HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 6 JULY 1978
Renimeo
New Era Dianetics 
   Course
New Era Dianetics 
   Course Supers
New Era Dianetics
   Course Students

URGENT - CONTAINS NEW ERA DIANETICS DATA

HUBBARD NEW ERA DIANETICS
COURSE CHECKSHEET

NAME: 	ORG/MISSION

POST:	

DATE STARTED: 	DATE COMPLETED:	

PREREQUISITE: The Student Hat.

LENGTH OF COURSE: 4 weeks full time.

STUDY TECH: Full application of all Study Tech per the Student Hat must be used throughout this course.

PURPOSE: This checksheet offers for the first time the NEW ERA DIANETICS DATA. It trains the student in the skills and knowledge he needs in order to make a truly well and happy human being.

CERTIFICATE: The graduate of this course is awarded the certificate of HUBBARD NEW ERA DIANETICS AUDITOR (Provisional).

NOTE: Starrates and twin checkouts are not given on this course. The student attests, by signing his name across the checksheet items, that he fully understands and can apply the data. Drills are to be done fully to their result.

________

SECTION ONE

ORIENTATION &  BACKGROUND

A. 	ORIENTATION

1. 	HCO B 21 Jun 78	New Era Dianetics Series 1
		INTRODUCTION						
2. 	HCO PL 7 Feb 65	KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY 
		WORKING						
3. 	HCO PL 17 Jun 70R	TECHNICAL DEGRADES	
4. 	HCO PL 8 May 69 IV 	OUT TECH						
B. 	THE BASIC BOOKS

The following books are to be read at home before completion of the course if one has not done the Basic Dianetics Book Course or has not previously read the books.

1. 	Dianetics: 	Evolution of a Science						
2. 	Dianetics: 	The Original Thesis						
3. 	Dianetics: 	Modern Science of Mental Health						

C. 	DIANETICS BACKGROUND

1. 	HCO B 22 May 69 	DIANETICS, ITS BACKGROUND						
2. 	HCO B 24 Apr 69 	DIANETICS USE						
3. 	HCO B 22 Apr 69 	DIANETICS VS SCIENTOLOGY						
4. 	HCO B 24 Apr 69R II 	DIANETIC RESULTS						
5. 	HCO B 15 Jun 78	URGENT IMRORTANT						
6. 	HCO PL 14 Oct 68R	THE AUDITOR’S CODE						
7.	TAPES:
		16 May 63	The Time Track 						
		11 June 63 	Engram Chain Running						
		18 July 63	Errors in Time 						
		21 July 66 	Dianetic Auditing						
		29 July 66 	Dianetic Auditing and the Mind						

D. 	BASIC DEFINITIONS AND DATA

1. 	HCO B 23 Apr 69R 	DIANETICS BASIC DEFINITIONS						
2. 	DRILL: Write out three examples each of:
		a. Locks						
	b. Secondaries							c. Engrams						
3. 	CLAY DEMO:  Erasure.							
4. 	HCO B 15 May 63	THE TIME TRACK AND ENGRAM
		RUNNING BY CHAINS 
		BULLETIN 1						
5. 	DRILL: Take a roll of movie film or something like it and give a command and move the film. Do this until you have an understanding of how the auditor operates the pc’s time track.						
6. 	HCO B 8 Jun 63R 	THE TIME TRACK AND ENGRAM 
		RUNNING BY CHAINS BULLETIN 
		II						
7. 	CLAY DEMO: The definition of charge.						
8. 	HCO B 19 Jan 67 	MANIFESTATIONS OF ENGRAMS 
		AND SECONDARIES FURTHER 
		DEFINED						
9. 	HCO B 23 Apr 69 III 	PAST LIVES						
10.								
11.								
12.								

SECTION TWO

THE E-METER

A. 	E-METER DATA AND DRILLS

1. 	BOOK: The Book Introducing The E-Meter						
2. 	DRILL: Using The Book of E-Meter Drills:

	a)  EM 1 							n)  EM 14 						
	b)  EM 2 							o)  EM 15						
	c)  EM 3							p)  EM 16						
	d)  EM 4							q)  EM 17						
	e)  EM 5 							r)   EM 18						
	f)   EM 6 							s)  EM 19						
	g)  EM 7 							t)   EM 20						
	h)  EM 8							u)  EM 21						
	i)   EM 9							v)  EM 23 						
	j)   EM 10 							w) EM 24						
	k)  EM 11							x)  EM 26						
	l)   EM 12							y)  EM 27						
	m) EM 13 

3. 	HCO B 21 Jan 77RA 	FALSE TA CHECKLIST						
4. 	DRILL:  Checking for False TA, including corrective actions you would take as a Dianetic auditor.						
5. 	HCO B 21 Jul 78 	WHAT IS A FLOATING NEEDLES
6. 	HCO B 10 Dec 76R 	F/N AND TA POSITION
7. 	DEMO:  The correct procedure to deal with out of range F/Ns.						
8.								
9.								
10.								

SECTION THREE

TRAINING DRILLS
	
A. 	TRs DATA

1. 	HCO B 16 Aug 71R	TRAINING DRILLS RE-						
		MODERNIZED	
2. 	HCO B 24 May 68	COACHING						
3. 	HCO B 26 Apr 71 I 	TRs AND COGNITIONS						
4.								
5.								
6.								

B. 	TR DRILLS

1. DRILL:
	
	a)  OT TR0 							e)  TR 2 						
	b)  TR 0							f)  TR 21/2						
	c)  TR 0BB							g)  TR 3						
	d)  TR 1							h)  TR 4						

2.								
3.								
4.								

