODY-EVERYBODY, DISTRUST-FAITH, LOSE-WIN, WRONG-RIGHT, NEVER-ALWAYS, I KNOW NOT-I KNOW, STOP-CHANGE-START, NO RESPONSIBILITY-FULLY RESPONSIBLE, STOPPED-CAUSES MOTION, FULL EFFECT-CAUSE, IDENTIFICATION-DIFFERENTIATION, OWNS NOTHING-OWNS ALL, HALLUCINATION-TRUTH, I AM NOT-I AM, NO-GAME-UNLIMITED GAMES. The auditing commands in this process are “Get the idea of (bottom button).” “Do you have that idea?” “All right.” “Now change that idea as nearly as you can to (top button).” “O.K.” “How close did you come?” “Thank you.” This is run many times on the one set of buttons until the preclear has a certainty that he can maintain the upper scale idea.

POSITION: Auditor and preclear seated a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To give the preclear drills in changing his mind and to demonstrate that he can maintain higher levels of certainty and that he can alter his considerations. And incidentally to probably change his glandular structure to the better until they have a better performance which is of no great importance to the process and has little to do with Scientology.

TRAINING STRESS: The training stress is on maintaining ARC with the preclear, yet being definite about what idea the preclear is supposed to get. The prerequisites demand that the thinkingness of the preclear be to some degree under the control of the auditor. The auditor must not be impatient with the preclear, but let the preclear try again and again to get these two ideas, one a low-scale idea and change that idea into an upper-scale idea. The preclear must be in fairly good condition with regard to havingness or the process can fail.

HISTORY: This process was developed in the fall of 1951 by L. Ron Hubbard in Wichita, Kansas, and is taken from Scientology 8-8008 as published in England and as given in The Creation of Human Ability, page 129, as R2—51. This is probably the oldest purely Scientology process in existence. It was not entirely workable in the past because it was not understood that the body has to be brought under the auditor’s control and that the attention has to be brought under the auditor’s control before the thinkingness of the preclear can be brought under the auditor’s control. The process, however, run on preclears who were not in too bad condition, has been continually successful both in changing their physical beingness and abilities, the latter being in the sphere of interest of Scientology. The first preclear on which this and Opening Procedure by Duplication were run was Mary Sue Hubbard.

NUMBER: GP 1

NAME: Bank Processes (Engrams, Secondaries, Locks, Perceptics and Whole Track).

NUMBER: GP 2

NAME: Subjective Havingness in Full, Repair and Remedy of Havingness, Avalanches, Black and White, Flows.

NUMBER: GP 3

NAME: Connectedness, Association, Identification, A = A = A = A.

NUMBER: GP 4

NAME: Time Processes.

NUMBER: GP 5

NAME: Creative Processes.

NUMBER: GP6
NAME: Full Rising Scale Processes.

NUMBER: GP7

NAME: Not-Know Processes, Waterloo Station, Something you wouldn’t mind Forgetting.

NUMBER: GP8

NAME: Think a Thought, Future Mock-ups.

NUMBER: GP9

NAME: CDEI, Problems, Find Something that is Not Thinking.

NUMBER: GP10

NAME: Thought Placement, Invent a Lie, Assign an Intention, Place a Command.

NUMBER: GP11

NAME: Exteriorization, Pre-Logics, Keep Head from Going Away, Try not to Exteriorize.

NUMBER: GP12

NAME: Route 1.

NUMBER: GP13

NAME: Anchor Points, Structure of Body.

NUMBER: GP14

NAME: Body Lifting.

NUMBER: GP15

NAME: World Reality, Get the Idea that (object) is Thinking about Itself, Perception of Environment, Reality Scale Processes.

NUMBER: Training13

NAME: Fishing a Cognition.

COMMANDS: This is a general ARC, answering the preclear’s origin process. When the preclear experiences a somatic, when he sighs, when he gives a reaction to a Tone 40 process, the auditor repeats the process two or three more times (random number) and then pausing the process asks the preclear, “How are you doing now?” or “What is going on?” and finds out what happened to the preclear just as though the auditor has not noticed that the preclear had a reaction. The auditor does not point out the reaction but merely wants a discussion in general. During this discussion he brings the preclear up to at least a cognition that the preclear has had a somatic or a reaction and then merely continues the process without further bridge. This is done randomly. It is not always done every time the preclear experiences a reaction.

POSITION: Whatever position the preclear and auditor are in as directed by the process they are running. But usually with the auditor touching the preclear. For example, in “Give Me Your Hand” the auditor continues to hold the preclear’s hand after he has said “Thank you” and asks the preclear how he is doing.

TRAINING STRESS: Is that the fishing of a cognition is an art and it cannot be taught by general command, that the auditor must not as-is the preclear’s havingness by asking him, “How are you feeling now?”, that the preclear must not be placed in possession of the knowledge that he can stop the auditor from auditing by having a reaction or experiencing a reaction to the processing, otherwise he will begin to experience them simply to stop the auditor. Thus the use of Training 13 is not routine and regular but is random. It should be stressed that this can be used while running any and all Tone 40 processes. It should be stressed that the Tone 40 is run as itself and that fishing a cognition is run into the process between cycles of command and acknowledgment and command and acknowledgment. After a thorough acknowledgment one can fish for a cognition thus pausing momentarily in the process, get things straightened out, maintain ARC with the preclear and then go on with the Tone 40 process. One does not enter fishing a cognition between the command and the acknowledgment. One never reacts to what the preclear is doing the instant that the preclear does it, otherwise one educates the preclear to stop one. Training stress here is that a Tone 40 process is not run on an automaton basis.

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., in 1957 while developing CCH on the following notes from LRH’s notebook: “I use processes to restimulate thought or action and when this happens I fish out a cognition and either continue the process or bridge to the next process.” It was developed basically to keep auditors in communication with the preclear since Tone 40 processes give some auditors, when they are studying them, the idea that they are supposed to go out of communication with the preclear.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD
                                        				Founder
LRH: ne.rd 
Copyright © 1957, 1972 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

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

Remimeo 	1 DECEMBER 1971
Class IV 	REISSUED 28 JULY 1974 AS BTB
C/Ss 	CANCELS
Specialist 	HCO BULLETIN OF 1 DECEMBER 1971
Checksheet 	SAME TITLE

RISING SCALE PROCESSING

Refer: HCOB 11 June 57 Training & CCH Processes - CCH 15

The scale used in Rising Scale Processing is taken from the Chart of Attitudes, the bottom and top buttons being employed in the process.

The scale is:

SURVIVE	RIGHT	FULLY RESPONSIBLE
DEAD	WRONG	NO RESPONSIBILITY

OWNS ALL	EVERYONE	ALWAYS
OWNS NOTHING	NOBODY	NEVER

MOTION SOURCE	TRUTH	FAITH
STOPPED	RALLUCINATION	DISTRUST

I KNOW	CAUSE	I AM
I KNOW NOT	EFFECT	I AM NOT

The process drills the PC in changing his mind and demonstrates to him that he can maintain higher levels of certainty and that he can alter his considerations.

The commands are:

1. 	“Get the idea of (bottom of scale. eg. dead.)”

2. 	“Do you have that idea?”

3. 	“All right. Now change that idea as nearly as you can to (top of scale. eg. survive).”

4. 	“OK. How close did you come?”

5. 	“Thank you.”

These commands are run repetitively 1-5, 1-5, 1-5 on the same pair (e.g. dead - survive) until the end phenomena of F/N, Cog, VGIs on the pair being run is reached.

Example ( pair dead - survive)

1. 	Commands for the pair are cleared.

2. 	Commands are run 1-5, 1- 5, 1-5, 1-5 F/N , Cog (e.g. “Gosh I’m going to survive”) VGIs.

3. 	Commands with next pair (wrong - right) are cleared.

4. 	Commands are run 1-5, 1-5, to F/N, Cog, VGIs on that pair, and so on until all twelve pairs have each been run to F/N, Cog, VGIs which gives twelve F/Ns on the process.

NOTE: All twelve pairs are run each to its own EP. One never runs a few pairs and leaves it there. Once Rising scale is started, all twelve pairs must be run.

____________

Rising Scale Processing incidentally changes the PC’s glandular structure for the better, the body is relieved of glandular malfunction.

Extracted from LRH C/Sed 
folders and notes by 
Training & Services Bur

Reissued as BTB 
by Flag Mission 1254

I/C: CPO Andrea Bewis
2nds Molly Harlow

Authorized by AVU

for the 
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
of the 
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:SW:AL:MHJW: mh 
Copyright © 1971, 1974 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Effort Processing

Exerpted from the Book: Advanced Procedure and Axioms

It should be clear that there are three distinct levels of processing. The first is thought, the second is emotion, the third is effort. Each has its own particular skill.

Thought is done by straight-wire, repetitive straight-wire and lock-scanning and is directed towards concepts of conclusions or evaluations or actual precise moments where the preclear evaluated or concluded.

Emotion is done by straight-wire, lock scanning and lock and engram and secondary running, with the total address to emotion. A moment of sympathy, of determinism, of defiance, of agreement is run just as though the incident were an engram -- which is to say, the preclear is made to re-experience the emotion and, incidentally, a few perceptics over and over from beginning to end until the emotion is off the lock.

Effort processing is done by running moments of physical stress. These. are run either as simple efforts or counter-efforts or as whole precise incidents. Such incidents as those which contain physical pain or heavy stress of motion, such as injuries, accidents or illnesses, are addressed by effort.

It should be seen, then, that we have three levels of operation. The most intimate is thought. An individual evaluates or concludes a certain thing. He is thereafter bound by his conclusion. He has caused an effect of which he is the recipient. If such a thought is recalled over and over until it is thoroughly de-sensitized, emotions and efforts resulting from such a postulate fall away. The individual lets go of the facsimile and it is no longer effective upon him if the postulate tended to use a facsimile to make it effective.

Thought communicates its decisions to body and environment by use of the emotion. Thought is intimately in contact with the trigger mechanisms of emotion and might be said to rule through emotion. Via emotion thought causes physical action and reaction to take place. To accomplish such physical action and reaction, thought uses earlier experiences -- facsimiles -- and utilizes their motion, effort and counter-effort to cause activity on the part of the body and environment.

Thus emotion is a bridge which is used by thought to effect effort. Take away or de-sensitize the emotion and one has again disconnected facsimiles, of any kind, from the organism, and the organism and its thought are not affected longer by the facsimile.

Thought can seem to be smothered in emotion in that it is necessary in most cases to unburden emotion from the case in order to discover many major and vital evaluations and conclusions. By unburdening the case of emotion, evaluations and conclusions long lost to view -- but still effective -- come to light and are de-sensitized. Thought, self-determined originally, may postulate conflictingly from time to time with resultant failures, sympathies and other mis-emotions. Mis-emotion then "smothers”the motor control panels and hides the postulates. Thus the running of emotion is done to lay bare past postulates and evaluations which are the actual sources of aberration and the suspended pain, which has been called in the past psychosomatic illness and is called, in Dianetics, chronic somatics, somatic meaning physical state.

A heavy, painful facsimile need not itself be exhausted for it is held in place primarily by the preclear’s desire (past postulate, not agreeing with present environment) and this postulate is smothered by emotion. Run the emotion, discover and de-sensitize the postulate, and the facsimile ordinarily drops away and does not further concern the preclear. Further, he does not substitute another ache or pain for it because the original reason for the facsimile (past postulate) is gone.

Effort processing is applied to heavy facsimiles. It happens occasionally that the effort on a facsimile is so heavy that it occludes the emotion, which in turn occludes the thought. Thus, enough effort must be recovered to lay bare the emotion so as to get at the postulates and de-sensitize them. A heavy facsimile is thus treated by effort processing in order to free the emotion and thus the postulates. The facsimile is not treated to complete exhaustion but only to the point where the emotion and thought are reached. It then should fall into disuse, and it does not matter that effort is left on it.

The last thing which is done to the heavy facsimile is, of course, to pick up the preclear’s agreement with the auditor to run it and the emotion of determinism involved in the running itself. Otherwise the facsimile may remain somewhat in force. This is done by lock running or lock scanning.

A heavy facsimile used to be known as an engram. In view of the fact that it has been found to be stored elsewhere than in the cells, the term heavy facsimile has now come into use. A heavy facsimile is an experience, complete with all perceptions, emotions, thoughts and efforts, occupying a precise place in space and a moment in time. It can be an operation, an injury, a term of heavy physical exertion, or even a death. It is composed of the preclear’s own effort and the effort of the environment (counter-effort).

The emotion of a heavy facsimile is marked by the thoroughness with which the counter-efforts have overcome the preclear. Thus, total overcoming of the preclear’s own effort by the counter-effort is apathy. Less thoroughly overcome, the preclear’s own effort is in grief. Even less thoroughly overcome, the preclear is in fear. Even less counter-effort and more preclear effort results in anger. When the preclear’s own effort is greater than the counter-efforts the emotion is antagonism. As the counter-effort is slighter and more diffuse but the preclear’s effort is not punitive, boredom results as the emotion. When the preclear’s own effort is punitive and successful against counter-efforts, we have varying degrees of happiness and effectiveness.

Thus the tone of any individual or any heavy facsimile is established by the response to the environmental effort and this response varies from no effort, all counter-effort to all effort, slight counter-effort. This is made up into a tone scale which goes from 0.0 for the lowest condition to 20 at optimum condition and then dwindling activity to 40 for a top static, the bottom static being death.

An individual may be so involved in combating a heavy facsimile which is chronically with him that he is chronically ill. Holding on to a chronic facsimile, the preclear has certain pattern responses and aberrations.In a facsimile where he is overwhelmed by motion he is listless and apathetic. In one where the forces balance he is in anger.

The auditor, in an occluded case, may find it is helpful to open the case by running effort. He looks at his preclear to discover some obvious physical aberration. This is held in place by a counter-effort. The auditor simply asks, "If your (head) were being pushed, which way would it be moving?” Or a leg or some deformed area. The counter-effort is right there, waiting. The preclear answers with a direction. The auditor then asks the preclear to feel his head moving against the counter-effort. A somatic will turn on. The auditor simply continues to ask for the various efforts and counter-efforts. Perceptions quite ordinarily fall out of the effort. A whole incident may come to view. This is the heavy facsimile and also the chronic facsimile. It is also a service facsimile. There is no sending the preclear around on his time track. He is right there in the heavy facsimile.

The facsimile thus uncovered is run until its emotion can be recovered. This is then scanned off until the postulates appear and these are then de-sensitized. The preclear’s own thoughts and postulates are the aberration source. What is said to him is simply evaluation causing him, at times, to postulate. The auditor has no concern for what is said, for repeater technique or for perceptions save only in that they may slightly aid the recovery of the emotion.

There are many tricks in effort processing. An auditor can ask for the effort to do or be anything and the preclear can work it out. There is an automatic response mechanism which gives forth the proper effort for the question, an interesting and reliable phenomenon. An auditor could take a dictionary and simply begin asking for any and all efforts suggested to him by the dictionary. However, using effort to this extent is neither indicated nor even broadly useful.

Every effort is in a non-survival direction in that it was once a counter-effort.

One can get the effort within the effort within the effort and have his preclear back into the genetic line at a swift rate. For efforts and counter-efforts are the stuff of which the blueprint of the human body itself is made. These are two cellular lines going back from the shellfish stage, for at this stage two cell lines become a team. The ancestors of this stage, before this point, go back into two separate experience stages. One can take a preclear, all unsuspecting of anything but the "lived only once theory", and throw him back with efforts within efforts into some remarkable experiences. This is a biologist’s dream, for he can look at original forms and trace genetic lines in individuals who may not even know of evolution. The genetic facsimiles of the whole evolution chain are on file and have thus been discovered. This should not be too surprising, for the blueprint had to be somewhere and, in efforts, it has been discovered and a trail blazed along its track. The problems of the initial photon converters, the "missing link”between the vertebrate and invertebrate stages, can be located, amongst other items of interest. The simple locating of efforts to make efforts throws anyone back down the long line. In ordinary processing this is vast beyond count, and contains the whole physical experience. The body is composed of efforts and counter-efforts. In theory, if they were all run out, the preclear would vanish. Fortunately this is not necessary for processing.

The basic efforts are not to be, to be. These resolve into the efforts to start, to stop, to change, not to start, not to stop and not to change.

The basic goals are to remain in a state of rest against counter-effort and to remain in a state of motion against counter-efforts.

Newton’s laws would apply and we would have stimulus-response thinking except for the ability of the mind to interpose self-determined action and motion despite stimuli or disregarding it.

There are efforts to have affinity, efforts to have communication, efforts to have agreement and reality. There are efforts to see and not to see, to hear and not to hear. There are efforts to do or not to do anything.

When the preclear switches from his own valence to another valence, he is actually taking the position of a counter-effort against himself. In his own valence he exerts his own efforts. In a counter-effort valence, he exerts counter-effort against himself. By valence is meant identity. In a dental operation under general anesthetic, the preclear’s own effort becomes so nulled that he takes the counter-effort. Then he recalls the incident out of valence (as the dentist or the nurse or, quite irrationally, even the dental tools or the bed) and hurts himself. (Self-auditing is done ordinarily out of valence and results in the preclear expending counter-efforts against himself. Thus he succeeds only in hurting himself.)

The no effort state is the state in which counter-effort is overwhelming the individual. Thus the auditor finds the case in apathy at a no effort point. Every heavy facsimile has points for any point on the tone scale and thus the preclear can hang up in a place where he can have no effort of his own. The auditor solves this by running out the counter-effort until it is sufficiently null to rehabilitate the preclear’s own effort. Some testing still remains on this particular point of effort processing.

A service facsimile is very resistive to effort processing, ordinarily. The auditor must remember to run the emotion as soon as possible and get the matter into good recall so that the postulates can be run. That should be the end of the service facsimile or at least one of its chain. Effort processing is not an end in itself, but an end toward recovering emotion so that one can recover thought. Effort processing should be thoroughly understood by an auditor and should then be minimally used.

A preclear who cannot re-experience an effort can be educated into the ability by causing him to make a present time effort and then recalling it. He will shortly discover that efforts can be re-experienced. Various efforts can then be run.

It is sometimes much easier to get a case to run emotion than to run effort. This should be done by all means, for emotion is closer to thought than is effort. Do not use efforts on low-toned preclears.

The only thing of value to recover from an engram is the effort; the only reason one recovers the effort is to recover the postulates the individual himself made during the engram and the only engrams one processes are on the service facsimile chain. It is not necessary to process any more of these than necessary to permit the preclear to let go of the chain.

If one sees an obvious deficiency in the preclear (glasses, deafness, baldness, thinness, etc.) he can request the effort the preclear must make to be deficient (have poor eyesight, hearing, baldness, etc.)

The only aberrative efforts are non-survival efforts.

Efforts exist within the efforts within the efforts within the efforts, much on the order of a picture of a picture within a picture within a picture, etc.

By calling for efforts to have efforts, the preclear can be taken all the way back on the time track to prime thought.

A preclear can be trained into feeling efforts by coaxing him to make one in present time and then to re-experience it.

The auditor must know about efforts and counter-efforts. He can do much with them, and much of what he can do is startling and bizarre. Efforts contain perceptics. If you run an effort long enough, you can recover perceptics from it in most cases.

You will find it difficult to run an effort against the postulate to keep the effort.

There are countless billions of efforts and counter-efforts in any case.

The main thing the auditor can do wrong about effort is to run too much effort, or to think effort is more important than thought, which it is not.

You cannot rehabilitate an organism chemically to any degree. You cannot rehabilitate it with effort; this is the wrong side of the board.

The only efforts are to start, stop and change, not to start, not to stop, not to change.

Happiness is applied individual effort. Apathy is no effort, all counter-effort. Other efforts and counter-efforts range the tone scale in the degree that the individual is handling the current effort in the service facsimile.

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

1 DECEMBER 1971R
ISSUE IV
REVISED & REISSUED 24 JULY 1974 AS BTB
Remimeo
Class IV	CANCELS
Auditors	HCO BULLETIN OF 1 DECEMBER 1971
& above	ISSUE IV
C/Ss	SAME TITLE
HAS Specialist
(The only revision is
Checksheet P.1, paragraph 2 is
quoted from LRH.)

EFFORT PROCESSING

Refer book “Advanced Procedures and Axioms” page 15-17.

“The bank can be considered to have 3 layers. EFFORT-EMOTION-THOUGH. Effort buries emotion. Emotion buries thought.” LRH

A physical aberration or physical disability is held in place by a counter effort.

e.g. 	A person is short sighted.
	A person is left-handed yet not fully able with the left hand.
	Baldness. 

Effort Processing removes the effort which uncovers the PC’s own EMOTION and removes the Emotion which uncovers and blows the PC’s thoughts and postulates about the disability as these are the aberrative source of it.

The Auditor only has to ask for the physical disability and have the PC experience the effort and counter effort. Somatics turn on, a whole incident may come to view. The process is continued and eventually the emotion concerning the disability will be mentioned by the PC. Eg: I don’t feel shy about wearing glasses now.

I don’t feel frustrated about being left handed anymore.

I’m not afraid to have people know I’m bald. This is not an End Phenomena and by not chopping the PC at this point (by indicating an F/N) the PC is allowed to then voice the consideration and his own thoughts concerning the disability. If the PC doesn’t mention it, the process is continued until he does. The consideration when voiced by the PC is the End Phenomena of running Effort Processing on that particular disability and will be accompanied by F/N and VGI’s. Note that this is just the EP of the disability being run not of the process on the PC.

A consideration is a thought, a postulate about something.

The process is:

1. 	The Audltor asks the PC what physical disabilities he has. These are noted down with the read each disability gave when the PC said it. Physical disabilities is cleared with the PC before asking the question in this step.

2. 	Effort usually requires education in re-experiencing it. Have the PC shove against a wall. Then have him sit back and re-experience it.

3. 	Clear the word effort.

4. 	Take the largest reading disability. Any disability run must be one that reads.

5. 	Clear the command “Get the (disability} effort”.

6. 	Clear the words counter-effort.

7. 	Clear the command “Get the (disability) counter-effort.”.

8. 	These commands are run alternate-repetitively (effort, counter-effort, effort, counter-effort, effort, etc.) until A. the emotion concerning the disability is voiced by the PC. B. the consideration is voiced by the PC. The process is continued on the disability being run until both the emotion and the consideration are voiced by the PC. This is the EP of the item being run, it’s always accompanied by F/N and VGIs.

9. 	Then take the next largest reading disability and run the process on it to EP.

10. 	All reading disabilities are run. The PC can be asked for other disabilities when all reading ones already given by the PC are run. The process is run until the PC gives no more reading disabilities.

11. 	Care must be taken not to chop the PC when he mentions the emotion. Get the emotion and the consideration.

Effort Processing is spectacular in results, some PCs have even thrown away their glasses.

Extracted from LRH
C/Sed folders and notes by
Training & Services Bureau

Revised & Reissued as BTB 
by Flag Mission 1234

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

Authorized by AVU

for the 
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
of the 
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY 
BCDS:MD:AL:JW:mh 
Copyright © 1971, 1974 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

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.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 JULY 1963
MA
Franchise
BPI

YOU CAN BE RIGHT

Rightness and wrongness form a common source of argument and struggle.

The concept of rightness reaches very high and very low on the Tone Scale.

And the effort to be right is the last conscious striving of an individual on the way out. I-am-right-and-they-are-wrong is the lowest concept that can be formulated by an unaware case.

What is right and what is wrong are not necessarily definable for everyone. These vary according to existing moral codes and disciplines and, before Scientology, despite their use in law as a test of “sanity”, had no basis in fact but only in opinion.

In Dianetics and Scientology a more precise definition arose. And the definition became as well the true definition of an overt act. An overt act is not just injuring someone or something: an overt act is an act of omission or commission which does the least good for the least number of dynamics or the most harm to the greatest number of dynamics. (See the Eight Dynamics.)

Thus a wrong action is wrong to the degree that it harms the greatest number of dynamics. And a right action is right to the degree that it benefits the greatest number of dynamics.

Many people think that an action is an overt simply because it is destructive. To them all destructive actions or omissions are overt acts. This is not true. For an act of commission or omission to be an overt act it must harm the greater number of dynamics. A failure to destroy can be, therefore, an overt act. Assistance to something that would harm a greater number of dynamics can also be an overt act.

An overt act is something that harms broadly. A beneficial act is something that helps broadly. It can be a beneficial act to harm something that would be harmful to the greater number of dynamics.

Harming everything and helping everything alike can be overt acts. Helping certain things and harming certain things alike can be beneficial acts.

The idea of not harming anything and helping everything are alike rather mad. It is doubtful if you would think helping enslaves was a beneficial action and equally doubtful if you would consider the destruction of a disease an overt act.

In the matter of being right or being wrong, a lot of muddy thinking can develop. There are no absolute rights or absolute wrongs. And being right does not consist of being unwilling to harm and being wrong does not consist only of not harming.

There is an irrationality about “being right” which not only throws out the validity of the legal test of sanity but also explains why some people do very wrong things and insist they are doing right.

The answer lies in an impulse, inborn in everyone, to try to be right. This is an insistence which rapidly becomes divorced from right action. And it is accompanied by an effort to make others wrong, as we see in hypercritical cases. A being who is apparently unconscious is still being right and making others wrong. It is the last criticism.

We have seen a “defensive person” explaining away the most flagrant wrongnesses. This is “justification” as well. Most explanations of conduct, no matter how far-fetched, seem perfectly right to the person making them since he or she is only asserting self-rightness and other-wrongness.

We have long said that that which is not admired tends to persist. If no one admires a person for being right, then that person’s “brand of being right” will persist, no matter how mad it sounds. Scientists who are aberrated cannot seem to get many theories. They do not because they are more interested in insisting on their own odd rightnesses than they are in finding truth. Thus we get strange “scientific truths” from men who should know better, including the late Einstein. Truth is built by those who have the breadth and balance to see also where they’re wrong.

You have heard some very absurd arguments out among the crowd. Realize that the speaker was more interested in asserting his or her own rightness than in being right.

A thetan tries to be right and fights being wrong. This is without regard to being right about something or to do actual right. It is an insistence which has no concern with a rightness of conduct.

One tries to be right always, right down to the last spark.

How then, is one ever wrong?

It is this way:

One does a wrong action, accidentally or through oversight. The wrongness of the action or inaction is then in conflict with one’s necessity to be right. So one then may continue and repeat the wrong action to prove it is right.

This is a fundamental of aberration. All wrong actions are the result of an error followed by an insistence on having been right. Instead of righting the error (which would involve being wrong) one insists the error was a right action and so repeats it.

As a being goes down scale it is harder and harder to admit having been wrong. Nay, such an admission could well be disastrous to any remaining ability or sanity.

For rightness is the stuff of which survival is made. And as one approaches the last ebb of survival one can only insist on having been right, for to believe for a moment one has been wrong is to court oblivion.

The last defense of any being is “I was right”. That applies to anyone. When that defense crumbles, the lights go out.

So we are faced with the unlovely picture of asserted rightness in the face of flagrant wrongness. And any success in making the being realize their wrongness results in an immediate degradation, unconsciousness, or at best a loss of personality. Pavlov, Freud, psychiatry alike never grasped the delicacy of these facts and so evaluated and punished the criminal and insane into further criminality and insanity.

All justice today contains in it this hidden error—that the last defense is a belief in personal rightness regardless of charges and evidence alike, and that the effort to make another wrong results only in degradation.

But all this would be a hopeless impasse leading to highly chaotic social conditions were it not for one saving fact:

All repeated and “incurable” wrongnesses stem from the exercise of a last defence: “trying to be right”. Therefore the compulsive wrongness can be cured no matter how mad it may seem or how thoroughly its rightness is insisted upon.

Getting the offender to admit his or her wrongness is to court further degradation and even unconsciousness or the destruction of a being. Therefore the purpose of punishment is defeated and punishment has minimal workability.

But by getting the offender off the compulsive repetition of the wrongness, one then cures it.

But how?

By rehabilitating the ability to be right!

This has limitless application—in training, in social skills, in marriage, in law, in life.

Example: A wife is always burning dinner. Despite scolding, threats of divorce, anything, the compulsion continues. One can wipe this wrongness out by getting her to explain what is right about her cooking. This may well evoke a raging tirade in some extreme cases, but if one flattens the question, that all dies away and she happily ceases to burn dinners. Carried to classic proportions but not entirely necessary to end the compulsion, a moment in the past will be recovered when she accidentally burned a dinner and could not face up to having done a wrong action. To be right she thereafter had to burn dinners.

Go into a prison and find one sane prisoner who says he did wrong. You won’t find one. Only the broken wrecks will say so out of terror of being hurt. But even they don’t believe they did wrong.

A judge on a bench, sentencing criminals, would be given pause to realize that not one malefactor sentenced really thought he had done wrong and will never believe it in fact, though he may seek to avert wrath by saying so.

The do-gooder crashes into this continually and is given his loses by it.

But marriage, law and crime do not constitute all the spheres of living where this applies. These facts embrace all of life. The student who can’t learn, the worker who can’t work, the boss who can’t boss are all caught on one side of the right-wrong question. They are being completely one-sided. They are being “last-ditch-right”. And opposing them, those who would teach them are fixed on the other side “admit-you are-wrong”. And out of this we get not only no-change but actual degradation where it “wins”. But there are no wins in this imbalance, only loses for both.

Thetans on the way down don’t believe they are wrong because they don’t dare believe it. And so they do not change.

Many a preclear in processing is only trying to prove himself right and the auditor wrong, particularly the lower case levels, and so we sometimes get no-change sessions.

And those who won’t be audited at all are totally fixed on asserted rightness and are so close to gone that any question of their past rightness would, they feel, destroy them.

I get my share of this when a being, close to extinction, and holding contrary views, grasps for a moment the rightness of Scientology and then in sudden defence asserts his own “rightnesses”, sometimes close to terror.

It would be a grave error to go on letting an abuser of Scientology abuse. The route is to get him or her to explain how right he or she is without explaining how wrong Scientology is, for to do the last is to let them commit a serious overt. “What is right about your mind” would produce more case change and win more friends than any amount of evaluation or punishment to make them wrong.

You can be right. How? By getting another to explain how he or she is right—until he or she, being less defensive now, can take a less compulsive point of view. You don’t have to agree with what they think. You only have to acknowledge what they say. And suddenly they can be right.

A lot of things can be done by understanding and using this mechanism. It will take, however, some study of this article before it can be gracefully applied—for all of us are reactive to some degree on this subject. And those who sought to enslave us did not neglect to install a right-wrong pair of items on the far back track. But these won’t really get in your way.

As Scientologists, we are faced by a frightened society who think they would be wrong if we were found to be right. We need a weapon to correct this. We have one here.

And you can be right, you know. I was probably the first to believe you were, mechanism or no mechanism. The road to rightness is the road to survival. And every person is somewhere on that scale.

You can make yourself right, amongst other ways, by making others right enough to afford to change their minds. Then a lot more of us will arrive.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :gl.Jh.cden 
Copyright © 1963 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 SEPTEMBER 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise
SCIENTOLOGY THREE

CLEARING—CLEARING—CLEARING

ROUTINE THREE SC

There has been such a rush on in technical that it may have looked to you that we were in a state of rapid change. This was occasioned by a speed-up caused by various events. You are getting about a century of research (or more) in a very few months. So bear with me. The end is not only in sight. It’s here. My job is mainly now to refine and get the data to you.

The order brought into our work by making FIVE LEVELS OF SCIENTOLOGY is paying off rapidly. Level One is in development. Level Two is well away. Level Four is complete. And suddenly Level Three leaped to a final phase.

We can CLEAR, CLEAR, CLEAR.

This has been a stepchild for months, even years now. It has been mauled, messed up, invalidated and rehabilitated and knocked around. But a BOOK ONE CLEAR was what most people came into Scientology to obtain. And now I’ve done it. I’ve found out why not and how.

And this HCO Bulletin is a hurry-skurry outline of the steps so you can do it. There will be lots of HCO Bulletins on this. The tapes of August 27, 28 and 29, AD13, give most of its theory.

CLEAR DEFINED—Book One definition holds exactly true. A Clear is somebody with no “held down fives” in this lifetime (see Evolution of a Science).

CLEAR TEST—Clear sits at Clear read on the TA with a free needle. No natter. No upsets. No whole track keyed in. No SERVICE FACSIMILE.

CLEAR STABILITY—We are not concerned with stability. But we can now key out so thoroughly that we need not stress “keyed out clear”. I have found the means, I am sure, to make this state far more stable and recreate it easily if it slips.

So forgive me for being indecisive about clear states for these past many months.

The breakthrough is stated as follows: IF YOU CANNOT MAKE A CLEAR IN A 25-HOUR PREPCHECK THE PC HAS ONE OR MORE SERVICE FACSIMILES.

The barrier to clearing and the reason for fast relapse when clear was attained has been the SERVICE FACSIMILE.

SERVICE FACSIMILE defined: Advanced Procedure and Axioms definition accurate. Added to this is: THE SERVICE FACSIMILE IS THAT COMPUTATION GENERATED BY THE PRECLEAR (NOT THE BANK) TO MAKE SELF RIGHT AND OTHERS WRONG, TO DOMINATE OR ESCAPE DOMINATION AND ENHANCE OWN SURVIVAL AND INJURE THAT OF OTHERS.

Note that it is generated by the pc, not the bank. Thus the pc restimulates the bank with the computation; the bank, unlike going to OT, does not retard the pc in this instance.

The Service Facsimile is usually a this lifetime effort only. It might better be called a SERVICE COMPUTATION but we’ll hold to our old terms. The pc is doing it. In usual aberration the bank is doing it (the pc’s engrams, etc). Where you can’t clear the pc by auditing just bank, you have to get out of the road what the pc is doing to stay aberrated. If you clear only what the bank is doing the clear state rapidly relapses. If you clear what the pc is doing the bank tends to stay more quiet and unrestimulated. It is the pc who mostly keys his bank back in. Therefore the pc who won’t go free needle clear is himself unconsciously preventing it. And by knocking out this effort we can then key out the bank and we have a fast clear who pretty well stays clear (until sent on to OT).

The state is desirable to attain as it speeds going to OT.

All this came from studies I’ve been doing of the Tone Arm. The Tone Arm must move during auditing or the pc gets worse. All those pcs whose Tone Arms don’t easily get into action and hang up are SERVICE FACSIMILE pcs.

Note that the SERVICE FACSIMILE is used to:

FIRST: 	Make self right.
	Make others wrong.

SECOND:	To Avoid Domination.
	To Dominate Others.

THIRD: 	To Increase own survival.
	To hinder the survival of others.

The Service Facsimile is all of it logical gobbledegook. It doesn’t make good sense. That’s because the pc adopted it where, in extreme cases, he or she felt endangered by something but could not Itsa it. Hence it’s illogical. Because it is senseless, really, the computation escapes casual inspection and makes for aberrated behaviour.

TO MAKE A CLEAR

The steps, in brief, are:

1. 	ESTABLISH SERVICE FAC. This is done by Assessment of Scientology List One of 2-12 and using that for a starter and then using the Preliminary Step of R3R as published (HCO Bulletin of July I, AD 1 3). One uses only things found by assessment, never by wild guesses or pc’s obvious disabilities. These assessments already exist on many cases and should be used as earlier found.

2. 	AUDIT WITH RIGHT-WRONG. Ask pc with Itsa Line carefully in, FIRST QUESTION: “In this lifetime, how would (whatever was found) make you right?” Adjust question until pc can answer it, if pc can’t. Don’t force it off on pc. If it’s correct it will run well. Don’t keep repeating the question unless pc needs it. Just let pc answer and answer and answer. Let pc come to a cognition or run out of answers or try to answer the next question prematurely and switch questions to: SECOND QUESTION: “In this lifetime, how would (whatever was found) make others wrong?” Treat this the same way. Let the pc come to a cog, or run out of answers or accidentally start to answer the first question. Go back to first question. Do the same with it. Then to second question. Then to first question again, then to second.

If your assessment was right pc will be getting better and better TA action. But the TA action will eventually lessen. On any big cognition, end the process. This may all take from 2 hours to 5, I don’t think more. The idea is not to beat the process to death or sink pc into bank GPMs. The pc will have automaticities (answers coming too fast to be said easily) early in the run. These must be gone and pc bright when you end. You are only trying to end the compulsive character of the Service Facsimile so found and get it off automatic and get pc to see it better, not to remove all TA action from the process.

3. 	AUDIT SECOND PROCESS. Using the same method of auditing as in 2. above, use the THIRD QUESTION: “In this lifetime how would (same one used in Step 2) help you escape domination?” When this seems cooled off use FOURTH QUESTION: “In this lifetime how would (same one) help you dominate others?” Use THIRD QUESTION and FOURTH QUESTION again and until pc has it all cooled off or a big cognition.

4. 	AUDIT THIRD PROCESS. Using the same method as in 2. above use the FIFTH QUESTION: “In this lifetime, how would (same one) aid your survival?” and then SIXTH QUESTION: “In this lifetime how would (same one) hinder the survival of others?” Use FIVE and SIX as long as is necessary to cool it all off or to produce a big cognition.

5. 	PREPCHECK WITH BIG MID RUDS, using the question, “In this lifetime, on (same one) has anything been . .. ?” and get in Suppress, Careful of, Failed to Reveal, Invalidate, Suggest, Mistake been made, Protest, Anxious about, Decided.

If the pc has a really shattering cognition just halt Prepcheck and end it off.

This Prepcheck is done of course off the meter until the pc says no, then checking it on the meter and cleaning it off. Once you’ve gone to meter on a button stay with meter for further queries. But don’t clean cleans and don’t leave slows or speeded rises either. And don’t cut pc’s Itsa Line.

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

That should be the end of a Service Facsimile. But a pc may have several, so do it all again through all steps as often as is needed.

Pcs who have had Scientology List One of R2- 12 should be given these as the first things used. Pcs who have had assessments done for R3R chains should have these assessment results used (or as much of them as apply) for the next runs. Even if the chain assessment has been run on R3R still use it for R3SC.

COMPLETING CLEARING

To complete clearing then, it is only necessary to give a permissive In This Lifetime 18 button Prepcheck making the pc look hard for answers, short of ARC Breaking pc.

And you should have a beautiful free needle and TA at the clear read and the pc shining.

If clearing did not occur these following faults were present in the auditing:

1. 	Pc did not agree with assessment, it read only because pc did not understand it or protested it.

2. 	The assessment was wrong.

3. 	The atmosphere of auditing was critical of pc.

4. 	The Itsa Line was not in.

5. 	The auditor let the Itsa Line wander to early track.

6. 	The auditor Q’ed and A’ed and went off process and into engrams on pc’s “sell”.

7. 	The process was not done.

8. 	The assessment was done by physical disability inspection or by choosing pc’s habits, not by actual assessment.

9. 	The auditing did not produce TA action (wrong assessment and/or Itsa Line out would be all that could produce no TA action).

10. 	Pc already sitting in a heavy ARC Break by reason of whole track by-passed charge.

11. 	This process used instead of an ARC Break Assessment well done, thus making this process a punishment.

12. 	Questions phrased wrong.

13. 	Questions were over-run.
	
14. 	Questions were under-run.

15. 	Auditor too choppy on Prepchecking.

16. 	ARC Breaks in these sessions were not cleaned up.

17. 	Pc trying to plunge into early track and stay restimulated.

18. 	Pc trying to get early track GPMs or engrams run to avoid giving up Service Facsimile.

19. 	Auditor missed withholds accumulated during clearing.

20. 	Process end product “clear” overestimated by auditor, pc or supervisors.
	The keynote of clearing a Service Facsimile is INTEREST. If pc isn’t interested in it, the assessment is wrong.

The keynote of auditing tone is permissive, happy, easy, not militant. Let pc run on and on.

On phrasing question, no matter what is assessed it is always IT MAKES PC RIGHT AND OTHERS WRONG. Pc is not trying to make it wrong.

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

An ordinary Prepcheck, done with a Service Facsimile present, will turn on mass on the pc. Why? Pc is asserting Service Facsimile.

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

Well that’s the fast rundown on R3SC (Routine Three, Service Facsimile Clear). And that’s clearing. A lot of theory is missing in this HCO Bulletin but not one essential step. You can do it.
If a person is cleared before going on to OT they make it hundreds of hours faster !

(NOTE: All OT processes will shortly be released with R4 designations but with little other change.)

LRH:jw.cden							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 OCTOBER AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise
R3SC SLOW ASSESSMENT

Ian Tampion of the Melbourne Org, just completing the SHSBC, reports on Itsa and Slow Assessment.

Dear Ron,

Over the past couple of weeks I have had some good wins auditing pcs on R3SC Slow Assessment so I thought I’d write out what I’ve learned about it from your lectures, bulletins, Mary Sue’s talks and D of P instructions and from my experience in Auditing. My only doubt about what I’ve done is that I may have been combining R1C (Itsa Line) with R3SC but anyway it worked so if I’ve got my data straight you may like to pass it on to other auditors. Here it is:

Aim: To keep the pc talking (Itsa-ing) about his present time environment, getting as much TA action as possible, for as long as possible without finding and running a “glum area” that makes the TA rise.

To do this an Auditor should be aware of, and able to use the following definitions:

Pc “Itsa-ing”: Pc saying what is, what is there, who is there, where it is, what it looks like, ideas about, decisions about, solutions to, things in his environment. The pc talking continuously about problems or puzzlements or wondering about things in his environment is not “Itsaing”.

Present Time Environment: The whole area covering the pc’s life and livingness over a definite period. It may be the last day, the last week, the last year, depending on the pc.

A Glum Area: That area which when the pc is supposedly “Itsa-ing” about it, makes him glum and the TA rise, indicating that a Service Facsimile is doing the confronting on that area and not the pc.

The following diagram and the explanation below illustrate just what is taking place in a Slow Assessment and how the definitions given above apply.

While the pc is talking about football he can say Itsa game, Itsa played by two teams, Itsa played on a field, etc, etc, etc. The same applies to the areas TV, Work, Wife, Club, Garden, House and Mountains. All this will give nice TA action and good gains for the pc.

Now, when he starts talking about cars he will say, “I often have punctures,” “I wonder why my car will only do 100 mph,” etc, etc. While he’s talking like this there will be no TA action or a rising TA and if the auditor lets the pc continue, he will get steadily worse. So, the auditor must put in an Itsa line—e.g. “What have you done about this?” and the TA will start moving again and the pc will get brighter as now he is “Itsa-ing”, before he wasn’t.

Later, or earlier, the pc will start talking about Taxes, his problems, worries, puzzlements, wonders about Taxes—the TA will rise and the pc will become glum. Then, even though the auditor puts in an Itsa line as with the subject of cars, the TA continues to rise and the pc remains glum. This is because the pc can’t Itsa this area—he’s “got it all made”—”IGNORE THEM” and this does all his confronting for him. In other words, the Service Fac is a substitute confront and so the TA rises (Note the old rule about rising needle equals no confront! ). This is a glum area so the auditor lists “In this lifetime what would be a safe solution regarding Taxes?”, completes the list, nulls it, gets the Service Fac “Ignore them”, runs it on R3SC and soon the pc will be able to Itsa on the subject of Taxes. This area could be found in the first 5 minutes in which case it may be possible to just note it down and get the pc on to areas he can confront and come back to this one later.

The assessment should go on for hours and hours and hours with excellent TA action and the pc gaining in his ability to Itsa all the time. However it won’t go that way if the auditor doesn’t get the pc to really Itsa what is in his environment, e.g. the auditor shouldn’t be content to have the pc say he lives “out in the suburbs”, he wants the address, its distance from the city, the type of house, how many rooms, what the street looks like, the names of the houses, occupants, who the neighbours are, etc, etc, etc. Itsa! Itsa! Itsa! Also, it won’t go that way if the auditor tries to list safe solutions every time the pc starts talking about his problems in an area as in the example given above with the car. Problems are not Itsa.

Itsa! Itsa! Itsa! Equals TA action! TA action! TA action! Equals Pc better! Pc better! Pc better! Good gains! !

I hope you find this all okay and pass it on Ron as it’s sure a doll of an auditing activity.

                                        	Very best,

                                              	Ian Tampion

P.S. I found out how most of this goes in auditing by making mistakes first so I learnt the hard way.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 AUGUST 1966
All Exec Hats
Qual Hats
Tech Hats
HCO Hats
SERVICE FACSIMILE

A Service Facsimile is a computation generated by the being not the bank. An example of this is:

“All horses sleep in beds.”

Such a computation locked away in the mind will obviously precipitate many compulsive doingnesses, beingnesses and havingnesses.

An example of a doingness precipitated by the above computation would be:

“Making beds for horses.”

If on assessing for a Service Facsimile you get “Making beds for horses” as the service facsimile please note that it is a doingness and not a computation, so if you fit the doingness into the bracket of Service Fac Commands, i.e.:

How does “Making beds for horses” make you right?

How does “Making beds for horses” make others wrong? etc.,

then observe very carefully exactly what the preclear says, because he might give the EXACT WORDS OF THE ACTUAL SERVICE FACSIMILE—”ALL HORSES SLEEP IN BEDS”. And observe very carefully and note all meter reaction to what he or she says.

Note all of this, remembering that you were NOT running a real Service Facsimile in the first place, and that in order to really flatten all the compulsive doingnesses, beingnesses and havingnesses precipitated by the basic computation you will have to run the exact computation in the Service Fac bracket.

If the doingness you run is a basic one then it is possible that the preclear will blow all the charge on the Service Fac and this you will assess by pc indicators and meter phenomena (i.e. free needle).

It is obviously best to get a real Service Fac (computation) and taking beingnesses, doingnesses and havingnesses as Service Facsimiles if done by auditors must be thoroughly understood.

Service Facsimile auditing can give great gains, so understand what you are doing with the technology and have many wins.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 NOVEMBER 1966
Tech Hats
Auditors
Level IV
Students

ASSESSMENT FOR SERVICE FACSIMILES

The location of service facsimiles requires a proper listing question, the absence of which can lead to missing the actual service fac or overrunning a lower release grade.

Of the assessment methods, the following should probably be ruled out as an overrun of earlier grades or on the basis of getting a free needle on a previous grade:

1. 	Slow assessment with ITSA (overrun Grade 0)

2. 	Assessment by problems (overrun Grade 1)

3. 	Assessment by parts of existence (overrun Grade 0)

This leaves as acceptable methods:

1. 	“In this lifetime, what do you use to make others wrong?”

2. 	“In this lifetime, what do you think your service facsimile is?”

      	(for a Scientologist trained to Level IV)

3.	“In this lifetime, what would be a safe solution to .....?” (the blank having been obtained by questions given on the tapes to find either a hidden  standard or hidden problem).

4. 	Assessment of a prepared list, using level found, in “In this lifetime, what have you ......(prehav level)?”

The point being not to start out at the beginning by listing a question which OBVIOUSLY WILL NOT RESULT IN FINDING A SERVICE FAC, in which instance the rule of declaring the grade on a floating needle obtained on the list could not possibly apply.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:jp.cden 
Copyright © 1966 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

RIGHTNESS AND WRONGNESS

A lecture given on
27 August 1963

Thank you.

All right. What is this?

Audience: August 27.

27 August A.D. 13, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.

All right. If I can get the text written on it, these two new students will be getting a Scientology I process known as Acquaintance with Saint Hill. We’re making strides here at an incredible rate of speed on a lot of things, and I’ve been working hard on getting processes arranged as to their exact uses and getting exactly what you can do with a case and how to put a PC’s tone arm exactly under the auditor’s control so the auditor doesn’t have to worry about it and so forth.

There have been quite a few breakthroughs of great importance here recently. And all this stuff is going down in bulletin form, and I thought this morning—I was sitting there, I was thinking to myself, well, this morning, here I should be putting it all down in a bulletin; I’ll probably go out there and put it down in a lecture, don’t you see? And then having put it down in a lecture, then I won’t bother to put it down in a bulletin, you see? Then you’ll all forget about it because it was just in a lecture, don’t you see? Horrible. So it left me in between, you see. So I didn’t know whether to give you a lecture on the subject of what I was currently doing, you see, and what you needed to know, or throw away the lecture and put it down in a bulletin, and it left me in a terrible confusion. So I guess the best way to resolve the confusion is just tell you what I know about it—and also write it down in the bulletin. But you probably won’t see the bulletin for a long time, so you better get it here.

Very complicated. Are you sufficiently confused about it? If I keep on this way, you see, you won’t in a moment know whether you’re reading a bulletin or listening to a lecture. And this is Russian technology, Russian technology: how to convince somebody that black is white and that he’s somewhere else when he isn’t.

It’s Lubyanka Prison, I think, they practice this sort of thing. A guy is walking down to an interrogation, a woman dentist will step out from a secret door in the hall and start examining his teeth. See, totally non sequitur. The guy is trying to understand this, you see? And while he’s busy trying to understand this, something else unpredictable happens to him, see? Guy’s come in looking tough with big rubber hoses, and so forth, and offer him a cigarette and talk about his wife, you know? It’s all th th-th-th-th-th, see? When he gets through, he doesn’t know what he is or where he is, so he joins the communists.
 
The use to which mental technology is put in this universe, remember, is put that way and is put to the use it is put to in this universe because people don’t know what they’re doing, because there is no mental technology.

Now, if you stop and think about it for a moment, the purposes of mental technology must consist of survival, with its consequent domination— necessity to—and must, therefore, thereafter, consist of being right and wrong. It may be somewhat mysterious to you how these three things fit together in a channel, but they do. This fellow is trying to be right, trying to be right, trying to be right. Why is he trying to be right? He’s trying to be right about the most aberrated things you ever heard of. He’s always trying to be right.