SECTION FOUR

OBJECTIVES

A. 	TECH DICTIONARY
1. 	Look up and define: Objective Processes						

B. 	HCO B 19 Mar 78	QUICKIE OBJECTIVES						

C. 	UPPER INDOC TRs

1. 	HCO B 7 May 68	UPPER INDOC TRs						
2. 	DRILL:

	a)  TR 6 							c)  TR 8 						
	b)  TR 7							d)  TR 9						

D. 	OBJECTIVE ARC

1. 	HCO B 19 Jun 78 	New Era Dianetico Series 3		
		OBJECTIVE ARC						
2. 	DRILL:  Objective ARC until you can do it confidently.						

E. 	CCHs

1. 	HCO B 1 Dec 65	CCHs (CCHs 1-4)						
2. 	HCO B 11 Jun 57	TRAINING AND CCH PROCESSES							Reins 12.5.72	(CCHs 5-10)
3. 	HCO B 2 Aug 62	CCH ANSWERS 						
4. 	HCO B 5 Apr 62	CCHs AUDITING ATTITUDE 						
5. 	HCO B 3 Feb 59	FLATTENING A PROCESS						
6. 	DRILL: (Listen to an LRH Demo Tape on CCHs before and while drilling CCHs. Drtll each CCH until you can run it confidently.)							

	a)  CCH 1 							f)  CCH 6 						
	b)  CCH 2							g)  CCH 7						
	c)  CCH 3							h)  CCH 8						
	d)  CCH 4							i)   CCH 9						
	e)  CCH 5							j)   CCH 9						

F. 	OP PRO BY DUP

1. 	HCO B 4 Feb 58 	OP PRO BY DUP						
2. 	B.T.B. 24 Oct 71R I 	OP PRO BY DUP - END
		PHENOMENA						
3. 	DRILL: Op Pro by Dup until you can run it smoothly.						
	
G. 	START-CHANGE-STOP

1. 	PAB 97 (Pg. 521 - Tech Volume II)						
2. 	DRILL:
	a. SCS on an Object until you can run it smoothly.							b. SCS on a Body until you can run it smoothly.						

H. 	SOP 8C

1. 	PAB 34 (Pg. 76 - Tech Volume II)						
2. 	DRILL: SOP 8C until you can run it confidently.								

SECTION FIVE
NEW ERA DIANETICS

A. 	NEW ERA DIANETICS FULL PC PROGRAM

1. 	HCO B 22 Jun 78	New Era Dianetics Series 2
		FULL PC PROGRAM OUTLINE						

B. 	ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT

1. 	HCO B 24 Jun 78	New Era Dianetics Series 5
		ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT SHEET						
2. 	HCO B 28 Jul 71R	New Era Dianetics Series 8
	Rev. 25.6.78	DIANETICS, BEGINNING A PC ON 					
3. 	DRILL: Fill out the complete Original Assessment Sheet. Show your coach the order in which you would handle items.						

C. 	HOW TO GET THE RUNNING ITEM

1. 	HCO B 18 Jun 78	New Era Dianetics Series 4
		ASSESSMENT AND HOW TO GET
		THE ITEM						
2. 	HCO B 11 Jul 78	New Era Dianetics Series 4-1
		THE PREASSESSMENT LIST							
D. 	THE DRUG RUNDOWN

1. 	HCO B 15 Jul 71R 	New Era Dianetics Series 9
	Issue III	DRUG HANDLING						
	Rev 27.6.78
2. 	HCO B 28 Aug 68 II 	DRUGS
3. 	HCO B 29 Aug 68 	DRUG DATA 						
	Corr & Reiss 10.6.75
4. 	HCO B 19 May 69R 	DRUG APED ALCOHOL CASES 
		PRIOR ASSESSING						
5. 	DEMO:  The theory behind Prior Assessment.						
6. 	HCO B 17 Oct 69R 	DRUGS, ASPIRIN AND 
		TRANQUILIZERS						
7. 	CLAY DEMO: The effects of drugs on Thetan, Mind and Body.						
8. 	DRILL: Handle the somatics connected to taking drugs, using 
	the Preassessment.							
9. 	DRILL: The full procedure of the DRD to an F/Ning Drug List.						
10. 	DRILL: The Prior Assessment to Drugs using the Preassessment.						

E. 	HANDLING REMAINING ITEMS - ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT SHEET

1. 	DRILL: Drill the remaining handlings on the Original Assessment 
	Sheet.							

F. 	RELIEF RUNDOWN

1. 	HCO B 3 Jul 78 	New Era Dianetics Series 10 
		RELIEF RUNDOWN						
2. 	DRILL: The Relief RD.							
3.								

G. 	STUDENT RESCUE INTENSIVE

1. 	HCO B 2 Jul 78 	New Era Dianetics Series 11 
		DIANETIC STUDENT RESCUE 
		INTENSIVE						
2. 	DRILL: The Dianetic Student Rescue Intensive. 						
3.								
4.								

H. 	FURTHER ASSESSMENT

1. 	HCO B 4 Jul 78	New Era Dianetics Series 12
		SECOND ORIGINAL 
		ASSESSMENT						
2. 	DRILL: Doing the Second Original Assessment Sheet including 
	R-factor to the pc.							
3.								
4.								

I. 	THE DIANETIC PREPARED ASSESSMENT RUNDOWN

1. 	HCO B 1 Jul 78 	New Era Dianetics Series 13
		THE DIANETIC PREPARED
		ASSESSMEWS RUNDOWN 
		ACTION 14 						
2. 	DEMO:  The benefits to the pc of having this rundown.						
3. 	DRILL:  The Dianetic Prepared Assessment RD.						
4.								
5.								

J. 	THE DISABILITY RUNDOWN

1. 	HCO B 20 Jun 78 	New Era Dianetics Series 14
		DISABILITY RUNDOWN						
2. 	DEMO:  The purpose of this rundown.						
3. 	DRILL:  The Disability Rundown.						
4.								
5.								

K. 	THE IDENTITY RUNDOWN

1.	HCO B 20 Jun 78	New Era Dianetics Series 15
		IDENTITY RUNDOWN						
2	CLAY DEMO: IDENTITY						
3.	DRILL: The Identity Rundown. 						
4.								
5.								

L.
	
1.	HCO B 23 Jun 78	New Era Dianetics Series 16
		PRECLEAR CHECKLIST						

M. 	R3RA

1. 	HCO B 21 Jun 78	New Era Dianetics Series 1
		INTRODUCTION						
2. 	HCO B 28 Jun 78	New Era Dianetics Series 7
		R3RA COMMANDS
3. 	HCO B 26 Jun 78	New Era Dianetics Series 6
		ROUTINE 3RA ENGRAM 
		RUNNING BY CHAINS						
4. 	HCO B 7 Jul 78	DIANETIC F/N8
5. 	HCO B 28 Apr 69	HIGH TA IN DIANETICS 						
6.	HCO B 14 Jul 78 II 	A TYPICAL NARRATIVE CHAIN						
7. 	HCO B 14 Jul 78 	A TYPICAL DIANETIC CHAIN						
8. 	HCO B 22 Jul 69 	IMPORTANT AUDITING SPEED						
9. 	DEMO: Auditing speed in relation to success in auditing. 						
10. 	HCO B 24 May 69 II 	DIANETIC HIGH CRIMES						
11.								
12.								

SECTION SIX

ASSESSMENT

A. 	ASSESSMENT DATA

1. 	HCO B 21 May 69	ASSESSMENT						
2. 	CLAY DEMO: What the whole subject of assessment means.						
3. 	HCO B 29 Apr 69 	ASSESSMENT AND INTEREST						
4. 	DEMO: What the E-Meter measures.						
5. 	HCO B 25 May 62 	E-METER INSTANT READS						
6. 	HCO B 28 Feb 71 	METERING READING ITEMS						
7. 	DEMO: The valid times of read.						
8. 	HCO B 18 Jun 78 	New Era Dianetics Series 4
		ASSESSMENT AND HOW TO GET
		THE ITEM (Review this issue)						
9. 	HCO B 14 Sep 71R 	DIANETIC LIST ERRORS						
10.	HCO B 20 Jul 78	New Era Dianetics Series 18
		AFTER THE FACT ITEMS						
11.	HCO B 19 Jul 78	New Era Dianetica Series 17
		DIANETIC PERSISTENT F/Ns						
12.								
13.								
14.								

B. 	PREASSESSMENT DRILLS

1. 	HCO B 22 Jul 78	ASSESSMENT TRs						
1a. 	HCO B 17 Jul 69RA 	NED COMMAND TRAINING 
		DRILLS						
2. 	DEMO: How the Preassessment is done.						
3. 	DRILL: a. TR 100							
		b. TR 100A							
4. 	DRILL: Drill each of the methods used in New Era Dianeties to 
	get items to run from the pc.
5.								
6.								
7.								

SECTION SEVEN

DIANETIC COMMAND DRILLS

A. 	DIANETIC COMMAND TRAINING DRILLS & DATA

1. 	HCO B 17 Jul 69RA 	NEW ERA DIANETICS COMMAND
		TRAINING DRILLS						
2. 	HCO 8 31 Mar 70 	URGENT - DIANETIC TR NOTES						
3. 	HCO B 7 Mar 75 	EXTERIORIZATION AND
		ENDING SESSION						
4. 	DRILL: Using New Era Dianetics Commands, drill the following. These drills are passed when the student can flawlessly handle the R3RA commands of the New Era Dianetics. Coach should ensure that the student can smoothly and correctly attain a full Dianetic EP. 
	a) TR 101							
	b) TR 102 							
	c) TR 103 							
	d) TR 104							
5.								
6.								
7.								

SECTION EIGHT

DIANETIC ASSISTS

A. 	BASIC ASSIST DATA 	(Students who have done an HQS Course need only review this section)

1. 	HCO B 5 Jul 71RA 	C/S Series 49RA
		ASSISTS						
2. 	B.T.B. 9 Oct 67R 	ASSISTS FOR INJURIES						
3. 	DEMO: A Contact Assist.						
4. 	B.T.B. 4 Apr 72R 	TOUCH ASSISTS CORRECT ONES						
5. 	DEMO: A correct Touch Assist.						
6. 	HCO B 2 Apr 69R 	DIANETIC ASSISTS						
	Rev. 14.5.69	
7. 	DRILL: A Contact Assist on a doll.						
8. 	DRILL: A Touch Assist on a doll.						
9. 								
10.								
11.								

B. 	PHYSICAL ILLNESS ACID DIANETIC ASSISTS

1. 	HCO B 22 Apr 69 II 	SOMATICS AND OTs						
2. 	HCO B 14 May 69 	SICKNESS						
3. 	HCO B 12 Mar 69 II 	PHYSICALLY ILL PCS AND 
		PRE-OTs						
4. 	DEMO: When you would send the pc for a medical examination.						
5. 	HCO B 15 Jul 70R 	UNRESOLVED PAINS 						
	Corr & Reiss 25.11.70
6. 	DEMO: The two reasons a pain might not resolve on Dianetics.						
7. 	DEMO: The steps of handling a seriously ill pc.						
8. 	HCO B 11 Jul 73RA 	ASSIST SUMMARY						
9. 	DRILL:  Define:	a) Predisposition 						
	b) Precipitation 						
	c) Prolongation						
 Use the Tech Dictionary.
10. 	CLAY DEMO: The full handling of a pc who has had an operation. accident or illness, showing the use and result of Touch Assists, Dianetic Assists and running of the somatics connected with the incident.						
11. 	DRILL: On a doll, drill a Dianetic Assist and the running of somatics connected with the incident, using New Era Dianetics Preassessment tech.							
12.								
13.								
14.								