If you as an auditor look at this bloke who is suffering from alcoholism or dope addiction or something like this, there’s one thing that you can always be right about, see? It might be that it was made available to him while he was in high school and he was being blackmailed into it and he was this and that. And it might be this and it might be that and it might be something else, and it might be because his medulla oblongata has slipped—a lot of might-be’s:, might-be’s, might-be’s—but in actual fact all he’s trying to do is be right. And if you want to be right about him, then you should realize that the reason he is drinking or hitting dope or something like that, or doing anything else he’s doing, or cooking bad dinners or anything else—whatever else this person is doing which is apparently weird or contrasurvival—is in actual fact his effort to be right. And you can always be right about somebody’s aberrations when you recognize they’re trying to be right. That is the lowest ebb of aberration. Sounds completely weird.

Well, that’s because a thetan can’t do anything else but survive, and in order to survive you have to be right more than you’re wrong, so you get obsessed in being right. This is elementary, my dear Watson. Do you follow that?

If you go out here and make a practice of being wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, you’re not going to survive. See, if you’re always going to be wrong: you go out here and you get on a motorcycle, and you turn the petrol on and you turn the spark on full, advance it all the way, and—particularly one of these big boys—and kick the kick starter, and so forth, you sail somewhat gracefully over between the handlebars because the machine kicks back. Well, if you consistently do this, why, you’re apt to be nonsurvival in the extreme. You follow this?

So, actually, right and wrong are the tools of survival ant nonsurvival. In order to survive, you have to be right. In order to get somebody else to succumb, they; have to be wrong. You follow this?

You see, actually, no great military commander ever wins a battle on anything else but the wrongnesses of the enemy. And he compounds these wrongnesses up to a total attack which really makes them wrong. So even they realize they are wrong, and of course at that moment they no longer survive. And the point you degenerate into succumb from survive is the point where you recognize you are wrong. That is the beginning of succumb—the recognition that you are wrong.

Naturally then, if that is true—and that is true; that’s not sensible, it’s true—naturally this follows, then, that if a person is surviving at all, if they are “thetaning” at all, no matter inside of what mass, there must be some residual rightness, even if it’s only an insistence upon rightness. So rightness goes hand in glove, immediately, with survival.

So this works itself back and forth into an aberrated A=A=A. If the individual is surviving, he must be right. It can even go to—if an individual is undertaking an action, it must be a right action, if he is surviving. Do you see how A=A=A this becomes. In fact, it becomes complete idiocy from the lucidity of its begining because in actual fact there was nothing for a thetan to worry about survival in the first place.

See, he has to enter this lie into the scene before he gets off into this other series of lies. He starts worrying about his own survival. Now, we can well ask, “How does he start worrying about his own survival?” Well, he worries about the survival of something else and then identifies himself with it. You see? He says, “This thing has got to survive, and I am it, so therefore. . .” and here comes his nest lie—and he needn’t make this fantastic lie at all, but they manage it—and that is “I am now worried about my survival.” And actually, it isn’t until he takes that step that he goes halfway round the bend. See, he’s practically finished now.

There is no reason at all, just because you have built a bunch of sand castles and are protecting these sand castles from destruction by the tide or naughty boys—there’s no reason at all that you can’t go on protecting these sand castles ad infinitum and safeguarding their survival. You don’t have to take the idiot step of becoming a sand castle. See? It isn’t until the individual takes that idiot step of becoming a sand castle that he himself becomes worried about his own survival.

But at the moment he becomes worried about his own survival, he then enters into the necessity to dominate in order to continue to survive. Best way to protect your sand castles, of course, is to dominate anybody who would threaten to destroy your sand castles. That’s elementary, isn’t it? You have to be tougher than the other tough boys on the beach, in other words. You have to dominate their behavior to the degree of restraining them from destroying the sand castles. This makes domination a necessity, if you’ve already entered the game of survival. See, you don’t even have to have become a sand castle to start dominating.

Now, what happens now? What happens now? The game of domination consists of being right and making the other fellow wrong. And that is all the game consists of. There isn’t any other . . . I mean, out of this vast universe, you finally shake out this one little, tiny, idiotic simplicity, you know, and it all makes everything look silly, you know, when you come to think about it.

Russia and the United States—the great game; Well, that’s silly! The game is silly. Russia has to dominate the United States in order to survive; therefore, capitalism has to be wrong; therefore, communism has to be right. The United States has to dominate Russia in order to survive, so communism has to be wrong and capitalism (capitalism?) has to be right. What’s wrong with this? Well, what’s wrong with this is there isn’t any capitalism to amount to anything. Ha! And there’s practically no communism. That’s getting idiotic about that stage of the game, you see? Anybody can see that one.

But let’s go back to why does Russia have to dominate the United States and why does the United States have to dominate Russia. Well, that’s because Russia is liable to destroy everything in the United States, and the United States is liable to destroy everything in Russia. Now, let’s look at this a little more closely.

Why are they liable to destroy everything in the United States and Russia? Why is this liable to happen? I don’t think you have any more answer than anybody else does. Exactly why? Well, that’s because Russia is threatening to destroy everything in the United States, and the United States is threatening to destroy everything in Russia. And that’s why the United States have to be very careful not to be destroyed by Russia, and Russia has to be very careful not to be destroyed by the United States. You see, this is very elementary.

You work this thing out. You don’t need these Russian idiocies pronounced at great length to explain the international situation, to see, actually, what is taking place. Yes, but Russia is devoting so much of her production capacity to weapons and rocketry and other things in order to dominate the United States, that communism is failing. And the United States is devoting so much of its production capacity—it actually amounts now to three quarters of the total production capacity of the United States and three quarters of the total engineers, scientists and technicians of the United States we involved in this effort—that it is destroying capitalism. Because, you see, it “has to” in order to keep the effort going, in order not to be destroyed. Well, this is a typical game.

You start examining this game on the basis of survive, dominate and right and wrong, and where’s the right and wrong come in—you start to examine it, or examine any game on the basis of just these things: survival, domination and rightness and wrongness. Examine the game and immediately the rightness and wrongness that you see residual in it appears to be pretty mixed up.

Well, the United States would-be very wrong to destroy its economic stability and prosperity in order to destroy communistic economic dominance or prosperity, see? And reversely, communism would be very wrong to destroy any benefit residual in any communistic system, if there is any, in order to knock out the capitalistic lines, you see? She’d be wrong to do that, but she is doing it and she is doing it on the supposition that she is right. And the United States is doing all this on the supposition that it is right. So you’ll see that A=A enters into the situation where rightness becomes wrongness. And people will defend the most fantastic wrongnesses on the basis that they are being right.

As you audit people, if you specialize in this particular line as you audit them you will sometimes be appalled by the justification of the person’s own actions. You’re utterly appalled. Gauze is armor plate compared to the argument that they will put up, don’t you see? I mean, they put up this thin facade. “Well, you see, the reason I left my wife . . . reason I left my wife is because she seldom, uh . . . very, very seldom, uh . . . was ever home, you see, to put out my bedroom slippers. And therefore, I had to leave her.”

“Well, why wasn’t she home?”

“Well, she was working and supporting me.”

And you say, “End of scene. Rmrmrm.” And yet he will go right on leaving, you see, and staying “left,” and perpetuate this action and defend it down to his last breath.

I can see it now, the hammer and sickle flying over the White House, you know, and all of the arguments and press releases that are coming out from the White House saying, “Down with Russia,” you see? “Down with Russia. We are absolutely right to continue to support capitalism.”

Then you’ll say finally, “Well, what is capitalism?”

“Well, capitalism is all the workers are told exactly where to work, and exactly how much they’re going to get, and all the property belongs to the government, and a capitalist gives you a clenched-fist salute. That’s what . . . And we are being right. This is a right action. And it’s right, what we are doing.”

Well, maybe the actions were sensible. If you look down along the line, you see, you’ll see some sensible actions have taken place, and this is what throws you. Because you can see some sensible actions going forward through all this, and you may understand some of this, but what you don’t understand is how right this is, or why they don’t recognize that the consequences of it are just wrongness, and that they are actually being very wrong while they are saying they are being very right.

You go over to Russia and say, “How come you got income tax these days, bud? How come your workers all get different rates of pay, and status symbols which seem to be entering in here, and what’s all this about some unions being organized, and well, what’s all this going on here? This doesn’t look like communism to me.”

“Oh, yes, yes, yeah Oh, this—this is communism. This is communism. You see, a good communist—a good communist loans money at interest. That’s the definition of a good communist. And we’re perfectly right in everything we are doing. And that is really correct communism.”

And you look at this and it just becomes complete idiocy to you. You don’t see whether you are coming or going, you see? What is all this about?

Well, you see this sort of thing taking place on the international front. It’s very, very easy to recognize at that level of action. Very easy to recognize. But it’s not quite so easy to recognize when you see this skid-row bum. He’s just all soiled from having spent the night in the gutter, you see? And you smell the canned heat on his breath, you know? And there he is, you see? He’s about ready to hit the chutes. Now somebody tells you, “Why is he doing it?”

“He is doing it because it is a right action “

You say, “Oh, no!”

“Yes,” you say, “he’s being right. He is asserting the rightness of being a skid-row bum and canned heat and all the rest of that. And he’s asserting that as a rightness. And that i5 why he is doing it.”

Well, you see, you’ve undercut the simplicity and you’ve left a large zone of unreality, because the society itself has worked out all kinds of rightnesses and, wrongnesses on its own bat as to why he’s a canned-heat eater, see? They worked out this fantastic . . . “Well,” they say, “after all, he probably had few opportunities in his youth.” The guys who want more appropriation for the university say he never had a chance to get a university education, you see? The milk producers who want to sell more milk said, “Didn’t have enough milk and there wasn’t enough strontium 90 in it.”

Everybody has got explanations for this, so you come down to the final, last-ditch explanation, which is the right one, and nobody recognizes the rightness of the explanation. He is asserting the rightness of eating canned heat. Why? Because everybody has always tried to make him wrong. His automatic response is to be right, so he has no choice but to eat canned heat. Get the idea?

Now, if he at any given instant says, “I am wrong to eat canned heat,” he’ll collapse. He’s finished. He may go into a coma. He may even die. I mean, it’s on that elementary basis. It’s a fantastically elementary situation.

What is it all about? Well, behavior doesn’t necessarily have everything to do with the whole track, you understand? Behavior is behavior, and then people have tried to aberrate it one way or the other and have tried to twist it around one way or the other and mess it up and make people do some other way, but the science of life still remains the science of life.

The factors of life still remain the factors of life. And if you were to delete all of the GPMs and incidents and everything else, you would not have removed the basic laws on which Scientology is built. That’s interesting, isn’t it? Come to think about it, you get so involved in erasing things. These simply enforce and exaggerate and destroy freedom of choice. They destroy freedom of choice over the exercise of the ability to be happy or powerful or normal or active, or something of the sort. They destroy power. They destroy freedom of choice. They destroy the ability to be self-determined or to be pan-determined about things. They make a person one-sided about everything under the sun, you see?

And they simply use basic and residual law—unwittingly, by the way—to exaggerate certain things which then lead a person to enslave himself. And the basic mechanism of enslavement is survival—the insistence upon surviving, followed by the necessity to dominate, followed by, then, the necessity to be right or wrong

The necessity to be right or wrong then becomes as irrational as the original postulate to survive. And these postulates go downhill, and you will find in them the most incredible situations you will find. You will blink—I told you about this, you look for it. And one of these days you are really going to blink at what somebody is doing in order to be right. They just become totally concentrated on the last way they can be right. This is how they can be right! And everybody’s working all around them, on top of them, pounding them, publicizing them, kicking their head in on the subject, and the more that people kick, why, there it is.

Then the person will go more degraded. You’ll see sometimes a person who is only nominally degraded—they’re a politician or something like that, see? And you’ll see this person go downhill and become a covert criminal and slip a little bit further and a little bit further. And you’ll see him out lecturing for the Salvation Army, protesting against the very thing which they recently held to be right. This individual has sort of died a death now. He is talking about going to heaven. He’s talking about being dead. That is mainly what he’s talking about.

You very often go into—you go into a church of one of these older faiths, and you’ll find the minister up there haranguing and screaming, you know, about “the evils of the demon rum,” or something like that, to the congregation. “Stay ye away from that pub, bud,” you know? Yelling, you know? And he goes back to his study, you see, and he takes this little nip of medicine to fortify himself, you see, after the exertions of his lecture.

Now, these birds who are working this hard were working inevitably and invariably in the field and area of death, because they are right down to the point where you get an aberrated rightness and wrongness; cessation of survival is so threatened that it becomes imminent. It actually gets dramatized before it happens.

And you’ll see somebody turning against religion because of the amount of hypocrisy in it. You know, the guy is saying, “Well....” Well, the Roman Catholic church probably lost its grip on the world which it’s trying to reassert now by killing off the Buddhist. I beg your pardon, the better interpretation is that it’s only those in charge in Vietnam who are members of the Catholic church. That actually isn’t everybody. There are some Presbyterians there, too, in the American troops, and so forth.

I have opened up a chapter here which is leaving you blinking just a little bit.

I’m sure somebody is going to make the assumption sooner or later, though, that if the only government in the world being maintained in force actively by U.S. arms is a Catholic government, that that government’s turning against another religion has something to do with something here that we haven’t quite put the finger on. And we add to the fact that that same government is attacking the only other organization on the face of earth who doesn’t believe in death forever, we begin to ask interesting questions. You probably hadn’t linked the attacks on the Buddhist up with U.S. arms supporting the government of Vietnam, nor the attacks of the FDA against the FCDC in Washington, D.C.

Yeah, everybody else is all right. Criminals, they’re fine, and so forth. Everybody’s all right. But it’s just these two organizations on the face of earth plus one other, the Theosophist, who talk about reincarnation and who talk about coming back to life again and who talk about these other things. And it’s an oddity that just in the last two or three years all three of these organizations have been furiously attacked by the U.S. government. Sort of an interesting puzzle, isn’t it? Well don’t worry about it. We’ll get there before they do. This is just an interjected thing.

Now, they’re evidently asserting a rightness about death. I know it’s mean of me, it’s cabalist, it’s rabble-rousing for me to infer that the majesty of government is actually being used to further some foul, religious end in some way and to cause everybody to be dead. But I’m very interested in the fact that the Church of England, of all organizations, right down here in the form of a vicar (who, I think, has had to move since). This bird—I’m looking at a face or two here who were present in this—was being very censorious about our giving death lessons to young children. Story went around the world. What do you think this guy does every time he stands up there in the pulpit? It gives one to wonder, you know? He’s talking about going to heaven and 811 this sort of thing. He’s giving death lessons to little kids.

Diana came home from school one day crying. She was going to a local school up here. She wanted to know if all this stuff about poor Christ was true. And I gave her the hot dope, and . . . Well, as a matter of fact, I did. I was very reasonable about the whole thing. I said, “Native populaces have their religious beliefs, and wherever you are, you must remain tolerant of the current beliefs,” and so forth, and she took this in.

But it’s interesting that this bird down here is asserting how wrong it is, don’t you see, to give children death lessons while he himself is giving them death lessons. Only our death lessons are straight dope—this is what happens with regard to death—but his are a darn lie. Somehow or another, this makes him right. How does this make him right? Well, you can just go round in circles trying to figure out what’s the rightness and wrongness of this, you see? Why should a powerful state attack a truthful philosophy, you see? Why, you know, why some of the calmest and most decent people in Asia—the Buddhists—why are these people being attacked and shot down and their pagodas burned and that sort of thing? Why? What . . . ? And you can go round and round and you can get real confused and you’ll get real upset.

Well, there’s always one stable datum. There’s always one stable datum: Somehow, whatever they’re doing—no matter how mad the action may appear —is undertaken by them to be right. Now, you would actually have to get them on a meter or get them to explain and put in a long, long itsa line on this subject and get off the automaticities until they finally told you the rationale. And the reason it isn’t a rationale is because A=A=A along the whole line. You just would not be able to believe how or why this guy had to, you know, [eat] canned heat.

You ask him a question, “Now, how does it make you right to eat canned heat?” You say, well, he sure can’t answer that, you know, because—ha-ha! It’s ruining him. Everybody has been down on him. The “I Will Arise” and everybody else is jumping him about this, and he’s been talked to by all the ministers and everybody. He’s read about how the evils that it’ll do and so forth. So, heh-heh, he can’t defend this one so, of course, one would never normally ask that question. So “How does it make you right to eat canned heat?” See? Well, brother, only an auditor would be able to adventure this far, because you’re going to get a screaming automaticity.

Well, it makes him right—”Eat canned heat? Well, that’s . . .” Makes him right because rah-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da and ta-da-da-da-da-da, and that makes him right. And ta-da-da-da da, and that makes him right. And “ . . . eat canned heat, and therefore, this makes that right and it’s—that right and that right, and so forth, and so on and so on and so on and so on and . .” I mean, you finally get through, this thing has practically wound itself around the dial.

And you say “All right, now. Now, how does it make someone else wrong?” “Oh, ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! So-so and so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so, and so-and-so and so-and-so and my father, and so forth and so on. And I parked my bicycle on the church steps there one day, and that old minister came out and—and he actually had the police take away my bicycle, and so forth, and he always was lecturing on the lectures of drink, you see? The evils of drink and so forth and so on—ha-ha! There you are. That should—wait a minute. That isn’t sensible.”

And do you know, whether he has understood it very well or not, he will, now have a very hard time eating canned heat. See, here’s sanitariums, the Keeler Institute; Keeley, I think it is. One has lie detectors and the other has alcoholism. I always got them missed . . . He’s been there. He’s been treated. He’s been biochemically injected, you know? He’s been psychoanalyzed. He’s been everything you could think of, see? They’ve given him stuff that when he eats canned heat it makes him sick. He just goes right on eating canned heat. There wasn’t any stopping it because of this block—this block he had. And that intention is the strongest intention in the universe. There is no stronger intention than that at a mental level.

Above that, of course, you have the effort to dominate, and above that level you have the effort to survive. These things are very strong, but I’m talking about a mental activity: a mental activity, a thinking activity, an intentional activity—strongest intention. Survival—that just happens, you see? Domination—that just happens. Those are not intended things. You get down along the line of intended, and it’s right and wrong. And that’s where that lives.

This becomes very remarkable. We’ve got this teenage girl, and she’s running around and having an awful time. And she’s been arrested and lectured to and shown motion pictures and been horrified and hit over the head and defamed and threatened with kicking out of her home that if she doesn’t behave on the second dynamic, you see. And she goes right on misbehaving and that sort of thing and so on and so on and so on. Now, this is an actual case history.

I had one in my office one day. Changed her whole life—almost accidental. One of the research cases that furnishes data that leads to data of this particular kind. She was just trying to make her parents wrong. She realized it. That was the change of her behavior pattern, right there. We didn’t even touch in that particular case on her trying to be right. She was just trying to make her parents wrong. Well, obviously? how could you make them wrong? Well, you could make them wrong by trying to make them change their mind on what they insisted upon the most. And the diagnosis of how do you make a person wrong is, what does that person most insist upon? Therefore, if that person most insists upon this particular factor, then that is the one you must make them wrong on.

So the criminal tries to make the forces of law and order wrong, you see? The diagnosis taken from the viewpoint of the being involved is simply, what are these persons insisting is wrong? What do these people insist is wrong? And then make them wrong on it. It’s a perfect Q and A, see? What they say is wrong: make them wrong. You can’t get a closer identification than that, you see? Mother is saying, “Be a good girl, daughter. Be a good girl, daughter. Be a good girl, daughter. Be a good girl, daughter.” Daughter, getting more and more antagonistic against the old lady—she knows now exactly how to handle Mama. You make Mama wrong. How do you make Mama wrong? All you got to be is not a good daughter. Elementary, my dear Watson, see?

It isn’t what aberration the individual is dramatizing. It’s what aberration does the individual dredge up in order to make somebody wrong. That’s behavior. See, it isn’t the accidental thing that you think it is.

So we’ve got a schoolteacher. And he says, “Children, you mustn’t chew gum. Children, you mustn’t chew gum Children, you mustn’t chew Sm.” Well, the characters that like him the least are going to chew gum. Don’t you see? That’s how to make him wrong. You can’t destroy him overtly with 16 inch guns, but you can cave him in trying to make him wrong covertly. And he’ll sit around ant worry about those children chewing gum. It does. It serves to cave him in, too, a little bit, you know—a little bit, a little bit, a little bit. He may even go away sometime ant stop teaching school and leave the children alone, you see? This is fantastic.

So a government which is trying to conduct decent law and order has worked against it, continuously, this factor: that bringing about decent law and order is wrong. Now, a government with that force pushed against it continuously, endlessly, on and on and on, will eventually come to the realization of exactly what keeping law and order is: It’s being as criminal as possible. See, it’s been made wrong to a point where it now identifies the right label with the wrong action It knows how to be wrong: to be a decent government.

See, on this broader perimeter you watch this thing as it works its way out. If you can see that, it gives you a rather vast understanding of aberration. Now, whether or not you can reach this aberration is not the subject. This is simply, can you understand it? Not whether or not you can reach it and do something about it with an E-Meter; because this particular rationale, although it is very true, happens to have been booby-trapped by some very evil-intentioned characters on the whole track, who implanted goals which contain—and items and implants and GPMs—which contain in them right and wrong.

And you start running an individual very long on rightness or wrongness, he is liable to collide with one of these implants and it goes into restimulation, and the cure is therefore barred. And you’re unable to cure him of this particular thing, because you can’t audit him on the process necessary to resolve that particular facet of aberration. This is a barrier, in other swords, that’s been installed. It is totally accidental that right and wrong are there, and be is not acting the way he is acting because he has that GPM.

Now get that through your head, see? He’s not. That just intensifies this action, but it doesn’t bring about that action. That action would, in any event, exist whether or not there had ever been an implanter or not. But unfortunately there have been some of these implants, so you can’t ordinarily say with complete security—oh, yes, you can without any security, and often get away with it—ask this little girl, “Now, how does being sexually promiscuous make you right, and who does it make wrong, and how does it make them wrong?” see, and get those two things worked out, and all of a sudden she’s completely reformed. She isn’t doing this at all. Oddly enough, she’s no longer able—this isn’t necessarily making her well—she’s just no longer able to get the power into it that she had in it; she’s no longer this interested in it; she’s no longer this fixated on it. Because in any itsa line you will tend to trigger out enough to deintensify the force ant power and concentration of the aberration.

It’s very interesting that aberration is very hard to maintain. Let’s say this fellow is—he’s an accident prone. He takes an automobile out and runs it into a brick wall; and he takes an automobile out and he runs it off the edge of an embankment; and he takes an automobile out and he runs into another automobile; and he takes an automobile out and he leaves it parked on the train track, and so forth. And you let him come anywhere near this automobile well, all of us have accidents to some degree, but he is carrying it to excess.
 
And sooner or later somebody is going to notice the number of accidents this character has. And if you as an auditor noticed this and you were just doing this job just for this thing in view—is just knock out the number of accidents this character was having with an automobile—you could first find out what he is having. In other words, he might be having wrecks or he might be having accidents, don’t you see? You have to find out, what is he having? That is necessary, because you sometimes are very sure you know what the fellow is having, but that isn’t what he is having, see? He might be having physical injury, see, not accidents at all. He might merely be having physical injury. So you have to isolate that factor, and that would be the stage of analysis.

This doesn’t take very long, by the way. This is nothing very laborious. This is more or less off the cuff. Sometimes it’s enough to listen to him on the subject of these things, and he labels it several times for you, so you just use it, you see? That’s the ordinary off-the-cuff assessment. Nevertheless, you have to dignify it with an assessment. It’s also the clarification of the auditing command. You say, “All right. Now, how would an automobile accident make you right?” or “How has it made you right?” or any such thing as this. And you expect he’s going to have to sit there and fumble with this for quite a while. Oh, no, brother! That is—if you’ve spotted it, that is sitting right on top. That’s the easiest itsa line you ever had anything to do with—Brrrrrmrrrmrrr, and rrrrr—rrrr. And also rrrr-rrr-rrr-m -mrr.

All right. Now, you’ve got to keep this thing balanced because you might run into a GPM, so don’t leave him on one side of it, see? You see, the GPM would say just right and wrong. You’ve personalized it, so it’s “How would it make you right?” and “How would it make them (or another) wrong?” do you understand? Them wrong, you right. That is the way you bias this thing. You understand, the GPM is totally—it doesn’t care. There’s just a right and a wrong, so that you could also play this thing the other way to, as far as the GPM is concerned but not as far as the aberration is concerned. Life is what has thrown this thing awry.