SECTION NINE

DIANETIC REPAIR

A. 	DIANETIC REPAIR LIST AND DRILLS

1. 	HCO B 11 Apr 71RA 	L3RE						
2. 	TECH DICTIONARY: 
	a) Look up: Assessment, Methods Of 						
	b) Define: Method 3 Assessment 						
		Method 5 Assessment						
3. 	DEMO: Method 3 Assessment.						
4. 	DEMO: Method 5 Assessment.						
5. 	HCO B 3 Jul 71 	SCIENTOLOGY III AUDITING 
		BY LISTS REVISED						
6. 	DRILL: Assessing the L3RE, using correct assessment TRs, 
	to full familiarity with this list.						
7. 	DRILL: Drill handling of the L3RE items.						
8. 	DRILL: An L3RE Method 3.						
9. 	DRILL: An L3RE Method 5.						
10. 	HCO B 15 Oct 73RA 	NULLING AND F/Ning 
		PREPARED LISTS						
11. 	DEMO: What buttons are put in on an unreading list and why 
	these buttons.							
12. 	DEMO: Why an auditor must F/N what he starts, how he could 
	F/N something else, and what occurs with the un-F/Ned subject.						
13.								
14.									

SECTION TEN

DIANETIC REMEDIES

A. 	TWO DIANETIC REMEDIES

1. 	HCO B 24 Jul 78 	DIANETIC REMEDIES						
2. 	HCO B 16 Jan 75R 	PAST LIFE REMEDY						
3. 	DEMO: When these remedies would be used.						
4. 	DRILL: The Picture and Masses Remedy.						
5. 	DRILL: The Past Life Remedy.						
6. 	HCO B 23 May 69R 	AUDITING OUT SESSIONS,
		NARRATIVE VERSUS SOMATIC
		CHAINS						

STUDENT THEORY COMPLETION

A. 	STUDENT ATTEST
The following attest is to be signed off, point by point, before the student begins auditing New Era Dianetics.

If the student has any question or reservation about attesting to any of the points below, he should retread himself on that area.

Only when the student has acquired these skills without question will he or she achieve fine results in New Era Dianetics. 

I attest that:

a) 	I know and can fully apply the Study Tech given in the Student Hat.		

b) 	I have applied the Study Tech of the Student Hat fully while on this course.		

c) 	I have read the Basic Books of Dianetics (particularly DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH and DIANETICS: THE ORIGINAL THESIS) and I understand them. 		

d) 	I understand the E-Meter and know how to use it.		

e) 	I have acquired good TRs 0 to 9 by drilling each to its EP.			

f) 	I understand and can run Objective Processes.		

g) 	I have, without reservation, a good grasp of the materials of New Era Dianetics.		

h) 	I am able to correctly make and assess lists of Dianetic items as called for in the specific New Era Dianetics Rundowns.		

i) 	I as able to do TRs 101-104 flawlessly, using the commands of New Era Dianetics.		

j) 	I understand and can run Touch Assists, Contact Assists and Dianetic Assists.		

k) 	I can assess and handle a Dianetic Repair List and can do Dianetic repair actions.		

l) 	I am able to handle Dianetic remedies and all other actions called for in the New Era Dianetics Course or processing.		

B. 	CONDITIONAL: If the student has not completed M1 Word Clearing an examination is fully passed in Qual on the materials of this checksheet.

DIR VALIDITY:	DATE: _____________________

SECTION ELEVEN

A. 	AUDITING SECTION: PRACTICAL

The student is now eligible to practice audit NEW ERA DIANETICS QUAD.
NOTE: Dianetic processes and auditing are complete within themselves. However, the student must realize that there is a whole huge sector of processes and actions which are Scientology processes. These include Scientology Auditor Classes 0 to XII. 0 to IV are taught in Class IV Org Academies. An auditor must not and cannot be required by anyone to audit processes above his Class. The processes and skills taught in this New Era Dianetics Course are adequate to handle pcs at Dianetics level.

1. 	PRACTICAL:

	Deliver a Touch Assist in full with all steps end to a good result as attested by Exam Report.		

2. 	PRACTICAL:

	Deliver a Dianetic Assist in full with all steps and to a good result as attested by Exam Report.		

3. 	PRACTICAL:

	Receive a Touch Assist on an actual injury or somatic to a satisfactory conclusion.		

4 	PRACTICAL:

	Find and run a narrative incident per Action Nine to completely satisfactory Exam Report.		

5. 	PRACTICAL:

	Receive auditing on a narrative incident per Action Nine to completely satisfactory result.		

6. 	PRACTICAL:

	Deliver a fully assessed, properly run Dianetic R3RA QUAD chain erasure to a fully satisfactory Exam Report.		

7. 	PRACTICAL:

	Receive a fully assessed, properly run Dianetic R3RA QUAD chain erasure.		

8. 	Get any errors or mis-underatandings of applying Dianetics successfully, reviewed and corrected.		

9. 	PRACTICAL:

	Find a pc run formerly on Dianetics who has had errors made on him, and do an L3RE to completely satisfaetory result.		

10. 	PRACTICAL:		

	Find a complete stranger to Dianetics or Scientology and handle him to his satisfaction with Dianetics.		

STUDENT COURSE COMPLETION

A. 	STUDENT COMPLETION:

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

	STUDENT ATTEST: 	DATE:_____________________

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

SUPERVISOR ATTEST: 	DATE:_____________________

B. 	STUDENT ATTEST AT C & A

I attest: a) I have enrolled 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 and e) I can produce the result required in the materials of the course.

	STUDENT ATTEST: 	DATE:_____________________

	C & A: 	DATE:_____________________

C. 	STUDENT INFORMED BY QUAL SEC OR C & A:

I hereby attest that I have informed the student that:
	
1. 	Further data on the subject of Dianetics exists in DIANETICS TODAY and many HCOBs, not on this checksheet.

2. 	To make his provisional certificate permanent he will have to be interned within one year.

3. 	That the skills and techniques of unraveling the more difficult cases and spotting errors in auditing are available in the HUBBARD NEW ERA DIANETICS GRADUATE (Case Supervisor) COURSE, per HCO PL 11 July 1978.

	QUAL SEC OR C & A: 	DATE:_____________________

D. 	CERTS AND AWARDS:

	Certificate of HUBBARD NEW ERA DIUNETlCS AUDITOR (Provisional) issued.

	C & A: 	DATE:_____________________

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JUNE 1978

Remimeo
NEW ERA DIANETICS
SERIES I

New Era Dianetics is a summary and refinement of Dianetics based upon 30 years of experience in the application of the subject.

In that 30 years I have found much that could improve results if properly applied.

And in that 30 years, many issues have been written by others that were a bit altered and some materials have been lost. New Era Dianetics corrects these points.

Also, recently, I have done additional research and have come up with a few breakthroughs.

In 1950, I said we should build a better Bridge.

Well, in 1978, here is a better Dianetics section of the Bridge.

Old-timers in Dianetics will only approve these upgrades. There is no invalidation of what they know already to be true. But there are refinements about which they are jumping with joy.

New Era Dianetics is even more acceptable, even more workable.

I did this review to move Dianetics back into the “miracles as usual” band and the student studying it and the auditor practicing it will find that if he follows its precision drills with precision he will be able to handle life and the spirit as never before.

Of course I cannot claim or guarantee that anyone audited on Dianetics or New Era Dianetics will become cured of illnesses which would best be handled by immediate medical treatment and I cannot promise any pc that all of his undesirable conditions will be eradicated since that depends on the state of training and the accuracy of application by the student.

THE STUDENT

What does a student need to know and do to acquire the skill of a Dianetic auditor?

0. 	The student needs to have completed the Student Hat. He needs to be able to handle study tech. Without that, his misunderstood words will wipe him out. Study tech is contained in the Student Hat. The definitions are in the Tech and Admin dictionaries and standard dictionaries. The student must not go by a single word he does not know the definition of.

1. 	He should know the background of Dianetics as contained in several books on the subject, particularly the Original Thesis and Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.

2. 	He needs an E-Meter and must know how to handle it.

3. 	He should have good TRs as acquired in a TR course.

4. 	He should have a good grasp of Objective Processes, both to make him a better auditor, and to enable him to do full Drug Rundowns.

Objectives are actually Scientology processing but if a Dianetic auditor doesn’t know and cannot do them he is dependent on a Scientology auditor to finish up the Drug Rundown.

The training of a Dianetic auditor in Objectives is not as complete as a Scientology auditor’s. But it is sufficient to enable him to do those Objective Processes necessary to get a person off drugs or to get him in condition to run Dianetic processes.

5. 	He should have a good grasp of the materials of New Era Dianetics.

6. 	He should be able to make and assess lists of Dianetic items as called for in specific assessments of a preclear in order to complete rundowns and preclears.

7. 	He must be able to do TR 101 to 104 flawlessly. using the commands of New Era Dianetics.

8. 	He must know how to do Dianetic Assists.

9. 	He must be able to assess and handle a Dianetic Repair List and do repair actions.

10. 	He must be able to handle Dianetic remedies and all other actions called for in a complete Dianetic course or processing.

11. 	He needs to be able to apply what he knows.

If the student can acquire the above skills he will achieve fine results.

It does not require mile long checksheets to make a good Dianetic auditor.

It does require study and hard effective drilling.

And it requires a desire to help oneself and others and really make a better Bridge and a better world by putting it there in terms of faultless application.

Scientology goes on and is above Dianetics. But Dianetics is the solid base of all this research. So learn and apply it well.

LRH: ldv 	L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright © 1978 	Founder 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD  COMMUNICATIONS  OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 FEBRUARY 1965
REISSUED 15 JUNE 1970
Remimeo                                       (Corrected per Flag Issue 28.1.73)
Sthil Students
Assn/Org Sec Hat
HCO Sec Hat
Case Sup Hat
Ds of P Hat
Ds of T Hat
Staff Member Hat
Franchise
(issued May 1965)

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

ALL LEVELS

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

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

	The only thing now is getting the technology applied. 

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

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

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

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

Getting the correct technology applied consists of: 

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

Three: Knowing it is correct. 

Four: Teaching correctly the correct technology. 

Five: Applying the technology. 

Six: Seeing that the technology is correctly applied. 

Seven: Hammering out of existence incorrect technology. 

Eight: Knocking out incorrect applications.

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

Ten: Closing the door on incorrect application. 

One above has been done. 

Two has been achieved by many. 

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

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

Five is consistently accomplished daily. 

Six is achieved by instructors and supervisors consistently. 

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

Eight is not worked on hard enough. 

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

Ten is seldom done with enough ferocity. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	Here’s an example: A rave recommendation is given a graduating student “because he gets more TA on pcs than any other student on the course!” Figures of 435 TA divisions a session are reported. “Of course his model session is poor but it’s just knack he has” is also included in the recommendation. A careful review is undertake because nobody at levels O to IV is going to get that much TA on pcs. It is found that this student was never taught to read an E-Meter dial! And no instructor observed his handling of a meter and it was not discovered that he “overcompensated” nervously swinging the TA 2 or 3 divisions beyond where it needed to go to place the needle at “set”. So everyone was about to throw away standard processes and model session because this one student “got such remarkable TA”. They only read the reports and listened to the brags and never looked at this student. The pcs in actual fact were making slightly less than average gain, impeded by a rough model session and misworded processes. Thus, what was making the pcs win (actual Scientology) was hidden under a lot of departures and errors. 