All right. So, we say to this fellow, then, when he runs down and starts to catch his breath on the subject, and the automaticities are out of the way—you have to sort of sit back and wait for the automaticities to roll on this kind of a process—you say to the individual, “How would it make another or others wrong?” or “Who would it make wrong and how?” I don’t care how you put it, you see? But it’s “who wrong” out that way, you see, and “you right.” That’s the way the question has to be designed. And if the question is completely designed in this fashion, you will get another rolling avalanche that will finally wind up with some earlier life—that is, this-life, usually—key-in, cognition, of some kind or another. He’ll find the first person he’s trying to leave- make wrong on it. Very often this happens.

You don’t have to direct it very much. He’ll do most of his direction on it. Then you turn around and you ask him again, “Well, how would it make you right and how would it make you wrong.” Well, it tends to make a repetitive. type process out of it. ‘

I’m not actually giving you a repetitive process. For instance, I’m looking at a student here that’ll be going over to a Central Organization soon. There’s two or three bad boys around that organization that have been raising hell with themselves and everybody else. It’d take, in actual fact, a good itsa line and two questions to resolve the whole ruddy mess. “How does borrowing money make you right?” And a half an hour later, “How does borrowing money make others wrong?” Now, it might not even be real to him, and he might have an awful time doing it, but that’s the end of that behavior.

Now, this is processing actually below the level of recognition or cognition. You can dig this one awful deep with a pickax. You can also do some weird things to a case in changing its behavior! going along this line. But too much of a good thing is too much of a good thing, and it’s a hunt-and-punch process. In actual fact, contained in this is the answer to neurosis.

Neurosis could be defined as an antisocial action or an anti survival action which is compulsively undertaken by the individual. We just wrapped up the work of Sigmund Freud. It’s as elementary as that. You understand we didn’t —if you don’t intend to make the person happy, and don’t intend to make the person cheerful, don’t intend anything except just to fit the person better into the social framework, and if that’s all that mental therapy is for, why, you got it wrapped up. I think it’s faster than implanting.

Now, in the first place, the only condition for this sort of thing is we have to be more capable of communicating, perhaps. We have to be able to communicate to the person in that we would have to listen to the person. We’d have to listen to the person. We’d have to ask the person a question. But we’d also have to get out hands on the person in order to do that. The cowboy in the black hat has to get his hands on the person to implant him too. And they also have to do some communication, too don’t they? And then they create a hell of an ARC break, don’t they? I think they get twice as much aberrated behavior afterwards. I don’t think it’s a solution. I don’t think the development of mental technology for the purpose of aberrating people down to a level of powerlessness where they won’t bother us—I don’t think that’s a successful approach.

Well, let’s just be practical. This has nothing to do with decency or overt-motivators or anything else. Let’s just be cold-bloodedly practical, as cold-bloodedly practical as these characters fancy themselves to be. I don’t think that it’s valuable I don’t think it’s valuable technology. It’s valuable to know about it, of course, from your point of view. But as far as knowing how to implant people and calling that a mental technology, or knowing how to give somebody a transorbital leucotomy and calling that mental healing, knowing how to shoot somebody with some weird powder or something of the sort that makes them bounce about in the middle of the floor for an hour or two, it looks to me like all of those lines of action are unsuccessful. I don’t think they’re successful. They always have a hole in them, and the hole in them is that survival can futurely be threatened.

Suppose anybody ever undid it: I wish I had a nickel for every implant station that’s ever been destroyed. I’ve known thetans to make a career out of it. In fact, I’ve knows thetans to tilt a planet ten or fifteen degrees, with the equivalent avalanches and glacial epochs and so forth, or pull the air cover of a civilization just because it went on implanting. In fact, there’s a lot of things happen because of this. Why? Because somebody was implanting. I don’t think it’s a sensible solution at all. In fact, I don’t think it’s a solution. I just think it’s a dramatization of rightness and wrongness. I don’t think there’s any more intention about it than that.

Look at the amount of time and effort and energy expended. Why, in any given day the appropriation of the U.S. armed forces is probably less than the Marcabian appropriation for the maintenance of implant stations. I think it’s expensive I just think they do it because they are trying to be right. I don’t see any other reason for it at all. They’re trying to be right and make others wrong. That’s all.

Now, you can add political significance just as you can on Rusk’s pronunciamentos: “NATO must be in accord with the Franco-Berlin Wall unity because the ruddy rods are all on the left side of the rifles,” you see? “And therefore, all us Turks must pull together with all us Hungarians because the great entente of northern Rhodesia must be maintained,” you see?
 Well, it’s not quite as insane as that, but in actual fact if you take it apart and examine it very carefully, the aggregate sum total of it is insane. It is not sensible. What’s the end product of it? The end product of it is no solution and a worsening condition.

Now, whenever you see this rightness-and-wrongness situation where somebody is acting simply to be right and making others wrong simply to make others wrong—you know, there’s no more action to it than that, no more reason to it than that—whenever you see that, you’ll see a worsening condition. Wherever that zone and area is, you’ll see things worsening.

The young girl trying to make her mother wrong with sexual misbehavior: that young girl is getting worse herself and is making her family worse, don’t you see? In other words, it isn’t that a status quo is being maintained. You’re getting a dwindling spiral out of this sort of a thing, see? It’s the last dregs of domination, this whole action, you see? No matter how covert it is, it’s still an effort to dominate. It’s like the guy lying on the ground with four knives in him, he’s still being right and the enemy is still wrong. It’s still his final effort, you see, to dominate the enemy And many of these methods of dominating the enemy exist. And it’s just an aberrated war which is in progress.

Now, we look over this implant situation as an implantation proposition, and we cannot really assign to it any improvement of circumstances. If any improvement of circumstances existed, it existed for such a short term as to render it relatively useless. A short term on the whole track might even go to a hundred thousand years. That’s a short term. That’s no duration for an empire. They might say, “Well, we’ve got it all licked here. We’ve got it all solved,” but they haven’t. They’ve just got a lid on, and you’ll notice the situation deteriorates. The situation gets worse, gets worse, gets worse.

So that any activity that enters in upon this type of a rightness-wrongness solution—”We are doing what we are doing simply to be right and simply to make somebody else wrong”—any time any solution is entered which has that sole rationale, you can then expect a continuous worsening, not only of the person who is engaging in enforcing that solution, but also the people in that person’s vicinity. So the whole thing becomes a dwindling spiral. This thing is going to develop a leak sooner or later. It’s going to blow out at the edges, don’t you see? Any such situation is going to go blingo! someplace or another, because it isn’t a solution, it’s a dramatization.

Now, you may not suspect it, but you are looking at the final ranks not only of neurosis but psychosis. That is the madman. That is the madman. He sees spiders on the wall. Medical treatment consists of telling him there are no spiders on the wall. This looks to me like one madman handling another madman, both with the same solution. The madman is saying, “I am being right and you are being wrong,” and the person “handling his case” is saying “I am being right and you are being wrong.” Because of this basic agreement, you find many of these medicos winding up themselves in the padded cells.

First place, they don’t understand what they are doing. They don’t understand that their solution is just as crazy as the patient’s assertions.

Guy is having trouble thinking: cut his brain up. Can’t think. Well, ding, ding, ding, here comes the wagon, man! This is nonsense, don’t you see? I mean, there isn’t anything to be gained in this. I don’t see anything happening on the subject of medical mental healing but more insane people. The insane population of the world is going up, up, up, up, and the medical doctors say they’ve got to have more people to take care of these insane and there have got to be more buildings to take care of them. Statistics are increasing. Statistics are going up. There are more and more people going insane. And therefore, we got to have more doctors to make more people insane.

You begin to look at this after a while—you say, what the devil is wrong with a legislator who won’t look over how fast the statistics are rising on insanity, therefore, the money we have been appropriating it for is being wasted? Obviously, there is no proper solution to this, we obviously have the wrong people on the job. But they never do this because they’re engaged themselves in a rightness-wrongness type of piece of nonsense, and most of government is how to be wrong convincingly. So the end product of the thing is no solution, don’t you see?

You want to know why they did this to you, or why you ever did something to somebody else. Well, in the final analysis, the overt-motivator sequence hinges, basically, simply upon this aberration concerning survival - the effort to dominate—which falls into a contest of “I’m right and you’re wrong.”

Now both sides are saying “I’m right and you’re wrong,” and therefore, you get a double-clashing sort of a proposition. You have A saying “I’m right and you’re wrong”; you have B saying “I’m right and you’re wrong.” You get a natural commingling of their ideas. After a while they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. They don’t know what’s right. They don’t even know what they started out to say was right, you see?

Now, a mental technology, so-called, which engages itself upon the worsening of people, or making people wrong and making themselves right as an exclusive activity, is not in essence a very broad or a very intelligent technology. This is hardly worthy of the name “technology,” yet it does have technology, don’t you see? It certainly is not a mental science which embraces very much understanding. There’s very little understanding involved in this thing. Something like the psychologist or Pavlov: if you put a young man on the table and make a dog bark, the young man slavers. (I’m being sarcastic.) Well, I don’t know. I’m tempted to say on the subject, you see, “Well, I don’t know. I look around and I’m not having any trouble with slavering dogs. I mean, why are we working on this problem?” It’s as idiotic a statement, you see, as their own conclusions.

Stimulus-response mechanisms and so forth. Why be interested in a stimulus-response mechanism? And, that tells us right there that somebody must be interested in being right and making the other fellow wrong. Don’t you see? The stimulus-response mechanism—that’s as far as they ever advanced. Stimulus-response mechanism. Well, stimulus-response be damned. The consequences of the stimulus-response is what the Scientologist is interested in. And that goes at once into the overt- motivator sequence.

You move right on upstairs from stimulus-response, you see, into a proper piece of technology. They seem to have avoided that whole piece of technology. Why? Because they’re only interested in being right and making somebody else wrong, don’t you see?

Now, a mental science cannot be worthy of the name “mental science” if it keeps dramatizing an unknown one of its parts. See? That outlaws anything which continues to dramatize one of its parts, you see. It outlaws it from the proper name of a complete understanding. You said a science; a science would be a complete understanding of something. Well, if something is dramatizing one of its parts, it certainly does not have a complete understanding of life.

Now, the sciences of life are difficult just to this degree: You are living. See, you have a day-by-day interrelationship with the laws of life. And to rise superior to this, in any way whatsoever, is so phenomenal as not to have happened ever before. It’s one of these tricks. It’s by your own bootstraps, don’t you see? And for a while, if you know all the aberrative angles, you find yourself batting about in the bottle like a bluefly; see? Every direction you fly, you run into something else. If you started analyzing your own behavior in a single day according to the basics that you know, and if you had all of them available in Scientology, you see—if you analyzed your behavior throughout any twenty-four-hour period, you’d find out, a short period of that time, somewhere along the line, you were dramatizing something. In fact, you wouldn’t have to do very much analysis.

In fact, right now, all these people out in front of me are dramatizing breathing. Automaticity: they think to stay alive they have to breathe. You tell some doll that someplace and his Jaw would drop, you know? You say, “Well, you can’t live on X-nu because there’s no air.” There’d be a lot of beings that would look at you awfully blankly.

“What you want sir for? What’s the air supposed to do?”

“Well, you know, air, you know, air—you got to have air, you got to have oxygen.”

“What are you going to do on X-nu that you need oxygen for?” They’d try to figure it out how you’re going to put it in bottles or sell it or you . . . Maybe you got a new fuel for rocket ships has to do with oxygen. Couldn’t make . . . They’d finally understand what you were talking about. They’d finally understand that you were peculiar. You get the idea?

So a total cessation of the dramatization of the game called life, you see, renders one, at first glance, in a very confused situation, since he’s trying not to dramatize its various parts, you see, and yet he inevitably must dramatize certain of its parts. And then he finally comes to the conclusion, “In order not to dramatize life, you climb away to a large cave on the side of a very bare mountain and hope people will put crusts of bread outside, while you sit and meditate and don’t have anything whatsoever to do with life.”

Now, by not having anything to do with life you have now rendered yourself free of dramatizing life. And oddly enough, there’s enough workability to that. You get away from all restimulative factors and your restimulation dies down, you see? Get less restimulated, you feel quite calm. So you say, “Well, this is the way to do it. You don’t be any part of life.”

No. The real challenge of a science of life is to know it and be able to live - be able to live that life, you see? That’s the real challenge, and oddly enough, if you know all the answers you can always do that. It isn’t necessary— because you know a half a dozen lies, you see, that you think are answers, it isn’t necessary to go crawling off to some cave all by your lonesome, you see? You can stand out in the middle of life and live life, don’t you see?

The final challenge of a science of life is does it produce life? Not does it produce death?

When you analyze this thing all the way on down, it’ll leave you kind of buggy at first. You get all sorts of weird ideas. “Well, maybe I ought to stop auditing. Maybe I ought to leave auditing. And maybe I ought to get back to my knitting or whatever else I was doing,” don’t you see? “And I ought to . . .” something or other.

And then you suddenly realize that what you’re trying to do is drop part of what you were doing, you see, in order to get away from what you were dramatizing in order not to dramatize. You can get into an awful confused state, man. You can sit around for days trying to sort something out along those lines. Well, that’s all right.

It’s enough to realize, however, that you are in a situation where it can be sorted out. And that’s a remarkable situation to be in. Very remarkable situation to be in.

Myself, I’ve had to groove off the importance’s of existence—what are the important things?—because time, making a problem, you see, has made it necessary to concentrate on certain importance’s of existence and wrap these various things up. Well, that’s a very proper solution to the thing, but it certainly isn’t inactive. It’s flat out, man, flat out—activity going along at a very high rate. I notice that there’s more and more of a tendency—more and more of a tendency as one goes along the line—to recognize more and experience more life. He doesn’t have to work so hard to experience life. That’s one of the things.

Person who can’t experience very much has to work very hard to experience something, and get all involved trying to experience existence. Existence is all around them. Walk down the street and they’re experiencing existence. But to convince themselves that they are surviving, they think they have to stand under a truck. And that is another way of going about it. They have to suffer impacts. They have to be in there living. What is living to them? Well, living, to them, you find to some degree is being right. They have to be convinced that they are being right or convinced that they are surviving or convinced they are dominating some thing, you see?

And you take some king of olden times: Why, there he sat upon his huge throne, and so forth, and all of his courtiers are saying bog-bog ant bow-bow and walking backwards three quarters of the entrance hall, don’t you see, and bumping into the guards and messing it up. All of which w simply designed to convince this fellow and convince others that he is dominating, you see?

Well, I’d say he couldn’t have had much of an impression on people if he had to work at it that hard. That’s simply the mechanisms of domination. You find anybody who has to work at it that hard, see, he’s practically dead, man. He’d be gasping most of the time.

You find some teenager, for instance, out here going to dances and listening to music and diving and experiencing all sorts of weird new thrills and sensations and so forth; they’re trying to convince themselves they’re alive, don’t you see? They’re half-dead about nine tenths of the time. They’re having a hard time of it.

But a science of life should bring about living.

Now, there is a level at which rightness and wrongness ceases to be analytical or comprehensible. And when we speak of aberration, it’s when it drops below that point. It isn’t that trying to be right is wrong: It’s obsessively being right about something that’s obviously wrong that goes loopy. See, that’s when that mechanism goes astray, and the level of neurosis is only reached when the individual is no longer able to select his own courses of behavior, when he is obsessively following courses of behavior in order to be right.

Now, everybody has a few of these. You can all try them on for size. This fellow eats salads. He hates salads, but he eats salads, and you just get on this. “Is there anything you’re doing that you really don’t like to do?”

And this fellow says, “Oh, I just don’t like to eat salads.”

You say, “Well, how does eating salads make you right, and bow does it make somebody else wrong?”

Now, you’re going to get into an interesting situation where you’re going to find out he has been already overwhelmed on the subject of salads. This thing is going to cross back the other way. It’s a question of how was Mother right in making everybody wrong on the subject of salads, don’t you see? And that is not a good processing question. That’s somebody else’s aberration, so we’re not particularly interested in that.

So we just bring him up to that point and this thing will snap. You’ve got a lot of these things, but by and large they have no value. They have no value.

It isn’t until a person reaches inability, weakness, stupidity and other suchlike things as a way to be right, that the dwindling spiral is entered.

Now, he’s being right by being unable. When you see that one loom over the horizon in any zone of behavior, you have approaching neuroses if it’s not there already. And when a civilization goes all out for this, watch it, because it’s going to be dead tomorrow. The dust is going to be moaning through its temples and the tumbleweed rolling down its freeways, because that civilization has already entered in upon the necessity to be unable in order to be right. The way to make somebody else wrong, then, is to be nuts—incapable.

Now, a dramatization, any dramatization (entering in upon this whole field of mental science), which brings about a further disability is wrong for that civilization, no matter how right that civilization thinks it is. And anything which enters a civilization into more life, more livingness, more ARC and so forth is, of course, by basic definition, right for that civilization.

So, you see, it’s also capable—this also renders itself susceptible to understanding what one should do, as well as knocking out neuroses. Now, anything that is mad in an individual, at some higher level, was okay. All madness is simply an exaggeration of some ability or capability; it’s some perversion or exaggeration of this.

Let us take in the lower rungs of it—well, let’s take sexual misbehavior of some kind or another. This, of course, is a lower-harmonic enforcement of the ability to create, see, way upscale. By the time you get this thing all mixed up and clouded up, and this way and that way, you get it down here, you got some sexual disability of some kind or another, and that is how the person is still being right about this upper thing, you see? So these things really enter along this line. Way up here it was right—really right—you see? And then it came down a little bit, and it was a method of survival, and then it was a method of dominating, and then it was a method of being right in order to make others wrong. And then in that contest one got enough overts—the communication line did a switcheroo don’t you see so what was right about it is now wrong about it, but what is wrong about it is now right about it. And we’ve got this thing all the way down to the bottom of the scale. It’s very recognizable where it came from, but it’s gone through all of this switcheroo, and down at the line it’s practically unrecognizable from its immediate state as far as a person’s behavior is concerned.

This fellow is an artist. He could paint. Let us say he could paint a side of a house, you see, you know, with a beautiful scene, you know. Prrrrrroooom— nothing to it, you know. And you find this fellow down there nursing a girl’s shoe, you see, to his chest, you know? And he hides this all the time. It’s a girl’s shoe, and he sniffs it occasionally, you know, and it gives him kicks, you see? I mean, it’s more or less the same channel, but there the upper-scale ability has become the lower-scale mockery.

And you get these lower-scale mockeries all the time get the upper-scale abilities in trouble. And once in a while you go around feeling ashamed of yourself for having suddenly thought you could do something about the United States or something like that because some nut in the booby hatch is talking all the time about doing something for the United States, don’t you see?

Well, the difference is you probably could and he couldn’t There’s a slight difference of ability.

Now, when you look over this whole panorama of behavior and what a person is trying to do, you enter in upon an ability to understand much of the nonsense which at the present moment you may only be protesting against. You just look around on it. But this task is rendered very difficult by the fact that the explanations so obscure the kernel of insanity of the rightness-wrongness that it’s very hard to get at what they are really doing.

I don’t know what the United States is doing today; maybe it’s having a revolution. But it’s being right about something. It’s being right about something, and it’s making people wrong about something. We’re not sure what it is, but on a careful analysis or on an auditing level, we could discover those two points. The moment we discovered them, they’d all go unsnarl.

So a science of life actually is a science of examination of behavior, and behavior is based upon lots of ramifications, tremendous explanations in all directions, but narrowed right on down to the middle, looked at in its bare bones, it comes down to survival, dominate, rightness and wrongness. That becomes the main line of behavior. I hope sometime when you’re looking at somebody who is sitting there picking bugs off himself, one after the other, cockroach here and a cootie there, let us hope you don’t jump back to keep them from getting on you. And let’s hope also you don’t try to convince him that there are no bugs there, because you are now playing the one game which makes him make you wrong, and at that moment, you will cut your communication line just like that.

So now he has only one purpose in view, and that is to make you wrong and make himself right. And you can cave him in, you can deteriorate him, you can put him further down scale, but you can’t bring him back up the line again. It’s impossible. Because you’ve taken the one step to cut the communication line which could have made it all right. Do you see that?

So a dramatization of rightness and wrongness is not the answer to a dramatization of rightness and wrongness, and probably out of all the factors of a science of life, that one you would have to know. Otherwise, you would simply get trapped into the dwindling spiral of everything you tried to do anything about anyplace. It is the essential piece of understanding which is necessary to keep you free of going the chute. Okay?

Thank you.

R3SC

A lecture given on
3 September 1963

What is the well-known date?

Audience: September 3rd, A . D. 13.

3 September A.D. 13, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. And we have a lecture on R3SC.

Notice, Moms no hands. No papers, no notes. Cold, like that!

All right. Now, once upon a time we had something called a rock slammer. You remember the history of a rock slammer? All right.

You did a Scientology List One, which is not the L1 in that bulletin, but the old Scientology List One. And what did you find in this? You found that occasionally as you went down the line you picked up a tick, and when you put in the big mid ruds on that particular tick, you all of a sudden got yourself a nice, handsome rock slam. So you say “auditing” to somebody and you got a rock slam, right? 

You remember this technology? Well, this meant that something was going to go wrong in the vicinity of auditing with regard to this person, by reason of aberration.

Now, of course, punitively, punitively, we said at once all rock slammers were bad, and they all ought to be shot, and so forth, until we found out that practically everybody rock-slammed. And then, of course, we had to come off of it. But that isn’t all that we came off of. We just dropped that piece of know-how in the mire and let it lie. You notice suddenly we weren’t saying anything about that at all.

Well, that didn’t mean that I forgot it, completely. That didn’t mean that it was utterly gone as far as I was concerned. But I had seen some phenomena which I definitely had to straighten out. And that phenomena had to do with the reason a person doesn’t recover under auditing. Now, that’s the whole department head; that heads up that whole department: the reason the person doesn’t recover under auditing.

Now, this has been with us, actually, since 1949, 1948. It must have been present then. I didn’t run into it head-on until about 1950, and it became very crucial in 1950. One of the reasons this would peak up is that in the type of auditing which I was doing in 1950 there was a great deal of slippiness. A lot of it was very slippy. And there was a lot of this and that would work its way through, and you didn’t have a hard, tightly bound process, you see? And as soon as you got a tightly bound process that was limited to running of engrams, you ran into this phenomenon of people not getting well. So again we have run into engrams and again we all of a sudden come up with this interesting datum—but not for the same reason—of people who just don’t recover.
 
Now, in my catalog of things to be done, this business of rock slammers and reasons why people didn’t get well continued to ride right along there and take a prominent position in looking over all new things.

And all of a sudden I collided with the old service facsimile. But the collide was rather oblique. And the way we collided with that was by a study of the tone arm, the necessity to get tone arm motion and the various positions of the tone arm.

Now, all of that material which you’ve had in a recent lecture very germane to this. It became obvious that if an individual were audited for three sessions without tone arm action, he got into pretty terrible condition. Bad. Bad show. Bad show. Therefore, you had to audit with tone arm action.

I don’t say be fell to pieces, but he just wasn’t feeling well—he didn’t feel so good. You’d find his session goals became gloomier and gloomier. In other words, you could predict any time that a case was going to feel not so good by noting that he had no tone arm action during the session you had just run. And this I tested out. And I tested this out. I watched it, coordinated it and so forth —no vast series of cases but that wasn’t necessary. I had a considerable background on all this material.

Now, there we are: person gets no TA action during a session, person doesn’t feel so good. Three sessions—they feel pretty wog. No TA action. So we mustn’t run without TA action. So it became very, very important to find out what was stopping TA action. And there are several reasons why TA actions stop. The basic reasons are still those; all the reasons I have given there are very valid reasons. But they fall away from the very high theoretical to the very easily applied practical aspect of it. And the practical aspect of it indicated just this: that an individual would release charge or an individual wouldn’t release charge. And that’s about all it came down to.

Now, that you are getting—now get these slight divisions here: that you are getting tone arm action does not guarantee that your PC will feel better. Now, that is one for you there. Doesn’t guarantee your PC is going to feel better. But getting no TA action guarantees that your PC is going to feel worse. Do you see that, see? So you haven’t got quite a yes or no.

Now, why the individual who gets TA action doesn’t necessarily feel better is contained in restimulation and overrestimulation. The individual is overrestimulated: the restimulation i8 too high and yet the charge is still releasing. Now, that’s quite interesting there. You’ve got maybe fifteen sources of charge that can be released, and they’re all in restimulation. And you’re only running one of them, so you’re releasing charge off of that one.

Let your PC’s attention wander off of what you are running and you instantly have added more restimulation to the case. All you have to do is be a clumsy auditor at Level IV auditing on the itsa line and you’ve had it.

Now, let’s grade up auditors here—let’s grade up auditors. just in passing. I: Well, we just leave it on accident whether the guy gets TA action or not. We hope he gets TA action, see—Class I. We just hope he does. And it’s not going to endanger anybody very much because the fundamental questions that they’re being asked are very unfundamental. They’re being asked how they cured their lumbosis or something of the sort. All right, so they don’t get TA action. So the guy gets a percentage of wins and he gets a percentage of loses, and we just hope the percentage of wins that the auditor gets at that level are greater than the percentage of loses, and that he doesn’t get discouraged about it all, and so forth. We just hope, you understand? Because frankly, at that level of training, we can’t do anything else. See, it’s—look at the amount of technical material which goes into this and you see at once that it’s too formidable. This guy would go on—he’d have to go on for months or years of training before he would come up to being able to cope with that situation.
 