	I recall one student who was squirreling on an Academy course and running a lot of off-beat whole track on other students after course hours. The academy students were in a state of electrification on all these new experiences and weren’t quickly brought under control and the student himself never was given the works on Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten so they stuck. Subsequently, this student prevented another squirrel from being straightened out and his wife died of cancer resulting from physical abuse. A hard, tough instructor at that moment could have salvaged two squirrels and saved the life of a girl. But no, students had a right to do whatever they pleased. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	Do them and we’ll win.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 17 JUNE 1970

Remimeo
Applies to all
SHs and	URGENT AND
Academies	IMPORTANT
Franchises

TECHNICAL DEGRADES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. 	Failing to use all processes for a level.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HUBBARD  COMMUNICATIONS  OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 8 MAY 1969
(Revised and Reissued 18 July 1970)
Student Hat
Remimeo
ALL STUDENTS
ALL COURSES

OUT TECH

	If at any time a supervisor or other person in an org gives you interpretations of HCOBs, Policy Letters or tells you “That’s old. Read it but disregard it, “that’s just background data”, or gives you a chit for following HCOBs or tapes or alters tech on you or personally cancels HCOBs or Policy Letters without being able to show you an HCOB or Policy Letter that cancels it, YOU MUST REPORT THE MATTER COMPLETE WITH NAMES AND ANY WITNESSES ON DIRECT LINES TO THE INTERNATIONAL ETHICS OFFICER AT WORLDWIDE. IF THIS IS NOT IMMEDIATELY HANDLED, REPORT IN THE SAME WAY TO YOUR NEAREST SEA ORG MAA. 

	The only ways you can fail to get results on a pc are: 

	1. 	Not study your HCOBs and my books and tapes. 

	2. 	Not apply what you studied. 

	3. 	Follow “advice” contrary to what you find on HCOBs and Tapes. 

	4. 	Fail to obtain the HCOBs, books and tapes needed. 

	There is no hidden data line. 

	All of Dianetics and Scientology works. Some of it works faster. 

	The only real error auditors made over the years was to fail to stop a process the moment they saw a floating needle. 

	Recently the felony has been compounded by disclosure of the facts that data and tapes have been deleted from checksheets, data has been “relegated to background” and grades have not been in use fully to complete end phenomena as per the Process column on the Classification and Gradation Chart. This caused an almost complete unmock of the subject and its use. I am counting on you to see it is not allowed to happen EVER AGAIN. 

	Any supervisor or executive who interprets, alters or cancels tech is liable to the assignment of a Condition of Enemy. All the data is in HCOBs or Policy Letters or on tape. 

	Failures to make this mimeo known to every student carries a $10 fine for every student from which it is withheld. 
                             
	L. RON HUBBARD                         
	Founder
LRH:BW:rs
Copyright © 1967, 1970
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 MAY 1969
Remimeo
Dian Checksheet
DIANETICS
ITS BACKGROUND

The world before Dianetics had never known a precision mental science.

Man has used mental knowledge in the past mainly for control, politics and propaganda.

The word “psychology” in the popular usage is synonymous with “getting around” somebody.

In the thousands of years before 1950 there were many philosophers and much knowledge was gathered in the field of logic, mathematics, electronics and the material sciences.

However, due to ideologies and political conflicts, little of this prior knowledge was ever applied to the field of the human mind.

The scientific idea of regarding as a truth only that which could be demonstrated with a result was never really applied to the mind.

“Researchers” in this field were not fully trained in mathematics, the scientific method or logic. They were interested mainly in their own private ideas and in political Targets.

As an example, the only “schools” of psychology taught or followed in the West were Russian and East German.

The primary school was that of Ivan Petrovitch Pavlov (1849—1936) a veterinarian. Every school child and university student was required to study Pavlov in one disguise or another. The burden of Pavlov’s work is that man is an animal and only works through “conditioning”. The Western nations overlooked the fact that this work had already destroyed several countries including Czarist Russia, that Stalin had made Pavlov write up his work in the Kremlin in 1928 in order to permit the control of men. Using the mental studies of an enemy is a very dangerous thing to do.

The West at that time was run by only the “very best people” and possibly it pleased them greatly to think that the masses they controlled were only animals after all. That this also made them animals did not occur to them.

Billions of dollars were appropriated by parliaments and congress to subsidize men to “better control” their animals.

These men had no idea of healing anyone or helping anyone. Riots and civil disorder were the only product they achieved.

Dianetics was released straight into the teeth of these heavily subsidized Barons of the Mind with their “it takes 12 years to make a psychiatrist” and “authority states” and “any effort to interrupt this monopoly must be stamped out at once”.

Psychology and psychiatry were state (government) subjects, pushed by the “very best people”.
They could not make their way on their own because they were contrary to the public morals and customs. The public actually wanted nothing to do with them.

In mental institutions torture, permanent damage and death were the order of the day, on the basis that it did not matter if one killed people as they were just animals anyway.

So the public was on the side of Dianetics (and later Scientology) and the governments were on the side of the “very best people”.

Press, controlled by governments and intelligence services and the “very best people”, lied endlessly about Dianetics (and Scientology).

Dianetics, a new valid mental science, was pitted against Russian and Eastern European teachings.

Dianetics is not only the first mental science developed in the West, it is the first mental science on the planet that uniformly produces beneficial results.

Man is being subjected to fantastic and violent efforts to lure or crush him into docility. This is the obvious end product of Russian and Eastern European technologies now heavily financed and supported, unwittingly, by Western governments.

Man’s response to this is riots and civil disorder in the universities, unions and streets. Man does not accurately trace the source of his oppression. He is violently worried.

The government response has been more millions to psychologists and psychiatrists to develop new means of control and oppression. What has not worked in the past is not likely to work in the present or the future.

Czarist Russia, the entire Balkans, Poland, Germany and many more Eastern European countries have already perished trying to use the work of Pavlov, Wundt and others. The entire West, having “bought” the same governing ideas, is now in turmoil and is perishing in its turn.

Dianetics refuses to be a revolutionary activity. It does not have to be. All it has as a mission is to get itself applied.

The basic building block of a society is the individual. From individuals groups are built. And this is the society. No society is better than its basic building blocks.

Men are not animals.

Well men are sane men.

Dianetics, if applied to individuals in the society, brings hope, well and sane beings.

These well and sane beings, sent on to Scientology, then become brilliant and very able beings.

We are evolving Man to a higher state.

In this state he can better handle his problems.

We are not trying to overthrow anyone. We are not revolting against anyone. In truth we can even make the fancied “very best people” into actual very best people.

Dianetics was first conceived in 1930 and the developments of 39 years have gone into producing Standard Dianetics.

Dianetics: The Original Thesis was published in 1949 in manuscript form. It was copied in various ways, hand to hand across the world. Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science was published in late 1949. Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health was published May 9, 1950 and has since sold millions of copies.

In the early ‘50s new discoveries concerning the spirit brought us into Scientology.

But Dianetics was never lost sight of and every little while I would push it further ahead toward a fast, easy, 100% workability.

The present release of Standard Dianetics is a near final product.

If done exactly, it produces good, permanent results in only a few hours of auditing.

One can train a Dianetic auditor in Standard Dianetics in from 10 days to a month at the most, with an average of about 2 weeks.

These are very, very worthwhile advances and Standard Dianetics is almost as great a breakthrough in 1969 as the Original Thesis in 1949. Hundreds of thousands of hours of search and research have gone into it.

Dianetics has progressed from the pre-Dianetic period of no science of the mind, to the existence of a real science of the mind, to a fast accurate science simpler than any other scientific subject and of more value to Man.

All this advance has been very hardly won, without government billions, in the teeth of avalanches of lies and opposition.

The subject owes no allegiance to anyone but itself. It has no commitments to anyone. It has no politics. It belongs to those who use it.

It is the only game in the universe where everyone wins.

Let’s keep it that way.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 APRIL 1969 
Remimeo 
Dn Checksheet 
Class VIIIs, etc

DIANETIC USE

Why Dianetics fell out of use had nothing to do with its workability. It has worked and well since 1950.

In some areas, mainly the US, it was illegal to heal or cure anything. There was even a law in California giving 25 illnesses that were against the law to cure. The “Better” Business Bureau in the US even issues pamphlets that state that “You can always tell a fake healer because he says he can cure something”.

Why a civilization would make it illegal to cure illness can only be explained by some vested interest making more money out of people being sick than getting people well.

There existed a continual threat to anyone who helped their fellows.

The ability of Scientology to bring about spiritual freedom therefore received the concentration of effort by organisations.

Lately public opinion has turned heavily against these suppressive groups and the public discovery that illegal seizure, torture and murder was the hidden activity of political psychiatric groups has lost these people their support.

It was overlooked that spiritual healing of the body has not been illegal and that Dianetics used for pastoral counseling is completely legal.

It is a sobering thought that the only effective technology of psychosomatic healing—Dianetics—could be suppressed out of full usage.

One is handling the effect of the spirit on the body. Therefore even Dianetics is spiritual healing and as such is far from illegal.

Man should not be kept ill just to let a few have a monopoly.

In almost all other countries than the US there is no restriction on healing despite monopolistic efforts to make one.

Another reason Dianetics was for some time out of use was that it was believed it had been superseded by Scientology which it never was in fact. Dianetics can be done with no reference whatever to Scientology or its techniques.

People who have given up through illness are also prone to want to leave. Instead of confronting their illness it is easier to try to get away from it. Thus such people are in a hurry to be free and prefer Scientology. But if they have a sick body, it is a present time problem and inhibits attaining the spiritual freedom they seek.

The correct procedure is to make them well wherever possible with medical treatment and to handle their psychosomatic illnesses with Dianetics and then, before any further abuses by life can occur, to raise their ability and secure their freedom with Scientology. This is the correct use of Dianetics. It is the remedy for psychosomatic illness.

The basic use of Dianetics is to make a well body and to augment physical treatment.

Any injurious experience can be erased by Dianetics. It is very easy to use and if one wants people well and happy it should be used at every occasion.

A person has an operation. This should be followed soon after by the erasure of the engram of the experience by R-3-R and the usual Dianetic auditor actions. The healing time will be greatly speeded and often healing will occur where a relapse might have followed.

A woman has a child. The engram of delivery should be run out soon after. The result of doing so is very spectacular. There is no “postpartum psychosis” or dislike of the child and no permanent injury to the mother. It is in fact best to audit the mother both before and after the delivery, which gives one fast relatively painless childbirth and quick recovery.

Recovery from disease under treatment is speeded by Dianetic auditing.

Where the incident of the break is, with any chain, run out, a broken limb will heal (by X-ray evidence) in two instead of six weeks.

Some patients who are not responding to medical treatment who are then given as little as a touch assist will then be found responsive to the medical treatment. An auditor giving the person a Dianetic session will more or less ensure that the medical treatment will now work.

A person who is accident prone when audited usually loses this unwanted characteristic.

Many “insane” recover from their symptoms when given proper medical treatment, rest, no harassment and then good mild Dianetic processing. They become and remain normal people without relapse.

Chronic, which is to say, long-term illnesses cease when audited by Dianetics and then medical treatment, which was earlier ineffective.

Whole classes of “mentally retarded” children have been made more normal by teachers in London County Council schools using relatively unskilled Dianetics.

Tiredness, unwanted sensations, bizarre pains and aches, bad hearing or sight also routinely respond to Dianetic processing.