Well, it’s a very small price to pay. Because the funny part of it is, now with the itsa line, we can take that chance very nicely and come out with, a great deal of percentage of wins. But you recognize that the auditor at that level is taking that chance that he’s going to run some sessions without TA action. He’s going to listen to a lot of natter and he’s going to listen to this and he’s going to listen to that. And he’s going to get a certain number of service facsimile-type cases that don’t get TA action, you see; he’s not going to get any TA action. And this isn’t seriously going to put somebody in the hospital or anything like that, because the process isn’t that strong, don’t you see? But it’s going to be the guy just doesn’t really think auditing is getting him anyplace— that sort of thing, you know? And he just feels gloomier than he would ordinarily feel, and so on.

Well, what’s happening with all this? Well, we can’t expect at the level of training of Class I for the auditor to be able to remedy it. And of course the second that you, instructing auditors and so forth, come back to remedy this situation, you are no longer operating in the zone or area of Class I and you are actually trying to make a Class II auditor. So you see, that still stays with the definition.

You start saying to this guy—the moment you start saying to this guy, “Hey, for God’s sakes! Read those rules, man, read those rules in that R1C. Read ‘em! You’re asking this person for problems, problems, problems—what problems have they had in life? And what have they been trying to solve in life? That’s a backwards question, a backwards question, man! Of course that TA is going to stick.” You know? Well, you’re working on Class II, see, straight away. See? So, you see, the condition still remains as it is in Class I, which is a relatively uninstructed auditor.

All right. Now, we move up into Class II: we get “with tone arm action.” And the way we handle it there is actually not with the change and shift of processes, beyond just altering the question a bit. But we get listening with tone arm action, and that means that a certain amount of direction of attention is going to have to be done, even if it’s just directed by the question that is being asked. “What have you done about your lumbosis?” See? Now, he’s supposed to know the rules of what not to ask, and so on, and to get TA action, and he’s got some various ramifications there that are pretty good. And he can do some things in this line, but it’s very light attention direction, don’t you see very light indeed. In fact, we don’t even instruct him to direct attention; we rather tend to instruct him not to direct attention. For instance, “Don’t drop the E-Meter,” you see?

All right, we get up to Class III and what have we got? What have we got at Class III? We’ve got a direction of attention at Class Level III toward service facsimiles and the state of Clear. Now we’re starting to drop out this endless, wandering itsa line, don’t you see? We’re starting to clip this guy for letting the PC’s attention wander off too far into other subject matter. We’re supposed— that auditor at the level of m is supposed to be able to control the PC’s attention to keep the PC’s attention on what the PC is supposed to be talking about We get—the limitation of attention is what enters in here, see, to some degree. We start telling the fellow, “Now, don’t let this PC start wandering around on the early track. And don’t do this and don’t do that; and keep the PC’s attention centered on what you’re trying to run and don’t let the PC’s attention wander over into his environmental restimulation. And if it is there, clean it up with since mid ruds.” See, at this level we’re using mid ruds; we’re knocking down environmental attention. We’re paying a lot of attention to the PC’s attention at Class Level III.

Now, that control of the PC’s attention is at a very high high, you see, there at III. That’s pretty high, now. This PC is really being put in the groove.
 
This PC is supposed to talk about A and B and his attention is supposed to be freed up from C and D so that he will talk about A and B. You get the idea? In other words, here’s control—control of attention here is getting rather heavy. That’s fine, has to be.

Now, let’s take Class Level IV: Man, you’re living with the lightning now. You’ve got this PC on a backtrack. You’ve got this PC there. You’ve got him on stuff that is quite overwhelming. All he has to do is skid around inside the GPM. All he’s got to do is say “Let me go back up and pick up those two early items that we missed.” Zzzzzp!—and he throws forty RIs into restimulation. Why? Because he had to walk through forty RIs to pick it up that are only —you see—that are not properly discharged. All right, that isn’t so bad, you see?

“Let me repair . . . Oh, I see what this item is. Let me repair it in the earlier goal....” And then, much to your embarrassment, you have missed a GPM between these two goals, and he returns up to the earlier goal and throws a whole GPM into restimulation, consisting of some 230 items in the Helatrobus. Eeerk! Look, you’re walking across Grand Canyon on a wire one millimeter thick.

Now, if you see the various classes in terms of expertness of control of the PC’s attention, all will start to make sense to you on the subject of these classes. If you only see these on the complexity of the information the auditor has, auditing will not occur. Oh, well, yeah, you know all about GPMs and you know all about engrams, you know all about processes, you know all about this and you know all about that, and therefore you’re Class IV. No, no, no, no. There could be that one element missing—that one element missing: control the PC’s attention with expertise—and you would not have a Class IV auditor.

Now, you start letting a PC talk, you start putting in the itsa line on the backtrack. Ha-a-a-a-a-a-a-a! I’ve done it myself; I know exactly what I’m talking about, because I’ve got a good subjective reality on that sort of thing. “Hey! I just had a cognition. There’s a this and a that and a tho and a thee, and down there in that engram there’s a spot and a bolp and a bo—oh, my God!” Bow! The roof falls in. You got the idea? Suddenly throw into restimulation fifteen or twenty chains of something, see, just with a nice cognition. There is something earlier! Zoom! See?

Now, the auditor in that particular case wouldn’t even have time to open their mouth, you know? PC is sitting there in a brown study. You think he’s looking over the next RI, you know? PC all of a sudden says, “I think this came . . . I think this came from . . . Yeah, there’s a . . . there’s a GPM there about eighteen trillion years ago. Oh yeah. Oh yes. There it is. And it’s there and there, and that fits into the other two and it comes up to here. And then that is what gives you the background music of all that—uh-uh-uh. What’s the matter with my throat?” The auditor actually doesn’t have time to say a word.

Now, how does that situation take place? That situation takes place when the case is already overrestimulated—greasy on the track, attention hard to control. Greasy on the track. Now, if this PC is quite a bearcat, he will go right on getting tone arm action but very uncomfortably. He’ll go right on getting the tone arm action necessary to resolve the case, that’s for sure. But he’s running in an atmosphere of exhaustion, of worry; misemotion comes up here or there. In other words, he’s a bit overwhumped all the time. You see, you’ve gotten up to the point of overrestimulation, and with this overrestimulation now in progress, you are still discharging things. Do you see? Case still runs but the case isn’t comfortable while running. Case will still make it, but doesn’t feel like he’s getting many auditing wins, see? Awful hard grind. Spends most of the time between sessions in a fog, don’t you see? Case still making it and tone arm running
 
Now, let’s add this other liability. Now, you see that we’ve gone over some difficulties here. Now let s really clobber it. Let’s say that this case we’re doing this with has a fragile tone arm to begin with, which is susceptible to being stuck low or stuck high or stuck dead thetan. Let’s add that liability to all this other complexity.

Now what do you think is going to happen? Well, the auditor is going to spend all of his sessions worrying about the PC, and the PC may or may not spend any sessions worrying about auditing, or between sessions, but just going around being blaaah, or having a bad time or being very nattery or something.

But the auditor is wild. Auditor is trying to get tone arm action, trying to get tone arm action. And he keeps looking. He comes back into the session. He finally got tone arm action in the last session. Oh boy, finally got it. He got four blowdowns of one division in the whole session. Oh, that’s fine. That’s more than he’d seen for a long time, and so forth. And he comes back in; he got this PC halfway through a GPM, don’t you see? Now all he’s got to do now in the nest session is pick it up and finish it and that means—you know, was getting tone arm action, more tone arm action, and you run some GPMs, you know, and you get tone arm action. That’s obvious, you know, wonderful. That’s obvious, and so forth.

And he comes back in, and there’s the tone arm. “What the hell? Well,” he says, “something must have keyed in between sessions. Something must have keyed in. This tone arm is sitting here at about six and a half. Something must have keyed in between sessions. All right. All right. Something keyed in between sessions. All right.

“Since the last time I audited you . . . Now! when was that? When was the last time I audited you? Last time, last time now? When—when was that?”

PC finally thinks and thinks and thinks and thinks, and finally remembers. No tone arm action.

“Now, since the last time I audited you, has anything been suppressed?” There it sits. Right on down through all of those buttons, there it sits. PC tells you all sorts of things, but there it sits. You say, “That’s obvious enough to give anybody tone arm action,” but there it sits! Horrible!

You say, “Well, if I can just finish off the rest of this GPM . . . Now, in this session, if I can just finish off the rest of the GPM . . .” You say, “All right, now let’s pick it up at the last item where we left it,” and so forth.

And the PC says, “Last item? What . . . what’s the last item?”

“Well, that last item. It was ‘absolutably coughing,’ you know,” and so on. “Let’s pick it up.”

And the PC says that and then the needle doesn’t twitch and nothing happens and nothing moves, and . . . You realize suddenly that if you stay there any longer, this PC is liable to do an around-the-clock and go into maybe a low. tone-arm case, or something like that. You realize that you’re looking at something here which can’t hold, because you’re getting absolutely no discharge at all. And you hit the silk, and you get out of that. And you say you’re going to put in the itsa line on auditing or you’re going to do a Prepcheck on auditing or you’re going to take anything that you’ve had as a good way, you know, to key off the case, and so forth.

Now, in this particular case we’re talking about, this tone arm here, let us say, has gone at 5.75. So you say, “All right, we’ll just destimulate the auditing. That’s easy. Just destimulate the auditing and we’ll get tone arm action back, obviously.” So we say, “All right. Now, on auditing, when was—well, how many years have you been audited?” or something like that, or “How many months? Has anything been suppressed?” And of course you get the same story as the since mid ruds. There it sits at 5.75—no tone arm action. The restimulation is now too great to permit even the discharge of the key-in. That’s what you’ve run into. In other words, you’re running this case downhill on a toboggan. And it all traces back to what?

Now, you see, this is quite a problem I’ve outlined to you here. And I see from the looks on some of your faces that you yourselves have had something like this problem. Now, the resolution of this problem is therefore pretty gargantuan. And that’s what—just to get it all in line that’s what’s been resolved with service facsimile.

Service facsimile, in actual fact, is not an accusative thing. It is simply a solution that the individual has himself so restimulated that it won’t discharge and nothing will discharge past it. In other words, it’s a solution that is so valuable, so survival, so magnificent, that if one got rid of it as a solution, one would, of course, perish at once like a wax effigy, you see, would just melt right there, you see, and be gone. Too horrible to contemplate getting rid of this solution. Actually, it is simply an overcharged solution. That is all it is.

Now, how does it get so overcharged? Well, it’s because the PC is restimulating it. It isn’t being restimulated by life. There’s volition going on here. The PC himself is keeping this thing kicked in.

This girl has life solved, has life solved: Don’t eat. Every time the boss is mean to her, something like that happens, “Well,” she says, “I don’t have to eat. That’s the good, sensible solution to the whole thing. Therefore, really, I don’t really need a job; I really don’t need anything.”

The husband, he’s a little bit mean, nattery and upset some evening. So she says she knows what to do about this: He don’t eat. Dinner accidentally burns or something like this, see? And one of the children gets upset, something like that. Well, she knows what to do about that: Kid just won’t eat, that’s all. That’s it. He’s had it, see? And all of this is so complicated and so filled with ramifications that it actually has become a survival computation. And it sits there. It sits there like a mountain rising out of the plain or a dam across a river, and no charge can flow by it. Because if charge were permitted to flow by it . . .

You see, the difference between our rationale, and so forth, is we know people do things See, it’s not on the automatic, push-button type mentality of Pavlov, you see, and Wundt and the rest of these birds—gents—jerks—fellows. Push-button mentality, you see, that it’s always caused by some mechanical thing. No, there’s also a being there. He’s also up to something, and that’s the further complication, don’t you see? The person can do something, you see?

Now, if you tell somebody that the survival computation is “not to eat”— if you told somebody else—they’d say, “You’re nuts!” But not—not this one. See, that is the survival computation. Well, naturally, it’s aberrated, but unfortunately for this being, it works: Hubby always gets in line; the kids always shut up. Don’t you see? And she can relax enough about her job or doing what she’s doing, so that by saying “Well, I don’t have to eat,” you see, that actually that sort of—she stops attacking in that zone and sphere. And it actually has some weird, backwards, upside-down survival computation, see?

So what it is, is a nonsurvival solution which has become survival. And it doesn’t make sense—not even to the person, when they begin to take it apart. It really doesn’t make sense, but it appears to make sense. It appears to make sense. And that solution can become so fixed in the activities of the individual that the individual feels that if it were disturbed in any way, life would become unlivable. And this can be a pretty batty solution.

You maybe are looking at a service facsimile when you look at a suicide type of thing: The way to live is to dive off the top of the Empire State Building, see? Now, you say, “That’s nutty.” But the funny part of it is when you run it, if it weren’t so pathetic, you would probably be able to sit there and just almost ruin your stitches, because this—it’s wild! I mean, how this thing works out. l mean, the way the put-together, the A=A=A and the disassociate, and so forth, of this is so—so fantastic.

And very often in the early stages of it, the PC will sit there and they give it to you with such a straight face and with such a solution to the whole thing and, “Well, yes, obviously. Obviously, the way to cure a fear of height is to fall off the Empire State Building,” or something like this, you see? It’d be something fantastic. Even that’s too sensible.

But what it is, is a solution which has become fixed and which the individual is actually working with. And maybe they’ve been overwhelmed by this solution—it’s explainable in bank terms, too—but the individual keeps that chain or channel in restimulation, And then you start to audit the engrams of this thing, and all the individual sells you is bring up more engrams of this thing, but oddly enough they won’t erase.

And this was another source of search. The other source of search, of course, was why do some engrams erase and some engrams not erase. That is an old, idle datum—been kicking around for a long time. Some engrams grind out and some discharge. Why? Some PCs turn on mass when you prepcheck them and some don’t—mostly don’t—but some do.

What’s with this PC who does? What’s with this PC who can’t erase this particular engram? You go over on the left and right of this engram channel and you can find engrams that will erase, but the PC never gives you those; they only give you the engram channel. That’s because they’re obsessively restimulating this particular channel in the bank. They’re obsessively restimulating it, because it’s survival to have that. Therefore, they will sell you as the auditor that particular channel if it is a service facsimile, because their penchant is to keep it restimulated. So they always sell you that channel.

And then you, you knuckle head, you going to run it out, man. Why, you’ve picked—if that person is a service-facsimile case, which—not all cases run this way, fortunately. Unfortunately for us, many cases run quite easily and smoothly without any of these complications, don’t you see? In fact a little more than half of your cases will run smoothly, without these computations.

Well, that makes it bad, don’t you see, because then you’re unable to understand this other percentage of cases that doesn’t run smoothly, see? So you say these techniques work, but on some cases they don’t work. Well, therefore, you have to bring the broad line of restimulation and so forth. Aberration is always of some use. At some time or another anybody’s aberration on any subject has been of some use to them—always. You can trace it always—you can trace it back. It’s been of some use. Otherwise they wouldn’t keep mocking it up. But it normally doesn’t amount to this fixed service-facsimile-level crash, you see? And it erases, and it handles up, and the guy cognites on it, and it straightens up, and all that sort of thing happens.

But on a service facsimile none of these things occur. The engrams don’t erase, the Prepchecks don’t work, the tools of the game are suddenly null and void, apparently, unless you know this little, secret channel down through the middle of it. And that secret channel is advised by any tone arm trouble.... That doesn’t mean that for a quarter of a session . . . Since you always get the top of a GPM almost always early on in a case, you’re going to find the tone arm hung up high or something like that. The tone arm normally will hang up on the first fifteen, twenty items of a GPM and then suddenly loosen up and tone arm action restores. That’s on a  Helatrobus type GPM. In the fast stages of hitting a GPM, you normally will get a bit of a lockup. That’s beside the point. That’s just a point in the session where the thing locks up. No, we’re talking about the case that gives you trouble with a tone arm, the case that is a dead thetan, a low-tone-arm case, a high-tone-arm case or a case whose tone arm hangs up at the drop of a hat.

The full, complete diagnosis of the case is done with the tone arm, not with how loopy they’re acting in life. I think anybody on this planet is acting loopy in life, see? If you put it up against survival standards, you’d find it was very nonsurvival. You cannot be human and be right. So there’s no reason at all to try to trace it back, analytically, or medically, psychiatrically—say he’s got schitzobonga, or something, you see? There’s no sense in any of this. This is all for the birds. There isn’t any reason to do it off of a graph. There isn’t any reason to do it off of any of your tests. Nothing. The only place you’ll really see this is by putting the PC on an E-Meter, and then, if the PC’s tone arm looks all tight, running the PC a while to see if you run into the trouble.

You see, you could even be fooled—and some of you will be by a dead thetan case that merely has a Clear read and a tight needle. Maybe the person isn’t a dead-thetan case; maybe they’re just sitting in the middle of a bump of some kind or another that’s got the needle slightly tight. And you ask them one question and you practically have a free needle, see? Needles change in their characteristic. This may be hard to analyze, but that’s the only state that is hard to analyze. The low tone arm, the high tone arm—the second you-put them on the meter . . . The low tone arm, the dead thetan: definitely, always service-fac case. Dead thetan: service fac. Bang, bang. That’s all.

This person cannot get discharge in life. In the process of living he discharges no aberration. So living is a very, very aberrative thing to him. See, he’s right up against it there: there’s no accidental discharge of anything. Give him a birthday present, he doesn’t say “Hey, what do you know!” you know, and his tone arm moves, even though you haven’t got him on the meter, see? No, nothing like that ever occurs. This guy’s tone arm is fixed all the time, all the time all the time, you see? Always fixed. And as he lives, he just gets unhappier and unhappier; life becomes crueler and crueler. And eventually he becomes a newspaper reporter, you know, or something like that.

It’s a very weird thing how many newspaper reporters I’ve seen who are dead-thetan cases. Restimulation of life is too high for their level of understanding.

Now, the low-tone-arm case: definitely service facsimile. All you have to do is put somebody on the tone arm, see it’s got a low tone arm, see it’s hanging down below two here: nah, service facsimile. That’s it. See? Diagnosis right now, bang; you just know.

High: questionable, but probable. You can question it, but it’s probable. But you just accidentally put somebody on the tone arm—you just put somebody on the meter and you find his tone arm is reading high, that’s enough, see: service fac.

Now, case down here at 3.5, 3.75, something like that, with a fairly decent needle and so forth: some possibility still exists that this is a service-facsimile case. So it goes from some possibility still exists to maybe/maybe-not but probable on the high-tone-arm case.

Low-tone-arm case: yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes—nothing else. Dead thetan case: well, you’re lucky if you can get them to talk to you long enough to give you the service facsimile. Definitely service-facsimile cases.

So any difficulty with this tone arm; any difficulty with this tone arm . . . Now, I’m talking about tone arm difficulty; I’m not talking about difficulty with a case. You know, difficulty getting a PC into things and difficulty getting them out of things. And you can have a thousand different things that could be difficult in running a case. Well, just—it’s just difficult to run cases. That’s not diagnosis, that’s just a banality.

Oh, this guy, every time you let him anywhere near the backtrack. why, he all of a sudden starts picking up things at trillions-eight, then there’s one at trillion-thirteen, and then there’s one at trillions-six, and so forth. Yeah, you have trouble with this guy. You have trouble limiting his line, getting him into something and so forth. Well, the case is simply overrestimulated. You could use this same technology and possibly hope you could find a service facsimile on him to cool it down. Wonder why this stuff doesn’t bleed off faster or why the case restimulates himself to this degree: Maybe it still lies in the realm and zone of a service facsimile, you see? Possibility that it does. It’s worth scouting, worth scouting.

But all these troubles I’m talking about are troubles with the tone arm. Anybody who’s got a troublesome tone arm, has given you a bad time, won’t move enough, gets stuck in these three positions with great ease no, man, you’re looking at a service-facsimile case.

Now, what you’re doing is looking at the normal river of discharge blocked up with a great, big, high stable datum—”horses sleep in beds,” see—with this slight trimmings: He knows that if he gets rid of this and if he no longer believed that horses slept in beds, oh, cut his throat! Finish him! The hallmark of a service facsimile is that some time during—in the running out of this service facsimile—some time during its run-out or between sessions (you’ll hear about it when the PC comes back into the next session), a person questions the wisdom of getting rid of it. I don’t care if it’s jabbing butcher knives in their right arm. He will question the wisdom of getting rid of this aberration. And you might miss hearing it on some cases, but it is always there Sometime in the process of running it out, they got up to this level.

“Now, let’s see, if I got rid of this, uhhhh . . . ohhh, I don’t know. I don’t know.” Say his service facsimile is “hitting policemen,” see? “Oh, I don’t know —if I got rid of that, man, I just might be in jail all the time.”

You look at him in amazement, you know? “If you got rid of the service facsimile of hitting policemen, you would be in jail all the time.” You don’t treat him like that as an auditor, see, but you’ll hear some weird ones. The guy is in jail all the time from hitting policemen, see? But if he got rid of the service facsimile of hitting policemen, something would go very wrong in his life and he couldn’t survive and it would be finished, see?

It’s where life has been so overwhelming and he has done so much overwhelming that it—actually, it makes no more sense: he has abandoned it, and in lieu of any good sense he has erected this monument. See? And that monument is a monument to total asininity.

“The way to have good health is to smoke cigarettes, you see, and never take any exercise,” and so forth, and so forth. And you’ll hear this guy going on along in this and you’ll hear a dissertation and it seems to be just a little bit offbeat. And you’ll wonder how on earth this—what this really adds up to.

Well, without precise assessment you probably could not establish exactly what it was. But it might be as banal as “good health.” The service facsimile is “good health.” How do you have good health? Well, the best way to have good health is eat poisonous foods and throw yourself under trucks wherever possible, and so forth. You see, the thing is completely twisted around the other way to. It’s an aberrated survival computation, is what it is.

Now, it might better be called a service computation, or a survival computation—but we already have this term service facsimile, so we might as well stay with it for the present at least—because it isn’t just one facsimile. It actually isn’t a facsimile at all. It’s the guy himself keeping facsimiles in restimulation because he knows what’s best.

You see all this wild aberration inside of a society which compels its citizens to do this or that. You’re probably looking at third-dynamic service facsimiles. They get stuck on these things. Take the jail system which is used right now in the West. The jail system is rather interesting. Because they know for a fact, and all their statistics demonstrate, every single one of them demonstrates—the lot—that they increase criminality with the present prison system. All the penologists know this and they adhere to it slavishly.

In 1835 a study was conducted to find out what penal systems were in use around the world—not to find out which was most workable, but what ones were in use, And they adopted the present system in Philadelphia. They adopted this present system of the cell and the confinement and the guard and the this and that. And at the time they adopted it, they knew that it did the least rehabilitation.

I mean, the committee that did this had the data in front of them that they were doing the most they possibly could to perpetuate crime by adapting the present prison system. Now, this prison system today is so general and it is in use so far and wide, and the present court system—court system is not any part of it—is so wide and general and so forth, that everybody thinks that is the only prison system there could be. That is very far from a fact. There are actually hundreds of prison systems. And yet they have hung themselves with the one which they found was the least rehabilitative, the least workable and produced the most crime. And that was done by study—by careful, analytical study. So you must realize that there are third-dynamic service facsimiles at work. It’s a totally nonsurvival computation to choose the worst prison system you could possibly choose, and yet they set out to do so.

So I don’t think they were studying public safety. See, they weren’t any longer studying public safety. They were simply studying how to make criminals wrong!

So penology, by 1835, had ceased to be a study of how to make an honest society safe from the inroads of a criminal and had begun to be just a system by which to dramatize “the criminal is wrong,” see, so no longer had any useful application. I don’t care what money they’re spending on crime today: If they’d stop spending it, they’d have less crime. I don’t care how weird and aberrated that happens to look. But I’m just showing you, here is a solution stuck in the society.

Not to go on this subject, because it’s not a horse I ride; it just happens to be an interesting datum. I got this out originally and was rather interested that Warner Brothers did one on this a long time ago. Crime colleges: that’s what they’ve established. You want to—as I asked you in an earlier lecture, how is it that argot is the one thing that seems to be a current slingo that goes along, a language that carries along, and yet it’s the most secret language there is. How is this perpetuated? Well, it’s perpetuated by the state with its existing prison system. So with that argot, then, must go all the systems of defrauding, robbing, murdering and wrecking the society. And they have gratuitously, at public expense, erected these universities all over the place in which these fellows can carefully communicate to one another the very best criminal methods. And this is all done at great public expense.

And that’s a service facsimile at work. That solution—the prison, see— stands up there right now as the primary method why the society is going criminal. And yet it is supposed to be the reason why the society is never criminal. See, it’s erected to protect the public from the criminal. And there it is, however, educating criminals, perpetuating crime, going forward in a very businesslike way at great public expense to do the least possible rehabilitation for the criminal, make him feel the most outlaw of any other system, make him feel the most individuated from the society, spoil his reach and therefore his sanity. It makes sense to a Scientologist particularly: put a guy in this place so he can’t reach anything, can’t itsa anything, he’s naturally—get a case deterioration. Well, if he’s already a criminal because he’s crazy, how about deteriorating his case? Well, naturally he’ll become more of a criminal, won’t he?
So, all kinds of actions of this character—I’m not even standing up for another system. Frankly, if you just erected a big stockade someplace or another and told the fellows to go in there for a while, and we didn’t care who they took with us, we’d probably, you know, have a better system.

If the Scientologist were to go about this—I already figured this out for the federal prisons of the United States. The head of all federal prisons in the United States has required Dianetics to be read, by the way, by all his wardens. And I worked out a system for him. Too much work for me to put into effect and so never went into effect. We are not without friends or connections or influence, in spite of the fact that some two-bit—some drug addicts, the Federal Drug Addicts, are after us, because they’re actually not under the government, they’re under the AMA.

Well, that’s who pays them, you know? People work for those who pay them, don’t they, normally? Naturally. They, by the way, recently got some legislation through, I see. Now, so that anything is mislabeled, all they have to do is arrest the guy and throw him in prison without a hearing. I was interested in this new legislation that came through from the FDA. When they do something like this, they get a level of unpopularity that has exclamation points after it. So they’re doing their best, and we’ll help them out. The direction which they want to go, we will help them go, any day now.

But there is service facsimile.

Government sets itself up a stable datum: “Foods must not have noxious products in them.” And this outfit is now protecting the public against good electrical equipment and certifying electric-shock machines that break people’s teeth and spines. And they pass these. But the E-Meter: no, that’s deadly. It’s pretty grim—I mean, it’s pretty gruesome when you start to think over the level of action.

Well now, that again, on a third-dynamic level, is a service facsimile in action. See, somebody put up this solution that the public shouldn’t have to eat noxious food products OF something like this, or poison should be kept out of foods. That, basically, you see, is a good idea. And then this idea starts going all mad, and madder and madder and madder, till practically the only thing that’ll get certified is something that kills somebody. See? You get the idea?

Well, all right, so they must be there simply to make somebody wrong. I don’t think they have anything to do with anything except making somebody wrong. I don’t know who they’re trying to make wrong. They’re not going to make us wrong. But they must have somebody they want to make wrong, and we’re not quite sure who it is. But there is, you might say, a service facsimile.

Well now, you take any good solution to a situation and then plow that solution in so that it lower-harmonics. It goes through several flips. Stays itself, you see, but it’s lower and lower and lower on the tone scale. It finally gets below all other solutions and becomes itself an aberration.

Now, it isn’t true that all solutions become service facsimiles. You could immediately conclude this. As a matter of fact, I have looked at it rather wildly occasionally and said, “My heavens, if you—if any time you solve something, why, you’re in the soup.” No, no, that isn’t it.

A service facsimile is a solution which is insisted upon but won’t itsa. It’s a solution which is insisted upon but won’t itsa. A solution, to be a solution, leads to a further ability to itsa.

Now, if you solve something on the basis of the solution reduces the itsa or the ability to itsa, then you’ve set up a-potential service facsimile. This is one of the reasons why Scientology would never become a service facsimile in a society. See, it increases the ability to itsa.

Now, let’s look back at the F1)A for a moment. They are taking over a role of classifying for and protecting the public from making up their own minds about food. They’re denying the public an analytical attitude toward products. And they step in there and protect the public from themselves, which is to say, they cut the public itsa. Now having reduced the public itsa very severely along a level where it didn’t need reduction, they have then set up a situation where anybody they pass is okay. The public then loses the criterion of inspection; the public no longer does its own inspection. They don’t buy Salinas Valley lettuce because it’s good and avoid Mexican lettuce because it’s bad, see? But the FDA, aberratedly, because it’s in some wild state, then goes in and passes—because somebody slipped them a quick buck or something like that (slipped them Mexican lettuce)—and says, “Well, that’s okay. Mexican lettuce: that’s—that’s all right, that’s all right. Seal of approval—bang. It’s fertilized with dysentery.”

Look what happens to the public suddenly. The public can be caved in by it, because it’s opened a gate which is destructive. See what they are? They are not, then, increasing familiarity with the environment. They are decreasing it and leaving this area in a mystery. And it’s all set up on the irrational supposition that they’re infallible.:

They had some non-pregnancy drug the other day and it had wild side effects, and they passed it. They passed it. There’s been several drugs of recent times that have been passed that are terribly destructive one way or the other. Now, obviously, some role exists for such an agency. But every time you set up such an agency, you set up a potential service facsimile, which will then accumulate to it a great deal of evil. And the next thing you know, you have set up a situation where nobody can live with it. Now, you get how that’s done? It’s by reducing itsa.

For instance, you’d almost never look for travel agencies to aberrate a society. See, you wouldn’t look to a travel agency as a primary source of aberration in the society. They could bring in a little bit. We had a situation here in England where anybody that could buy a ticket in the West Indies, you see, could come to London. And some shipping company made millions shipping everybody to London. And this was looked on in some particular lines as something. And then oddly and wildly enough, the Parliament up here was faced with the embarrassing situation, suddenly, of limiting the amount of immigration from one of its own colonies—very embarrassing. They managed to get over it and pass it and nobody has ever heard of it since. And they’ve limited immigration in that particular line. But I’m afraid this wasn’t even much of an aberration. 1 mean, that’s about as close as a travel agency could come, you see?

So it doesn’t mean that all these sources are perfect. Little randomities exist around these other sources, don’t you see? But broadly, those that directly reduce the itsa—those that directly reduce the itsa and don’t help or support the itsa line in any way—are most likely to become service facsimiles. They’re a solution without inspection which is too broadly applied.

This girl has a survival solution: She simply says, “Families are no good.” This is what she’s made up her mind to. She holds that in place. She proves it to herself all the time. She works day and night. She sits there—you can see her in a brown study, you know? She’s sitting there and so on. “Hmm, yesh. Yeah,” she’ll say to herself, “yeah. Proves it. Mother didn’t say anything to me this afternoon, so that of course proves, you see, families are no good.” See, and it all works out. Now, she doesn’t have to look to find out why didn’t Mother speak to her all afternoon. And that brings about a no as-isness of mass. There’s no necessity to inspect. She’s got it solved. Mother didn’t speak to her all afternoon because families are no good. That’s it. She didn’t have to inspect the fact that she, last evening when she took the car out, bent the front fender and then didn’t say anything about it and didn’t offer to do anything about it and put it back in the garage. And Mama found it at noon and cut the communication line because she already knows that it’s disastrous to try to talk, you see?

So you’ve got a situation there. Now, that little ARC break is never going to blow away, is it? It’s never going to be talked about, not going to be any communication on the subject and so forth. Well, what’s preventing it from being talked about? “Families are no good.” That proves it.

You understand, it gets charged up because every one of these ARC breaks that contributes to it in its immediate vicinity charges it up further, and the person holds it in line harder, and more ARC breaks pile up on it until it eventually becomes an accumulation of mass. And therefore, when you prepcheck somebody with a service facsimile around the vicinity of this service facsimile without hitting it on, you turn on mass. The source of the mass is nothing has been itsa’d.

Now, you’re prepchecking them this way: “Since the last session, has anything been suppressed?” Let’s say it’s auditing that’s the target. This is in vignette; this is not a real service facsimile—”My auditor is no good.”

(“There is no reason to answer this question because my auditor is no good, because auditors are no good.”) “No.” Now the case is in a solid, continuous ARC break so it doesn’t register on your meter.

“Since the last session, has anything been invalidated?” you see?

“Nope.” (“Auditors are no good. Wouldn’t do me any good to answer the question anyway, because auditors are no good.”) You see?

Yet the case isn’t thinking this consciously. Case isn’t thinking that consciously. That’s just everything that you ask the case comes up against this.

And you—my God—you’re trying to talk to this case. You’re trying to get this case to talk. You’re trying to get this case to do something. And you do know what you’re doing. And yet you’re going up against some kind of a barrier like this in this case. And then all of a sudden, you wheel back and you say, “Uhh-uhh! I’m a failure as an auditor.”

No, you’re not a failure as an auditor. You just didn’t clip the service facsimile that made auditing impossible. You see that? And this is expressed by the no-motion of the tone arm action. Because there is no itsa in that immediate vicinity, there’s no, then, dismissal or discharge of the charge hanging up on it. You see that?

Now, you’re listening to this opinion, “Auditors are no good,” on somebody who never inspects an auditor or auditing. There’s no itsa. In other words, the whole thing is just completely unjustified. How do they know whether the auditor is no good or not? They’ve seldom heard one; they’ve never looked at them. See, how would they know?

And let’s get another situation: I’m very, very sure that some of you have been over the coals of being considered immature, or some other way, by either your mother or father or family—irresponsible, see? Now, you probably have never asked yourself this other question: “Did they ever look at me?” Now, there’s lots of mothers, the last time they looked at little Roscoe was when he was about two. And they’re still trying to advise two-year-old Roscoe at the age of thirty what he should do about his marriage. Well, they don’t know anything about him.

If you want to give somebody a send that has a lot of family trouble, just ask them questions along that particular line, and so on. Ask them what they have observed about their family. There’s a good R1C. Probably get tone arm action out of that, you see, because it’s on the fringe of something if they’re having trouble with something. And they’re liable to come up with the realization that their family has never looked at them and doesn’t know them. See, we itsa the situation, some preconceived notion.

Societies tend to get stuck with these things, to get stuck with some idea. And it’s very interesting that this is probably the way that a society reduces its strength, just as an individual reduces his strength this way. I feel sorry for this society, in a number of ways, because in certain zones and areas which the society depends upon for its control of mean, vicious, nasty persons (and things like us), these guys haven’t got any itsa line out. Do you realize what’s happening? If you want to look at it bluntly, these guys are sitting back taking the wrong actions with regard to certain situations. They’re trying to prevent—through their wrong itsa on Scientology—they’re trying to prevent certain zones and spheres of activity, which is to say, “the public must not be practiced on by an unqualified guy who doesn’t happen to pay dues to us,” and that sort of thing.

All right, now they’re set with certain set, fixed ideas, see? They believe these ideas. And they believe that what we’re doing and what we have to do with is no good and it’s corn, see, and that it’s not any advance on anything.

And my God, during this whole period of time we’re moving right straight on ahead into more mental technology and more technology about life and livingness than they ever dreamed could ever exist. We have actually been effectually isolated and insulated from any further interference, or from having our energies drained down by being made to comply with or agree with the mores of their particular practice lines. That would have slowed us down like mad, don’t you see? We’re moving forward at express-train velocity.

There isn’t any faculty of any college or something like that is going to tell you or me whether or not we had better research or not research some particular sphere of existence. If we can put an itsa line on it, we look at it. It doesn’t then make it “bad” or “impolite,” see, or something like that—”this is why we shouldn’t look.” And we’re actually traveling as a subject without a service fac, and it’s making fantastic velocity. And here these poor sods are, whose whole life is bound up in these—you know, the mustard-plaster level of healing. And they’re not in contest to keep their developmental line coming forward, so there they sit, and there we go.

How high can it rise before the potential suddenly explodes? They’re nuts. That’s what it makes them look to us. The potential will eventually explode in their faces. In what way? They suddenly won’t have any patients. Nobody will be paying any attention to them, because they have a wholly authoritarian educational system. That is to say, they put it on TV, ‘‘You must see your local doctor. Your local doctor receives you in open arms.” Well, they’re so unreal they don’t realize that that isn’t the public line. Their word of mouth—I don’t care how much advertising you buy, you got to have good word of mouth, man. You can buy newspapers full of advertising to get somebody to go see a movie that’s no good and the theater will stay empty, because their word of mouth is bad, you see? And the word of mouth on medicine is very bad. Very bad.

And while they’re taking fortunes away from people in the United States for not healing them, and not advancing their own technical lines, and not really measuring up the way they should, they’re not making the effort necessary to survive. Why? Because they have a service facsimile on us. They don’t even know they’ve got it. It’s hidden down amongst their case, amongst any other batty lines.

I had a good news story on the subject. I didn’t release it. It might have woke them up. They have to reorganize the whole of mental and physical healing before they could cope with what we’re doing. This potential—these poles are stretching further and further and wider and wider apart, and eventually they will become a no-factor. That’s what happens to them: they’re a no-factor. They simply are not powerful enough or influential enough or anything else enough to do anything about it.
 
You may not think that we’re growing. But I look back over any six months of the last ten and eleven years, and frankly, I hardly recognize a comparable size—just six months to the next six months. This is a rather fantastic thing, only this is going on internationally.

Now, did you ever double a penny for thirty-two days? It’s the old mathematical trick. A guy says, “Well, you needn’t pay me anything but one cent doubled every day for thirty-two days.”

And somebody says, “That’s fine,” but of course at the end of thirty-two days—I don’t know what the figure is. It’s either a million pounds, or it’s something like that that it has grown up to, don’t you see? It only takes this type of curve growth going on up.

Now, therefore, they’re not impeding what they should be impeding if they wanted to survive, themselves. They’re not handling the situation within its own zone of reality. And that’s all aberration is, is a failure to handle the situation in its own zone of reality.

So this, then, is the service that a service facsimile performs. It makes it unnecessary for an individual to handle the situation in its own sphere of reality—makes it unnecessary to do so. So nobody ever does anything about it; so mass accumulates up on it. Now, any mass that accumulates on a case, any mass that accumulates by reason of Prepcheck, any body mass that occurs by reason of processing and so forth, must to some degree or another then be batting up against a service facsimile. And if a person cannot be knocked out on the subject of a psychosomatic illness of some character or another by processing, then that must be part of a service facsimile.

Those things that auditing won’t change are, then, rooted in this other mechanism. They’re a solution without inspection which pulls in upon it all the uninspected mass. That’s all. And of course, mass disappears because it’s as-ised. And when a person does not as-is the mass that is there, be naturally gets an accumulation of mass. And the mass that accumulates around one of these service facsimiles is rather marvelous to behold. And of course, it’s that mass accumulating which holds and prevents the Prepcheck action. And those are the technical mechanisms which prevent tone arm action.

If you don’t get tone arm action, it’s because the individual does not as-is and has not as-ised any mass in that zone or area for a long time. And not having as-ised any, when you get into its vicinity, you go into it with a thud if it gets anywhere close to processing, getting well or handling the environment in which the individual finds himself.

The auditing session, to this effectiveness, extends out to everything the individual does during the period of time that he’s being audited and every environment he finds himself in. So that if any service facsimile exists which is being reacted upon in any of his environment, anyplace, it will to some degree influence his auditing. And the more of these things exist, the harder it is for you to get tone arm action—until it gets impossible.

Now, an individual can have a service facsimile and still get tone arm action—get some tone arm action. And it would be better in some cases to make sure that the service facsimiles are out of the way before plunging backtrack. The amount of time that you could save in processing is a very large factor. I’ve just made a restudy of this. And I’ve been brushing off Clear left and right and saying no good, no good—you know, I mean, and so on, Keyed-out Clear. And I recently found out that you can stabilize—there’s a possibility here of stabilizing a Clear by the eradication of the things that will key in. So, you see, if you knock out a number of service facsimiles out of an individual, why, the case then stays stable to the degree that it doesn’t still have service facsimiles.

Now, R3SC is an extremely workable process. I have written it up; it’s been released. Of course, one can expect certain refinements of a process of this particular character. But this is peculiarly complete, because we accidentally already had a couple of types of assessment that you could do for this. We have the old 2-12 assessment, and we have the R3R assessment—preliminary step. They’re perfectly adequate, don’t you see? There are slippier assessments that you can do and I’m sure we’ll have some fancier assessments on it one way or the other, but these happen to be adequate assessments. And you’ll find that the mere inspection of a folder from beginning to end will give you a bunch of candidates. Just inspect the folder. Just start turning over things and looking at auditors’ notes and mentions of this and that, and what the individual has had bing-bang runs on of one character or another—whether they gave tone arm action or not, you see? But look particularly for periods of no tone arm action and then go back before those periods and find out what was being addressed on the case. And you’ll probably have a service facsimile combo sitting right there, and just use it in your ordinary steps of R3SC.

You get an idea: let’s take a period—we found a period here the individual was audited for an intensive and toward the last half of the intensive got no tone arm action. We notice this from the old, old, old, old auditor’s reports, see? We find out that on Wednesday “form” was addressed by the auditor and that was the end of tone arm action. We notice that there may have been two subjects there that could have been addressed. Well, run them both! Don’t be chicken see?

Now, you can run almost anything with R3SC, which is what makes it very good. Just don’t overrun it. And if the PC says nor and he can’t give it answers and so forth, come off of it; don’t shove it down his throat. With those ramifications, then, it doesn’t much matter what you pick to be the service facsimile. But if you do a slippy assessment, which is a preliminary-step assessment, it’s a bingo assessment right dead on—and something like that— boy, you get action, man, you’ll get action. But if you pick almost anything else, you will also get some action.

So it’s not critical—the assessment is not terribly critical. Of course, the faster you get what is really the service facsimile on the case, then the faster your tone arm action restores and the case reverts to battery. So there’s a lot of ramifications to this sort of thing. But in the final analysis is, here is a process, full-bloom, which totally replaces your R2-12 type processes—makes them utterly unnecessary—and takes care of this thing we call a rock slammer, and takes care of body mass and a lot of other things in cases that we’ve been particularly worried about, and particularly takes care of the auditor’s main worry which is “How do I get tone arm action on this PC?” Obviously, if he can’t get tone arm action on the PC, the PC is sitting in a service facsimile. I mean, that’s the end product of that.

Now, you may have to run two or three or four service facsimiles, but by that time you’re going to Clear. So you might as well go ahead ant clear the guy: Throw it all out of restimulation; make the case sit there with a free-flop needle, and so forth, and say, “All right, I cleared you.” Let the guy enjoy it. Let him enjoy it for a day or an afternoon or something like that before you reach for the earlier GPM.

All right. Now, that’s R3SC. And I hoped . . . I noticed—do you notice that it’s tabulated 3? I want to make a short note on that. It’s the tabulation of 3 is because, actually, it is a 3 process—being a clearing process. We rehabilitate Scientology levels against the existing scale, and that means that your R3N, and so forth, will be called R4N. It’s a reorientation. But I’m not going to reuse I their letters when they’re moved up to 4. And there aren’t any other R4s, so they’re very easy to recognize, and they won’t get you tangled up in any way.

And then we’ll be able to throw these clearing techniques straight where they belong and there are a few of them there, so we want them tabulated. We’re getting our house in order, and it’s making very good sense the way it’s going together.

That means that there’s quite a few cases around here will have to be cleared before they go on to OT. I’m sorry, but that’s the way it is.

Thank you.

HOW TO FIND A SERVICE FACSIMILE

A lecture given on
4 September 1963

Thank you.

I’m very, very glad to announce that there are some of you who are not in trouble. Thought we’d start the lecture on a happy note.

What’s the date?

Audience: 4 September.

4 Sept. A.D. 13. Don’t know what the month is named after, but probably something very barbaric.

Well, the shadow of your big toe has approached within several yards of a service facsimile. You remind me of a scout looking over a citadel which is bristling with guns and quite hostile, observing it from as far deep in the neighboring woods as you possibly can get. And I think maybe you’ve caught the tip of one turret or have seen a sign which says Citadel. And I’m going to ask you now to be brave and even get out to the edge of the woods and take a look at this thing, because it’s well worth looking at.

And perhaps the fault that you have not seen it is resident with me. It appears to be quite lucid to me; it doesn’t seem to be offering very much complication and so on.

But I know what this breed of cat is. I myself have taken a look at it and have audited it and have seen the results of it, and over a period of years have had an unhappy history of colliding with it. You know, you’re going down M1 there and you’re wide open, you know, and everything is fine and I’ll be a son of a gun if somebody hasn’t piled barrels across the road, don’t you see? And well, that’s the end of that one, you see?

PCs have always been full of surprises, and it’s been of great interest to me to find out how they create these surprises. And so I’m very, very happy with what we’ve got here in the service facsimile, because it is how they create these surprises and what happens. Apparently there’s a great deal to know about this thing. And I have not, to any great degree, relayed this information even in the bulletin of R3SC. Apparently this takes a lot of grasp, basically because it’s terribly simple. And it’s not that anybody is protecting their service facsimile—you can almost wipe that out.

You head a person’s attention toward the service facsimile, and they go right on in, man. They go down the toboggan and over the falls—crash! They are no more able to keep out of the service facsimile than anything. And you needn’t erect, now, a structure of philosophy to explain bad assessment by saying the PC will defend himself against his service fac being found. The PC will not. The PC gets to the middle of this whirlpool and just whirls. That’s it, man. All you’ve got to do is swing him somewhere in the vicinity of the lake in which the whirlpool exists, and he dives right in and swims like mad and goes right to the whirlpool and says that’s it—unless he’s prevented from doing so.

My first plea, then, is don’t prevent the PC from finding his service facsimile. That seems to be a rather obvious point to make, and I’m sorry that it sounds sardonic or sarcastic, but I’m afraid has to be made.

Because you could say, “Well, of course, if the PC counts on this for survival, he’s not going to let it be found,” you see? And you could go off on that line and make a lot of hard work for yourself, and actually it’s not of that nature at all.

Now, there are so many ways of isolating a service facsimile that to cover the area of assessment at this particular stage of the game is merely to put in your hands a lot of rote this and that which will more assist you to miss the service facsimile than to find it. There is no substitute whatsoever for knowing what one is; there is no substitute at all.

Now, the service facsimile, first and foremost, is a tremendous solution which the PC believes, if disturbed, will end his survival. It is always an aberrated solution; it always exists in present time and is part of the environment of the PC. And it is something that everyone, unintentionally or otherwise, is telling the PC is wrong and causing him to assert that it is right.

Now, you get to understand a service facsimile a little bit better when you recognize that last point. That last point is very, very important. Otherwise, you’re going to be running some of the silliest things and calling them service facsimiles, and you’re not going to make the boat at all.

The environment, the mores, one or another dynamics, is insistently and constantly at work trying to tell the individual that the service facsimile is wrong, and the individual is constantly saying that it is right. And when you have that situation you have all unauditable PC, because he is getting audited only to prove that this is right and actually will constantly bring it up in auditing.

It is about as hard to find as a burning tar barrel in the middle of an empty field on a dark night, see?

The PC is always bringing this to the auditor’s attention. This is so much the case that once you have found it you will consider that you have been very obtuse indeed. But sometimes it’s being brought to the auditor’s attention in different wordings, in different conduct, in different approaches that one doesn’t find it easy to label. And it is probably labeling it that is harder than finding it.

Now, let us first look at the exact thing we are trying to do with a service facsimile—the exact thing we are trying to do with it; there is one thing we are trying to do with it—and then this will move out of your perimeter, as an auditor, any necessity of trying to use this principle to make an OT, because that is not what we’re using it for.

I’ll give you an idea now of this. Reg and I just had a discussion a moment ago, and he was saying, “Well, a human body would be a service facsimile.” He’s absolutely right. He’s absolutely right. But this, of course, is being applied to going OT—not for the purpose we are applying it.

See, the remark is absolutely correct. It turns on mass. See? It is being asserted constantly, and so forth. Obviously it’s a perfectly good service facsimile, you see? Well, all that’s wrong with it is that it isn’t the service facsimile we are trying to target. See? The wrong target. Because if you used that, you would be going to OT, don’t you see? And we are not using the service facsimile for that. We’re simply using it to get a person auditable this lifetime and get out of the road those constantly restimulated solutions that make it hard to audit this person. And that’s its purpose. Its purpose is simply to clear this lifetime.
 
Now. I’ll give you some beauties on the application of the service facsimile on the whole track. What do you suppose you have a bank for? It obviously must be some sort of a service facsimile. Obviously: it turns on mass, doesn’t it? It follows all of the rules.

Obviously, “How would having a bank make you right and others wrong?” well, obviously—ha!—obviously would kill the PC. Why? Well, you’d just restimulate the whole early track and you’d throw him into countless GPMs and you’d overrestimulate him like mad. But obviously, according to the theory, it’s a perfectly valid service facsimile. A reactive mind is a perfectly valid service facsimile, but not for the purposes that we are going to use this for.