The sickness and death rate of persons who are part of Dianetic groups is only a small fraction of that of other groups.

Pilots audited with Dianetics, by a test involving a whole squadron, went without a single even minor accident for the following year.

Scientists audited with Dianetics have greatly improved intelligence. Dianetics raises IQ as a side product to usual auditing, at a rate of about one point of IQ per hour of processing.

Withered limbs, skin blotches and rashes and even blindness and deafness have all responded to Dianetics.

Possibly the point which counted most against Dianetics in the early attacks on it was that it did a vast array of things. The truth was, it actually did them. When you have the answer to the human mind as in Dianetics of course anything caused by the mind can be remedied.

It is very much easier to train a Dianetic auditor than a Scientology auditor. It requires only about a month to make a Dianetic auditor who is sufficiently conversant with the subject to get results. This too was used against Dianetics as the psychiatrist of that day claimed he himself needed twelve years of study to do psychiatry. Of course when the public found out that the product of these twelve years of study was killing the “insane” and increasing their number the argument became silly.

The spectacular personal gains which were available in Scientology were so great they tended to obscure the very real use and value of Dianetics.

Further, a Scientology executive trained and processed beyond the need of body help tended to forget that much of the public out there first had to be helped out of their physical misery before they could attempt anything like personal gain.

You use Dianetics much the way you would use any remedy.

When a fellow is burned you audit out the burn.

When a woman loses a loved one you audit out the loss.

When a young man can’t finish his schooling you audit out his unhappy school experiences.

Dianetics is for USE. There is not a lot of admin about it. It isn’t something you use after bowing down three times to Chicago. You just USE it.

A Dianetic auditor who sees someone sick and who doesn’t get him treatment and then audit him is just not humane.

Woman going to have a baby—get out the meter and audit her into shape for it. When she’s had it, run out the delivery.

Fellow burns his hand, break out the meter.

Dianetics is the answer to human suffering. USE it.

Ideas build up to halt the use of Dianetics such as “once you have a floating needle on engrams you don’t run them any more—-”. That’s silly. An F/N on a chain can be called the end of that chain. But not of Dianetics on the case.

I am not trying to make anyone wrong by reintroducing the real use of Dianetics. I myself had not realized how separate and vital it was as a technology until recently. I was engaged for many years researching and completing Scientology. I had not noticed and had not said that Dianetics must be preserved and used in all cases of psychosomatic illness or in physical suffering.

Yet, during all this time when I had to handle illness, I did not use Scientology. I used good old Dianetics.

Now I have refined it and made a better statement of it and made it easier to use and I trust it will be used for what it was intended and that Scientology grades will be relieved of the burden of attempting to heal physical illness, a use for which it was never designed.

Scientology is a vital practice in itself. It places a person above any further illness or suffering. But he has to be made well first.

People will ask, “Deafness? Now what special process is needed in curing deafness ......?”

This is one of the modern refinements of Dianetics. One runs whatever is assessed for the preclear. He doesn’t decide to cure somebody of deafness. He handles the illness that reads. Maybe it will be deafness.

You have one single procedure covering all cases and that is R-3-R and the steps of HCOB 16 Apr 69. You audit what reads when assessed. The whole of the person’s complaints, if you just keep on going with HCOB 16 Apr 69, should eventually vanish.

Having gotten the pc well by medical care and Dianetic auditing, then start out with Scientology. If he gets sick again before many grades, revert to Dianetics, handle it and then when he is well, resume Scientology where you left off.

Never run a Scientology grade to make a pc well or cure something. It’s a misapplication.

By using Dianetics as readily as you use shoes you can make and keep people well. You don’t worry about overruns, rudiments or anything else. You just use R-3-R even to correct ARC Breaks and PTPs and bad auditing.

By then correctly using Scientology we can make the person a far better being.

We now have STANDARD DIANETICS.

We have developed Scientology STANDARD TECH.

Both are now valid as themselves.

They do not cross.

Dianetics for the body.

Scientology for the spirit.

USE BOTH.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH :jp.aa 
Copyright © 1969 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 APRIL 1969
Remimeo
Class VIIIs
Dian Auditors
Tech Secs	DIANETICS vs SCIENTOLOGY
Qual Secs
Dian Checksheet	

Dianetics is Dianetics and Scientology is Scientology.

They are separate subjects. They have in common certain tools like the E-Meter, TRs and auditor presence. But there it ends.

Dianetics addresses the body. Scientology addresses the thetan.  While a thetan can produce illness, it is the body that is ill.

Thus Dianetics is used to knock out and erase illnesses, unwanted sensations, misemotion, somatics, pain, etc. Scientology and its grades are never used for such things.

Scientology is used to increase spiritual freedom, intelligence, ability, to produce immortality.

To mix the two has been a very bad error.

Dianetics came before Scientology. It disposed of body illness and the difficulties a thetan was having with his body. This was a Present Time Problem to the thetan. In the presence of a PTP no case gain results (an old discovery).

When a thetan has body discomfort or upset solved, he could then go on with what he really wanted which were the improvements to be found in Scientology.

Mixing the two practices in any way produced and will produce no real case gain. Scientology grades will only occasionally get rid of body ills and Dianetics will not achieve real spiritual freedom.

Used within their own areas they both each one separately achieves that for which it was intended. Dianetics can make a well body, Scientology can make a recovered thetan.

So you don’t use Scientology remedies or Scientology Case Supervisor procedures to run Dianetic sessions. High Tone Arm, ARC Breaks, etc are not even considered in Dianetic Auditing.

Dianetics was researched in 1932, ‘38, ‘45, ‘48, ‘49, ‘50, ‘51, ‘52 to name the principal early years. It was redeveloped in 1962 and ‘63 when I made R-3-R discoveries and re-released. And it was