It’s well to remember the basic principles of the service facsimile when you are running somebody to OT, because sooner or later you’re going to find this guy, and he just can’t seem to get up to a point where he can tilt a planet. You’re having trouble with this PC. He sits down there on one mountain top, and you sit there on the other mountain top and you’re trying to audit him, see? And the E-Meter you use are the little glows that appear in the various parts of his vicinity. See, you say something; you see something glow, you say, “That read.” Probably your auditing commands are all in telepathy or something like this, but we don’t care much about that. That’s a good thing to remember. This guy just keeps complaining, complaining—ARC breaking. Weather gets terrible on the planet, you know—keeps ARC breaking. Thunderstorms and other things occur. And he’s got this PTP, you see? He just can’t tilt a planet. Weak. And I bid you remember this point, you see, that undoubtedly you are now bucking a service facsimile, see, which would probably, after you’ve talked for a while, add up to something like “being incapable.”

And you ask him, “All right. How would being incapable make you right and how would it make others wrong?” and so forth. And you run it on up with just the same steps of R3SC. You undoubtedly got this boy flying again, you see, into some new zone or area.

So you’re never really rid of the principles of the service facsimile. He’s got some tremendous solution, and that solution is “being incapable.” How does he survive? By being incapable. At what level? At some very upstage level of some kind or another, you see? All right. So that’s perfectly valid.

So it’d be valid almost at any point of a case, but that isn’t what we are using it for and that is not the design and style of R3SC. It’s the same breed of cat—the same breed of cat. But we are attacking here a solution which, just like any other solution, is a barrier to the discharge of the confusion.

What’s made this possible is a new evaluation and a new road found through the bank on guess what? You’ve had a new communication level in auditing, and so forth, and that clarified a lot of things. But, of course, the service facsimile is borne out of a reevaluation and a readjustment of the confusion and the stable datum—that basic: confusion and the stable datum.

The confusion can only stay in place as long as it has a stable datum to hang it up. Now, that is so light and so easily changed by a thetan or a being that this does not much get in anybody’s road. It’s only when it becomes an aberrated solution, the loss of which threatens survival, that the individual fails to be able to discharge the mass associated with it.

So if you could see confusion as a stable datum (you know those principles; they’re old HCA principles), you should realize that you can actually pluck,, out of the center of the confusion, the stable datum, and at that point get a discharge of the energy held in place. It’s a new discovery, you see? What holds the confusion in place? A stable datum. That’s a new thought, do you see, because you handle life all the time on the reverse line. You’ve got too much confusion: put a stable datum in and the confusion lines up on the stable datum. That’s how you’ve been using it before.

All right, let’s take a reverse look: How is the confusion held in place? The confusion is held in place by a stable datum. So the removal of the stable datum then discharges the confusion. And a confusion is a very good description of “what is charge?” Charge is an electrical confusion.

Now, as long as a stable datum is held in place by the person, the confusion will not discharge. Do you see this? So here’s a new piece of advanced technology—rather remarkable piece of technology—that we have had around for a very long time and it’s simply a reverse look at the thing, and we know now how to hold a confusion in place.

Now, fortunately for us—fortunately for us—confusion’s are tolerable and not always aberrative. In fact, the biggest part of the confusion’s of life are not at all aberrative; they could go on for a long time without hurting any thetan or incapacitating him for a moment.

You’re playing a card game; you’re playing a card game and you’re having an awful time playing this card game. You just never seem to really get anyplace playing this card game. And you discover a little booklet and it says “How You Play Canasta,” see? And you read over this booklet and it gives you some hot dope on the thing, and after that you can play canasta. This is just about as aberrative as eating blueberry pie. You understand?

Nevertheless, the confusion’s of canasta are held in abeyance by these little rules you have learned about canasta.

Now, of course the confusion’s concerning canasta, as I say, have no aberrative value whatsoever. Zero. Life, you see, as I’ve told you several times in recent lectures, is not in itself an aberrative activity. Aberration has to be rather extraordinary. It has to be worked at; it has to be kept in restimulation all the time

Now, this rather innocent action of the switchboard girl solving the confusion of her job on the principle “If I have twelve calls simultaneously appearing on the board, I handle one and then handle two and then handle three,” don’t you see? In other words, she’s got a confusion of calls, all you have to do is teach her to handle one call. Each confusion she has from that point thereon is handled by that. Well, that actually is not at all aberrative to her. Nothing going to drive her mad because she has twelve calls simultaneously, don’t you see? That’s nonsense.

So now, we pull off the case—we say, “All right, what system or solution have you had to answering calls when they were too many or a confusion of calls?”

And she says, “Well, I answer one at a time,” and so forth. We get the motion of the tone arm here could not be detected with a micromilli-vernier UNIVAC. See, it actually doesn’t back up any charge. You get the idea?

No, there’s got to be force and violence mixed up with these things. There’s got to be something fabulous. Now, she could add this up and you could add this up as part of the confusion of trying to survive by having a job—and this could be part of it. And you might touch on it and it might appear to move some mass, but actually she’s got something else she is worried about. Her survival is threatened by the fact that she could not handle her job and she’s liable to be dismissed, don’t you see? Ah, but look, solving how she handles a switchboard does not solve what she is worried about. She is worried about the fact that if she does not handle her job she will not have a job and her survival will thereby be threatened.

Ah, there’s a much bigger tower on which this little piece of confusion was leaning, don’t you see? All right, so we address this. How does she hold her job? By being a competent switchboard operator. Well, I’m afraid that this is not very aberrative either.

Why is she worried about holding her job? You say, “What solutions do you have for holding your job?” And you get a little TA action, see? Get a little bit of TA action.

She says, “So-and-so, and be nice to the boss” and so forth, and so forth, and you get a little TA action, see. Because this threatens her survival, don’t you see, much more intimately.

But the case is still relatively unauditable. There must be something on this case if we’re auditing this case and we’re having trouble with the case; there must be something else that we are bucking into here. What are we running into? Something else. Something else.

And we look around and we find out, “Well now, what makes you upset, particularly, about losing a job?” or something like that. “What would be upsetting about this?”

And you hear, marvel of marvel and wonder of wonders, you hear—you expect to hear, you know, “My aged mother would then starve to death,” you see, or something like that. And she says, “Well, actually, it’s my dog.” You can’t add this up. Actually, she can’t either. Actually, it’s unaddable.

And you say, “Well, what about the dog? What’s this got to do with the job?”

“Well, you see, uh . . . they’d put the dog to sleep if I couldn’t feed the dog, you see?”

Now, you might be getting here close someplace and that even looks a little bit sensible, don’t you see? That doesn’t look quite completely dippy. But you’ve got the idea of a human being working like mad and terribly worried about their job and so forth, and we’ve traced it back to a dog. Now, ordinarily human beings do not work to support dogs. But this one is; this one is. And my golly, we work this around for a little while and we suddenly find out that she has lots of trouble all the time and lots of upsets about keeping the dog in an apartment. And we may have a service facsimile that is simply described as keeping a dog.

See, that’s probably too mild a look at it, and I haven’t given it to you as rough as you would actually find it or as incredible, because I want you to understand it, not sit there with your jaw dropped, see? But keeping a dog— keeping a dog, or keeping a dog in an apartment, some such action as this, or keeping a dog.. . “And how would keeping a dog make you right? And how would keeping a dog make others wrong?”

We find out that this girl has one computation in existence which makes her right and makes others wrong, and it has to do with keeping a barking dog in an apartment where it’ll annoy people. And that makes her right and makes others wrong, and she feels if she were deprived of that solution her survival would be shattered. And this is what’s causing her to worry about her job. Don’t you see?

So she always carefully gets these little, sharp-bark terriers, you see, that scraffle and raffle when they walk around on the floors, you see, and that yip and yap endlessly, particularly in the middle of the night. Sooner or later as you’re running this thing, she’ll all of a sudden cognite, “You know, I always seem to get very noisy dogs. Wonder why that is?” Well, of course, naturally. It bothers people more.

And you run this thing down and you will get some kind of an incident, early-life incident and that sort of thing, where somebody insisted that a dog be put to sleep or something like this because it was getting old and scrawny. And she had to drive it down to the pound, and everybody was busy making her wrong and, he [she] was trying to make everybody else wrong, don’t you see? And this thing is all wound up in a ball. And wonder of wonders, we get this thing audited out—it’s all about dogs, you see? And suddenly, because keeping a job and handling a switchboard was attached to an aberrated service facsimile, you see, to this degree, then, her worries and anxieties all have a big lie in them, you see? And they’re all twisted around wrong way to, and all of a sudden she can operate a switchboard much better—doesn’t even have to have a stable datum to operate one, she just operates a switchboard, don’t you see? And she can keep a job, she doesn’t worry about the job, and so forth. She’s released on this line. You get this action?

Now, I’ve given you a very, very simple, understandable solution here— very simple, very understandable. And they’re not quite that simple when found in real life; they are more aberrated. I gave you a more intelligible one because I wanted you to understand there was some connection. Now, as you walk across this in real life they jump, usually, a wider gap than from job to keeping a dog, see? Probably be more involved than this.

They arc across a larger spark gap. You may find out that it is “breaking dishes.” So you may have some more steps in it, you see? Breaking dishes. And t this doesn’t make any sense at all about keeping dogs or holding jobs, but nothing makes any sense anyway. She’s breaking dishes to be right, you see, and breaking dishes to make others wrong, and this is the service facsimile on which everything else is piling up. And oddly enough, if she’s not permitted to break dishes, she knows she cannot survive.

She may not know what the barometer reads; she may not know how wide the street is; she may not know a lot of other things in life. But this she does know: that if she ceases to keep the dog or break the dishes or something like that, why, that’s the end of her—total tertiary line of defense.

Now, you may not discover this at once on a case. You may not discover this promptly, immediately and at once on a case. You may audit off one, two or three apparent service facsimiles that all answer up to the complete description of a service facsimile, but are actually only leaning on the central service facsimile that is restimulated in present time, don’t you see? But as you take these things off, why, the central one comes to view.

Now, you see now why, when you say or imply to me, “Now Ron, you should give me some kind of a rote procedure by which to isolate this every time,” you’re asking me, of course, to apply a logical system to an illogical action. I probably could do it and we probably will do it and all of that sort of thing, but I actually would much rather you understood what you are doing. See, I’d much rather. Because, frankly, you can hunt and punch around on a case. You can take old case assessment sheets and folders and 2-12 and something, you know, on the case, or the case reports or auditors’ reports or case histories or something; and you could get a whole list of things—anything that’s been found on the case. And you can have a discussion over these various things and points, and you can assess them in various ways and get one or another of them to read. And you’ll find out the PC’s interest will hang up someplace on this list. He’ll be very interested in it. Far from leaving it, they dive right in on it, see? And here’s the PC’s interest; it’ll hang up with a somatic, so forth.

And now, in fooling around with this, it is sometimes necessary to reword it. You don’t have to worry about rewording the command. You’ll get results on cases by running different commands, but you’ll only be running oddball, flank material on the service facsimile itself, don’t you see?

Now, the command is always “How would it”—whichever you have found, makes the PC right and makes others wrong. It’s always that command, see? It’s not “How would opposing it . . .” “ . . . stepping on it . . .” “ . . . throwing it away . . .” or something like that, or “ . . . fighting it make you right?” see? Because you haven’t got the idea of what the service facsimile
 is, see? Because the condition, the final identification is that the service facsimile solution is the PC. That solution is the PC, so it is something be has. It’s “How would it make him right and make others wrong?” Now, you can vary it: “How has it made you right?” and “How has it made others wrong?” You could even say “What would be made wrong by it?”

Now we’re going afield, but the PC sometimes springs over, and when they’re operating in an aberrated area of this particular character, their ability to follow an auditing command deteriorates markedly and they slop. That’s all right.

The way you handle that, and so forth: All of a sudden PC is answering what and not answering how, see? You say, “All right. Well, just give me the rest of the what’s and we’ll get back to the how,” you know? I mean, they’re not very tough. You know, don’t make them wrong and stop them and all this sort of thing. Let them go because you may be standing in the road of an avalanche at an automaticity, see? They’ll slop on that auditing command, do you understand?

But the auditing command is not ever “How has it made you wrong?” Never. Never. Never. Oddly enough, it’ I run, but it’ll run the PC down scale. “How would doing things to it make you right?” see? Oh, oh, oh, no, no, no. You’ll get some tone arm action. See, this is what’ll fool you. You’ll get a little tone arm action. It’ll look okay.

Well, let me take the case in point. We assess Father, and some “genius” has just read the rest of the 2-12 bulletin and found out that it was always “oppose”—you were supposed to oppose what you found on that. So he ran 2-12 plus R3SC, which is pretty good. I suppose you can run several other processes in conjunction with it, too. You could probably have the PC feeling the walls at the same time you ran the process. I mean, you could do a lot of things. But anyhow . . . I’m sorry, but that actually happened. And the command was “How would opposing Father”—this is not quite the right one, but don’t want to cast too many bricks—”How would opposing Father make you right?”

Brother, that is not a service facsimile: opposing Father is not a service facsimile that’s an action. See, that’s just an action. Now, if you assessed it out, you’ve got to try it. You got to try it on for size and you got to find out if there’s anything to this, because it would be if you assessed Father—it just simply—I mean, it’s too idiotically simple: Father must be a solution. See, it must be a huge solution. So we say, “How would Father make you right?” And “How would,” you know, “Father make others wrong?” you see?

Now, you can drag this over into the cow pasture and say, well, hating Father is probably the service facsimile and so forth, but actually you’re just looking at a secondary or tertiary condition of a service facsimile. You’re not looking at a service facsimile, because this is no action. See? This’d be something which was the result of a service facsimile.

And the first rule is—what I first gave you in this lecture—if the PC doesn’t immediately jump into the lake and swim right straight to the whirlpool, but tells you “Oh, well, Father . . . make me right . . . Father . . . Uh . . . —make any sense,” I call to your attention the PC is still standing on the bank—not service facsimile. Got the idea? PC has not swum madly in and got all embroiled in this thing. Because that’s the first thing they want to do: Hit the service facsimile—drown. Why? Because to drown is to survive. Obviously—that’s the characteristic of a service facsimile.

The PC says, “Um . . . I don’t think . .-. um . . . I don’t know. It’s . . . I’ll have to . . . right . . . I don’t know whether that’s right or not. I’ll just . . . make me right? And . . . don’t . . . I don’t know if that would make me right or not. Let’s see, would it make me right? Would it make anybody else wrong? I don’t know. I can answer the question. There doesn’t seem to be very much wrong “ Wake up there in the auditing chair and take a look at what’s going on. PC is standing on the bank, feet not wet, whirlpool not approached—equals service facsimile not been found.

So go on and do something else clever. Say, “Well, that’s fine. I’m glad we covered that,” cheerily, cheerily, cheerily, cheerily, cheerily, and you gather up your papers and get the hell out of there, see?

PC won’t be able to keep out of it—that I guarantee you, man. Won’t be able to stay out of it.

You say the service facsimile is “burning cats.” See, something weird like this comes up, see? Or “being a cat,” you know? Something like that. “Being catlike.” “How would being catlike make you right?”

“Oh, well, that’s so-and-so and so-and-so, and so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so, and then, of course, so-and-so and so-and-so, you understand. There’s quite a suite a—that’s quite a thing when you start really thinking about it like that. You see, catlike is so-and-so and so-and-so and so on, you understand? And so on, and a lot of times been catlike because, you see, it—it uh . . . it’s catlike, you know, and—and so forth, and uh . . . that’s the way it is and so on.” And when you can’t get in an auditing question to get the session properly started, know that you have hit one.

Now, the reason it turns on automaticities is, of course, that it is automatic, unanalyzed solutions, and they simply just pour off in a Niagara. When you got a real one and you’re running one, always note in your auditor’s report “automaticity.” It merely means, more answers than the PC can articulate are arriving from the bank—conveyor belt stacking up. Just note down when you find one of those automaticities. It’s a guarantee you’ve hit on a service facsimile.

Now, this gives us the way it has to be run. Because it is susceptible to avalanches, you can’t then run it with the old TR 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, see? You’ve got to throw the question into the arena and let the lions fight over it for a while, you understand? And just don’t stop it with a new question; don’t stop it with acknowledgments; let it sort of run out. After a while, the PC has given you fifteen, twenty answers and so forth, and seems to look rather blank—doesn’t seem to have one now, and that sort of thing. Well, you can either give him another question or you can change the thing over to the other side, and it does the same thing then. So it’s actually not one auditing question for one auditing answer. You’re not running it that way. You’re running it one auditing question for one waterfall.

But sometimes the PC swaps ends in the middle of it. Well, this is no time to stop him either. He’s busy making others wrong with this “being catlike,” you see, and others wrong, others wrong, others wrong, others wrong, “ . . . and it’d make me right to so-and-so and so-and-so.” And he’s just reached the end of the flow and he’s turned around and he’s on the back flow. You can also overrun these things and put the PC into a stuck-flow sort of a drifting anaten. You’re insisting that more answers must exist, you see? Well, he’s already at the end of his rope, and you’re making him run too long on that side. So it’s run very permissively.

What you’re trying to do is get rid of this avalanche and automaticity and get some tone arm action. That’s your main purpose. So how you do that as an auditor is give only enough questions to get the PC going and only enough acknowledgments to acknowledge the fact that you had a lot of answers. And turn it around whenever it comes toward the end of the rope; and turn it around the other way. It’s very simple stuff.

Now, trying to keep the PC answering the auditing question is sometimes difficult, as I just told you because the PC will skid around on this and disassociate because he’s in disassociated area. And don’t you ever tell me that you’re very shocked because this PC has given you a whole bunch of answers that weren’t answers to the auditing question. Now, that’s expected. That’s expected, see? Because what?

This solution—now, let’s talk on the theory of the thing. This solution, you see, is holding back a tremendous amount of aberration, none of which makes sense, so it doesn’t as-is. So there sits this solution, see, “keeping a dog,” you see?

All right. All this stuff is back of it and nothing is going to flow, because as long as this person is able to keep a dog, life is handled: Jobs are taken care of; everything is protected; all is right in the world except, of course, for the painful stomach, a hatred of dogs and some little marginal fringe worries, you know, of one kind or another. And being broke all the time and not being able to have a job or hold a job.

It’s like trying to solve a problem with a whopping lie, don’t you see? And boy, would you have to get busy to keep this problem solved with this whopping lie. So it has to be continuously asserted—continuously asserted. And that solution, then, is just a solution. That’s all it is. And the PC doesn’t even have to work on it consciously because the PC has got it all triggered to be worked on all the time anyhow. It’s the immediate answer to anything.

So life just continues to stack up on this solution, and it accumulates mass on this solution, and the solution accumulates mass.

Now, because the solution . . . Now, let me give you the condition of what kind of a solution it’s got to be: It’s got to be a below-2.0-on-the-Tone-Scale solution—always below 2.0, nothing above 2.0, see? It’s a below-2.0 solution, because it, perforce, is a substitute for an itsa line. It’s a substitute for an itsa line.

The PC started out by feeling he or she could not itsa the object that he or she was trying to make wrong and so dreamed up this solution—dreamed up this solution as a final solution. And that, then, is a substitute for an itsa line, believe it or not.

Well, there’s a girl sitting there and Mother has not spoken to her since noon because the fender of the car has been dented. And she has this solution: “Well, families are no good,” you see? Makes it unnecessary to observe Mother; makes it unnecessary to observe the environment; makes it unnecessary to participate; makes. . . No necessity at all to do anything about it because it’s all done—it’s all contained there in the solution. And then because, you see, there is no isness occurring on the environment, you get an accumulation of mass. See, mass only accumulates in the absence of itsa. So there goes the old shell game. So it’s actually a substitute itsa line.

Now, because of this, of course, it then is referred to every time one refers to anything. And when it is a below-2.0-on-the-Tone-Scale solution, it of course is propounding this—it’s propounding this very clearly, as aberrated as this sounds: To survive it is necessary to succumb. And that solution always propounds that, one way or the other, in some oblique, aberrated way.

Survival is made up of a numerous number of succumbs. How to survive: “Not to have any fun”—that’s a good way, see? “To cry all the time.” “To appear to be destitute.” See, obviously, see, I mean, to... These are all manifestations of nonsurvival, don’t you see? It’s necessary to manifest nonsurvival in order to survive. It’s always this kind of an oddball solution, see? You’ll get something like “not eat,” see? That’s a quite common, by the way, service facsimile; refusing to eat, not eating—common service facsimile. Little children will play this an awful lot of the time, and when it gets out of that realm and range and moves into adult life, why, you have diets. They usually don’t amount to a service facsimile, but when they do, you’ve really got a mess on your hands. It’s really a nice, big mess. And this must be terribly common because one of the major problems they have in insane asylums is making people eat. Not eating is one of the final protests—hunger strikes. Throw guys in jail, one of the first things they think of is go on a hunger strike—if they want to make a big protest, they go on a hunger strike. So there’s a very common service facsimile.

Some version of no sex—no second dynamic. I don’t care how you have it or how you phrase it. It’s got to be some no-second-dynamic one way or the other, see? It’s an incapacity on it; it’s an aberrated practice of it. It can go worse than that. How to survive, you see, is to murder children. How does that add up? Well, it adds up to the guy all right, you see?

And on the first dynamic, how to survive? Well, commit suicide, you see? In innumerable ways, you can commit suicide on many gradients, you see? “Be ugly,” you see? “Be overweight.” “Be too thin.” Be this, be that, be disabled, be something, be something. Doesn’t much matter what it is, you see? You might collide with that on the first dynamic.

On the third dynamic, “to be antisocial.” See, these are all sure methods of nonsurvival, don’t you see? And yet they are added up as a survival computation. “Shoot policemen.” Third-dynamic solution: how to survive shoot policemen. Simple, effective. And you say, “Yesh. But that couldn’t be a service facsimile in this lifetime, because this PC has never shot a policeman in this lifetime”—ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. Don’t make me laugh. This PC has always shot a policeman; every time they see a policeman they shoot a policeman.

“Robbing houses.” You say, “Well, robbing houses—this individual . . . This couldn’t be a service facsimile, because this person has never robbed a house.” Oh, well now, don’t be too sure. Never passes one but he doesn’t rob it—thinks about it and so forth.

Well, how does he use this service facsimile? Oh, he uses it via the newspapers. He always clips out robberies and shows people about robberies and that sort of thing. Figures out robberies; reads nothing but detective stories, see, and—robbery—robbing houses. That’s a good service facsimile. So, you see, it doesn’t even fit in with the guy’s environment. Therefore, it sometimes is rather hard to trace.

You get somebody who is in a death cell, you see, having already shot up innumerable policemen and so forth. Well, you know what his service facsimile is—you think. You say it’s obviously “shooting policemen.” You know, I’ll point something out to you: He’s shot policemen. Probably wasn’t his service facsimile at all. His service facsimile is probably “never loading guns” or—you know? Service facsimile is “being kind to everyone.”

See, the exact circumstance of the person doesn’t always guarantee you that you have your hands on the service facsimile. That’s what I’m trying to point out here. Because this thing goes underground. It’s not very visible, and they very often . . . The most effective service facsimiles are those which are totally hidden—until you’ve come anywhere in their vicinity and then they’re laid in your lap, see?

You don’t find service facsimiles above 2.0 on the Tone Scale. Now, it’d be completely silly, then, to add up the ARC of the lower Tone Scale, like “not communicated” or something like this, and say “Well, his service facsimile is ‘not communicated.”’ “How would not communicated make you right?” or “ . . . not having communicated make you right?” or “ . . . not communicating make you right?” and so forth,

Well, this is, I’m afraid, a little bit too general, see? You don’t use these buttons by their isolated selves because they are insufficiently directional, and the PC answers them too broadly. And all you do in such a case is restimulate the service facsimile without labeling it. Well let me give you—just dream one up here; don’t say it’s terribly workable: “Who or what would make themselves right by not communicating?” Something like this. Or “Tell me a means of not communicating,” and make a list and assess the list. Don’t you see? Some odd action of this particular character. Such a button, then, is useful for the location of a service facsimile, but is not in itself a service facsimile.

You eventually get, on this list, “hiding pencils.” And you say, “Well, this can’t be very damaging, but we will run it anyway.” Well, it’s not maybe very damaging; but you find out that the reason the PC has always looked so bulky is because they’re always carrying fifteen or twenty gross of pencils; can’t get into their room at night because of the crates of pencils, you know? Everybody in their vicinity misses pencils all the time. Never spotted him. This is loopy conduct of one kind or another. But sometimes it can look so ordinary to you—because this is this planet—that you sometimes don’t put your finger on an obvious service facsimile.

Let’s say it isn’t “being sick” but it’s “having chills.” “How would that make you right and make somebody else wrong?” or something like that, you see? Or “having a cold,” or something like this. That still could separate out into a service facsimile, don’t you see? But it might not be on and it might be on: it doesn’t matter.

See, I’ve given you a bunch of stuff that you may think, by this time, the service facsimile, again, is very hard to locate. No, it isn’t. I’m just giving you she idea that you’ve got to look for it. You’ve got to prowl around. After this character has given you something that might be it, make a “represent” on it. Be quite frank with the PC. Don’t pussyfoot on this thing. There’s been too much pussyfooting about already.

Say, “We’s looking fo’ you’ service facsimile. What is it, boy?” You know, subtle.

“What do you think your service facsimile is?” Do a list. Pull the missed withholds and null that list—good reliable method. PC [will] withhold it perhaps, and then just the fact that you put it down on pulling the missed withhold—and all of a sudden he dives into the water, swims right over to the middle of the lake, dives right into the middle of the whirlpool and says “There we are. Uhhhhhh! What am I doing here?” Interest! Attraction! So forth.

Because, of course, it’s not a volitional solution. That is to say, he doesn’t think up this solution all the time. It’s a sub-awareness solution which goes into automatic action. It’s that buried. He’s right on the verge of it all the time, he’s in direct connection with it all the time, so you just lay down the faintest link to it and he can’t help but travel that link, don’t you see?

That’s one of the reasons, you say, that neurosis and psychosis are very, very difficult to maintain. All you practically have to do is spot them and they start blowing up. It’s very hard to dramatize the exact reason for them.

Why anybody would go through heroic actions to explode a psychosis or neurosis, or electric-shock people or go into brain treatment, just because the person is jumping about the floor and screaming or refusing to eat or doing something like this, and so on—that’s not a good enough reason. That doesn’t mean that the psychosis or neurosis is violent, you see? That only means that it produces violent reactions. See, it doesn’t mean that it is violent at all. Maybe this girl, insane, is jumping about the floor because she doesn’t like cockroaches. And that’s the logical explanation of the thing, and people fail to note that this is true because there are no cockroaches there. But she’s seeing cockroaches, you see?

So you might have something on this order (this becomes very elementary): You say, “What really might be worrying you all the time?” You make a little list. And she jumps about the floor and hangs from the chandelier and rolls up in a ball and so forth, but she’ll talk to you and she gives you, finally, a list. And you assess this list out according to interest: Which one is she really most interested in? And you’ll find out that it’s cockroaches. She’s very interested in these cockroaches that are all over the floor. And you’d say, “Well, how would seeing cockroaches make you right?” And that’s probably the end of her insanity. Why, she probably couldn’t maintain it from that point on. She wouldn’t be well; she wouldn’t be calmed down or anything like that. But she’s now going to have a hard time maintaining it because she’s got a connection to it. And the thing will discharge. See, it’s hard to do now. Now you got to get volitional about jumping around in the middle of the floor; now you got to mock up the cockroaches to put them on the floor, don’t you see? And she just can’t make it. And that charge, just that much charge, and it’s gone.

That, by the way, was practically the totality—the accidental fact there, is probably the totality of the Freudian recoveries—is contained right in that. It’s just that they would evaluate in some fashion or another, like you do with an ARC break, you see? And they’d happen every now and then to strike something that was a service fac, and the individual would think about it, and it would be impossible then to dramatize it. But not knowing the mechanics of it, it nevertheless would slightly discharge, don’t you see? And it’s all those false assignments that made their people sick, see? It was the assignments that weren’t service facs, and that sort of thing.

So you can learn from that just in passing. And don’t give a guy a bunch of phony service facs, see? Let him decide what it is, you see? Don’t ever foist one off on anybody. You’ll find that’s always a good part of the rules. If he says it isn’t it, it isn’t it, man. That’s it. That’s the rules. Customer is always right. Because frankly, if you’ve got it, he can’t stay out of it, see? Man, if you keep that little fact up your sleeve, why, you can afford to reject any quantity of them. You say, “All right, ‘beating dogs’ and so forth. You don’t think that is it. I had it on the list here. It read a little bit.”

“No, I don’t think that is . . Beating dogs, beating dogs, beating dog, beating dogs, beating dogs, and so on.... Beating dogs ...”

“Would it make you right in any way?”

“Nah. Would beating dogs make me right? Hm. Heh. No. No. No. Wouldn’t do much. Well, actually, could add it up—it could make me right to object to bad behavior on the conduct of dogs and make dogs wrong to indulge in bad behavior.” End of computation, see?

You’ll find every once in a while a PC will give you something like that. And then they’ll say, “Oh yes. Let’s see. How would it make me wrong? Now, let’s see. How would bad auditing make me right or bad auditing wouldn’t make me right—it’d make me wrong.” Of course, that’s the end of that. You pursue that no further, see?

But, “How would getting stuck in an engram make you right and make others wrong?”

“Wouldn’t do it.”

“Well, how would auditing make you right and make others wrong? you see? How would auditing make you right?”

“Well, it’d make me right if I got better and it’d make the auditor wrong if 1 didn’t.” End of computation.

Of course, that’s no service fac. Perfectly logical answer. There are no further answers behind it. No vast blast of the TA as it falls down; there’s nothing going on here particularly. So you don’t want to hang people with these things, because it’s too easy to find the right ones. And they abound, man.

This is one of the most interesting little treasure hunts you ever engaged upon, see? And you might as well get used to what it is and figure out what it is and put your own itsa line in on it, and so forth, because you’ll sure know what it is, then, see? You say, “Here it is, man. This guy has got this thing which is some kind of a horrendous solution of some kind or another, and it’s got all this charge backed up. And whenever I audit him with a Prepcheck, why, very little TA action or mass turns on with a Prepcheck—must be a service fac. This case not very easy to audit; has a fragile tone arm; tone arm gets stuck hard— another condition, you see?—must be a service fac, and so on. Can’t get this thing. Why?” Well, look-it—obviously, if all the discharge you’re going to get is a confusion running off in the form of charge—if the charge won’t run off, there must be a solution there which p events the charge from running off. And that’s all there is to it. He’s got it solved. He doesn’t have to look around: Back’s bad and his head’s bad and his ribs are bad and he can’t sleep at night and he’s got ulcers and so forth; but he doesn’t have to inspect this. See?

Say, “Well . . .” You start running this down, you’ll find out, well—do this little list or something like that, or however you’re going to run it into, or do past data, moving in toward this thing—you find out he sleeps on the floor. Doesn’t sleep in bed—has a bed but he sleeps on the floor.

Well, I’d try that on for size and just say, “Well, is there any possibility you do that because it would make you right?”

Now, you’re going to get one of two reactions: “Pprffff. Well, it would make the landlady wrong, because she doesn’t change the sheets very often, and so I sleep on the floor, see?” Or, the other reaction, which is the one you’re looking for, see, is “Well, sleeping on the floor make you right? Oh, yes, yes. As a matter of fact, it would, so on. And a long time ago when I was in—when I was in . . . in boarding school, you know, we used to have these bed—big high beds and so forth, and could pull you out on the floor and ma ---. But that isn’t the real reason why this thing was. You see, I kept sleeping on the floor. Actually, you get more fresh air, and so forth, and uh . . .”

Well now, look, don’t be a complete knuckle head as an auditor and try to go through some more action, see? You’re just using auditing actions to cut the itsa line. You got one running, man. Just sit back and let it run. Now, do the easy thing, see? All you got to do is sit back and let it run.

The only trouble you’ll get into is sometimes the PC starts running backtrack on it in a hurry, and then you should start getting nervous. So if you can get in an auditing question on the thing, why, slide “in this lifetime” or something like that on the front of the auditing question, providing you have asked an auditing question. If you haven’t, why, try to get it in at the next question—if you get a chance to ask the nest question. Got the idea? You might not get a chance to ask the question at all. It may run all the way out and he’s now ready for the other side, see?

Now, the main thing that you gain from all this and the main thing you gather from all this is tone arm action. You’ve got the mass flowing that kept the PC from getting tone arm action. And that’s your interest in it. You’re not interested in his social conduct. You’re interested in his auditing conduct. Where old medical psychiatry went adrift, we needn’t go adrift. They become so fixated on the subject of “r-r-r-right conduct,” without even being able to define what it is (except maybe a slaver when the bell rings), that these birds are always adjudicating everything on the subject of conduct. Insanity is a brand of conduct. Neurosis is a brand of conduct—conduct, conduct.

Well, the unfortunate part of it is—the unfortunate part of it is—that it doesn’t catalog, it doesn’t classify. You can’t do that, see? Because it just renders everybody open to the charge of being neurotic or psychotic. just everybody, wide open—which is one of the more interesting factors, and then they can use this politically, don’t you see? And then anybody they don’t want around, they merely say some of his conduct is aberrated and they can throw him in the local spin bin and chop his brains up for hamburger. I don’t know what they eat.

The point I’m making here is that’s highly dangerous—highly dangerous—saying a person is insane or sane when your sole basis of adjudication, you see, is conduct.

So this doesn’t always meet the eye. Some of the most roaring insanity’s on this planet are classified as sane behavior, see?

Now, in actual fact, you’re measuring up not a person who is in agreement with this planet but you’re measuring up a person who has lived a very long time. So whatever is the service fac is the service fac, don’t you see? It’s not because he does something peculiar, or not because he does something this, or . . . We have a list of things. I can tell you what it’s more likely to be than something else. But action that is peculiar is only peculiar, not compared to the mores of the society in which you find yourself but just compared to the datum of survival. See, just compare it directly to the datum of survival. And it’s always a contrasurvival action which is posing as a survival action.

Revolt. I don’t even know why you’d revolt against an earth government; they’re all convicts, see? You’re living in an area where there are no wardens, see’? Actually kind of silly to do anything particular in this particular direction because they’re nuttier than anybody else, don’t you see? They probably need their hands held twice as hard as anybody in the spin bin, you know? They don’t know what they’re doing.

So what is considered normal on this planet might at any one point be completely batty. So the service facsimile comes down to the comparison with the datum of actual survival and the fact that the PC is interested in it and that it releases tone arm action because it must be a fixed solution.

So actually, what you’re studying are fixed solutions uninspected by the person, which are contrasurvival. Now, when you hit all of those, man, you’ve hit the jackpot.

In any case which has a fragile tone arm which is liable to stick at the drop of an E-Meter cord, see—bang! like that—you’re looking at a service facsimile. You must be. There must be a fixed solution. Why? Because there’s no charge runs by it. So if no charge runs by it, it must be a fixed solution, and it gets in the road of auditing, so it must be contrasurvival. Actually, it could be a fixed survival solution which really was a survival solution, and you’d find it wouldn’t even vaguely influence auditing.

See, you’d go out and audit the guy and you get tone arm action, and he’d go on flying and he’s got these fixed solutions all over the place. He’s practically nothing but a bundle of fixed solutions. You’re trying to find the black spot in the middle of the ball of yarn, see? The black spot in the middle of a mountain of white spots. The mountain comes down if you find that spot. Fortunately for you, there are several gray spots in its immediate vicinity, any one of which can be hit and do the case some good. So it’s a constant prowl on this route. You handle one. All right. Fine. Is this case going to remain stable? Well, that’s very doubtful so let’s find two. Let’s find three. Let’s make sure we got it, see?

Now, your tone arm is flying around and your needle, by this time—the thing can’t stick. You find you find one, the case will tentatively resume its stuck-needle condition, momentarily resume it. Interesting. Can’t hold it, but it’s a drop, you know?

You haven’t got all of these now; you haven’t got all of them you want, and it’ll still be a little this way. And the next one you find—pshew-sss-sss-ssss-ssssew. It’s coming down. Needle, is getting so it can’t stand upright, because there’s nothing to hold it. Just the weight of the needle causes it to bang against the sides, you see” You actually have trouble reading your tone arm, as you’re winning on these, when you are really hitting center. You’re having trouble with that tone arm because you can’t find out where to center it.

Your needle is not as nice as it was before. It’s too floppy. You’re having a trouble centering it. And you just about get it centered and it moves, see? And you just about get it centered, it flops over the other way. Your tone arm reading gets very, very inaccurate as this really starts to bite. You can’t quite keep it properly centered. It’s moving too fast, too. PC just thinks a thought, see, and it goes clank! It’s gone. But, gee, how much charge went off there? Well, we don’t know. It’s because you’re bleeding, you see, a central reservoir of charge and it’s flowing in a Niagara.

Now, the other thing it does for you and the reason why this is very beneficial to the case completely aside from unblocking this—is a service facsimile is always protruded into present time, always protruded into present time. So any constant PTP that your PC has had will of course produce the service facsimile. And that is very good news for you. You can produce the service facsimile out of any PTP that has been constant and continual with the PC.

“What did you come into Scientology to resolve?” And he’ll give you a long series of this and that.

Now, it’s very, very dangerous to list too many problems on a PC. You list too many problems on a PC and you’re going to wind him up in a . . . bang. That’s dangerous. Call that to your attention. Listing problems—not so good, see, not so good. Bad show. Doing an incomplete list of problems will ARC break the PC. A complete list of problems is very often too long and is a bit dangerous to the PC’s needle and case condition.

So how do you find out the problems? Well, you have to take a step backwards before you take a step forwards. See, locating the problem that you’re trying to solve—you can’t let that run forever because that’s the exact opposite of an itsa line. It’s a whatsit line. See, a problem line is a whatsit line. And you can freeze your tone arm gorgeously with a whatsit line. So a whatsit list will freeze your tone arm, and so forth. So it had better be on the basis of a friendly discussion which you can leave in an awful hurry. And you recognize that you’re taking a step backwards with this case, making him whatsit, which is basically what’s bum with these assessments, and so forth.

“What was your chronic present time problems when you got into Scientology, and so forth? What were these things? What are these things you were trying to solve at that particular time?”

Now, if you hang up this case too badly, you can take that little list and ask for a solution for each one of the problems he’s given you—if you’ve made a list—ask for some solutions for those problems, and you will take the tension off the tone arm. So there is a cure for this situation, but it’s rather a lengthy and involved cure. But you may have, sitting right there . . . The solution, you see, is not a problem; the solution is not a problem, but a few of these problems can be looked at as pointers to a possible solution.

He’s having trouble in a certain area. Now, your problem, once you’ve got any idea of his problems, is to put your finger on some solution with regard to that problem. Ant that solution will be the fixed solution which gives you the service facsimile.

Now, notice that R1C and R2C are designed to strip away solutions, decisions and stable data off the case—so-called stable data. Therefore, they are very, very easy to run and they produce tone arm action and are the least likely to hang up the tone arm. You start asking for whatsits, however, in R1C: “Well, you say you have had a . . . you—you’ve had the idea that all snakes were lived in the tops of houses, and so forth. Now what problem would that solve?”

Man, cut your throat! You’ve asked the reverse side of R1C and the tone arm is going to go up and stick. But notice that your R1C and R2C, these itsa-line questions and run, are designed to strip away charge from the service facsimile area.

Therefore, it is a very good thing to find out if the PC has been run on R1C and R2C. Of course, they won’t have discharged the service facsimile, but they may have some data there that they uncovered in looking at all this, which you might then sort out and get an idea, don’t you see? So you say, “While you were being run in the co-audit down there, what did you run into that you found very interesting while you were running your case? What did you really run into?”

“Well, I ran into this and that and the other thing and the other thing and the other thing,” and you make your little bit of list of these types of solutions and zones and areas and you’ve got yourself an assessment, see? Then run this thing down, and—with a little further discussion with the PC—and you’re liable to hit right on it just like that.

Funny part of it is that R3R is almost a dead-center pitch on a service facsimile, providing it winds up in a statable solution.

Now, “failing not to communicate with eating figs in Smyrna,” I don’t think you would find a good service facsimile. I call that to your attention. If it doesn’t make sense to you, it’s not likely to make sense to the PC So don’t go astray on this, because, after all, the preliminary step of R3R was designed to do an entirely different thing and it may be only a fragment of that and it won’t be the tone level you found, see? It won’t be that. It’ll be some fragment of it or a rewording of it.

Now, I funnily enough have found one on an incomplete R3R assessment that two stayed in on. The list had to be extended, don’t you see? And one of those was the service facsimile. I find that quite interesting. In other words, if we had completed the list to the final run, we wouldn’t have found the service facsimile, see, because it would have been buried back on the line a little bit, don’t you see?

Well, this tells you that it doesn’t really have to be a terribly good assessment—any kind of an assessment. You’ve run something like “failed to shoot” — “What have you failed to shoot?” or something like this, or “failed to have been with?” or something. And you get a list, get a list of this; go on down the line; assess the thing out. Well, even if your “failed to shoot” is kind of a lousy level, as long as it’s in, not because it’s been protested or was a mistake on your part, see’? PC has protested it, so it’s in, you know? That’s the corny way those assessments go astray.

PC didn’t understand it, didn’t know what it was. So it keeps reading, you know? If you don’t clear anything with the PC while you’re assessing the PC, you can expect that problem to come up on auditors that are green in your supervising sometimes.

That can be sort of corny and it’ll still produce something. And you’re doing yourself a list over alongside of this thing, and you didn’t even really get a chance to complete your list very well, and so on, but it went out, and you finally had a level stay in. It’s much more likely to be that level if the PC is interested in it. You get the idea. It’s the item—pardon me—it’s much more likely to be the item, you see, than it is the level, because the level is too broad. And just running it sets up the bank enough so that you can then do one with greater accuracy, because everything on that—as long as you just got something to stay in for fifteen strikes or something like that—you know, one of these arduous lists where everything is alive on the whole list. Everything is knocked out at one fell swoop because restimulation by reason of present time is always about 50 percent of the restimulation present on any case at any given moment, that has service facs, you see? It’s about 50 percent of the charge on the case.

You’ve only got, then, 50 percent, you see, that you can restimulate with safety because the tolerance for restimulation, you see, is lessened by 50 percent. All of a sudden this character will run like a startled gazelle if you can get this service facsimile out of the road, because your environmental restimulation has nothing to kick back on.

Now, we used to try to solve this by processing him faster than the environment can kick him in. Remember? You know? Process him twenty-five hours during the week, keep him away from home, and his wife won’t kick his head off, and when he goes back home he’ll stay stable. You know? That kind of thing. But we were just hoping we’d get the service facsimile before he went back home. You understand? So if you could reduce that factor out of the case, then all the gains the case made in session would stay. So there’s another bonus. See, the cases wouldn’t drop between sessions, see?

Now, the amount of attention which the PC has turned in on this service facsimile and the disabilities which accompany it, and so forth—the attention that he has on that—also keep him from looking at his bank. I could say that an expert handling of service facsimiles—this is just a wild guess—would probably raise the runability of the case about a hundred to one. You don’t actually know how easy a case would be to audit. See, if every case has some of this and it only becomes visible when some cases make it impossible to audit, see, well, how easy is a case to run? Well, we probably don’t know the answer to that question.

See, but we know some cases are impossible to run, and those are the ones we have attention on right now. So, you take care of those for me just now, will you please?

Thank you. Thank you.

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

15  NOVEMBER 1976
ISSUE VI
Remimeo
CANCELS BTB 4 JANUARY 1972RB
“0-IV EXPANDED GRADE 
PROCESSES - TRIPLES
PART F GRADE 3 PROCESSES”

( Revisisions in italics )

0-IV EXPANDED GRADE PROCESSES - QUADS 
PART F 
GRADE 4 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.

	R2-44 MUST AND MUST NOT HAPPEN
	(Ref:  Creation of Human Ability,  R2-25.)

“A preclear is stuck on the track where motionlessness occurs. Thus it is of interest in the case to undo these stuck points in the preclear.” LRH

F1.	“Tell  me some things another wouldn’t want  to have happen again to you.”
	“Tell  me some things another would want to have happen again to you.”
	To EP	_________

F2.	“Tell  me some things you wouldn’t want  to have happen again to another .”
	“Tell  me some things you would want  to have happen again to another.”
	To EP	_________

F3.	“Tell  me some things others wouldn’t want  to have happen again to others.”
	“Tell  me some things others would want  to have happen again to others.”
	To EP	_________

F0.	“Tell  me some things you wouldn’t want  to have happen again.”
	“Tell  me some things you would want to have happen again.”
	To EP	_________

	RISING SCALE PROCESSING
	(Ref:  Scientology 8-8008, chapter on Differenciation, Association and Identification)
	(Creation of Human Ability, R2-51)

Use the scale of the Chart of Attitudes as given here in the commands that follow the scale.

SURVIVE	RIGHT	FULLY RESPONSIBLE
DEAD	WRONG	NO RESPONSIBILITY

OWNS ALL	EVERYONE	ALWAYS
OWNS NOTHING	NOBODY	NEVER

MOTION SOURCE	TRUTH	FAITH
STOPPED	HALLUCINATION	DISTRUST

I KNOW	CAUSE	I AM
I KNOW NOT	EFFECT	I AM NOT

	The commands are:

1. 	“Get the idea of (bottom of scale. eg. dead.)”

2. 	“Do you have that idea?”

3. 	“All right. 

4.	“Now change that idea as nearly as you can to (top of scale. eg. survive).”

5. 	“OK. How close did you come?”

6. 	“Thank you.”

Run each pair separately; 1,2,3,4,5,6 - 1,2,3,4,5,6 etc, until pc has a certainty that he can maintain the upper scale idea and has an F/N, Cog, VGIs. Then go to the next pair. Each pair is run to EP.

	To EP	_________

	EFFORT PROCESSING
	(Ref:  Advanced Procedure and Axioms)
	(BTB 1 Dec 71 Iss IV  Effort Processing)

	Ask pc what physical disabilities he has; note them down with the reads each disability has when pc said it.

	Take largest reading disability first and run in the commands below:

	“Get the (disability) effort.”
	“Get the (disability) counter-effort.”

	These commands are run alternate-repetitively (effort, counter-effort, effort, counter-effort, etc.) until:

	(a)	the emotion concerning the disability is voiced by the pc.
	(b)	the consideration is voiced by the pc.
	The process is continued on the disability being run until both the emotion and consideration are voiced by the pc. This is the EP of the item being run. It is always accompanied by F/N and VGIs.

	Then take next largest reading disability and run to EP. All reading items are run.

	To EP	_________

	R2-66 ELECTING CAUSE
	(Ref:  Creation of Human Ability R2 - 66)

	“Point out some things which are causing things.”
	“Point out some more things which are causing things.”

	To EP	_________

	LEVEL FOUR QUAD
	(Ref: Tape 6309C05 SH Spec 303 Service Facsimile Assessment)
	(HCOB 1 Sep 63 R3SC)

F1.	List to BD F/N item:
	“In this lifetime what does another use to make you wrong?”

	Despite BD F/N on item, put it into brackets as below and run to EP.

	1.	“In this LT how would (Ser Fac) make another right?”
	2.	“In this LT how would (Ser Fac) make another wrong?”
	3.	“In this LT how would (Ser Fac) help another escape domination?”
	4.	“In this LT how would (Ser Fac) help another dominate you?”
	5.	“In this LT how would (Ser Fac) aid anothers survival?”
	6.	“In this LT how would (Ser Fac) hinder your survival?”
	
	To EP	_________

F2.	List to BD F/N item:
	“In this lifetime what do you use to make others wrong?”

	Despite BD F/N on item, put it into brackets as below and run to EP.

	1.	“In this LT how would (Ser Fac) make you right?”
	2.	“In this LT how would (Ser Fac) make others wrong?”
	3.	“In this LT how would (Ser Fac) help you escape domination?”
	4.	“In this LT how would (Ser Fac) help you dominate others?”
	5.	“In this LT how would (Ser Fac) aid your survival?”
	6.	“In this LT how would (Ser Fac) hinder the survival of others?”
	
	To EP	_________

F3.	List to BD F/N item:
	“In this lifetime what does another use to make others wrong?”

	Despite BD F/N on item, put it into brackets as below and run to EP.

	1.	“In this LT how would (Ser Fac) make another right?”
	2.	“In this LT how would (Ser Fac) make others wrong?”
	3.	“In this LT how would (Ser Fac) help another escape domination?”
	4.	“In this LT how would (Ser Fac) help another dominate others?”
	5.	“In this LT how would (Ser Fac) aid anothers survival?”
	6.	“In this LT how would (Ser Fac) hinder the survival of others?”
	To EP	_________

F0.	List to BD F/N item:
	“In this lifetime what do you use to make yourself wrong?”

	Despite BD F/N on item, put it into brackets as below and run to EP.

	1.	“In this LT how would (Ser Fac) make you right?”
	2.	“In this LT how would (Ser Fac) make something wrong?”
	3.	“In this LT how would (Ser Fac) help you escape domination?”
	4.	“In this LT how would (Ser Fac) help you dominate?”
	5.	“In this LT how would (Ser Fac) aid your survival?”
	6.	“In this LT how would (Ser Fac) hinder anothers survival?”
	
	To EP	_________

	NOTE:  From Tape 6309C05 SH Spec 303 Ser Fac Assessment:
	“That which doesn’t run on ‘Right-Wrong’ you prepcheck to EP.” LRH

	HAVINGNESS

F1.	“Tell me a flow another could get you to know something about?”

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F2.	“Tell me a flow you could get another to know something about?”

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F3.	“Tell me a flow others could get others to know something about?”

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F0.	“Tell me a flow you know something about?”

	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
BDCS:KU:DM:JE:JG:RS:MH:AL:lf	for the 
Copyright © 1972, 1974, 1976	BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
by L. Ron Hubbard	of the 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY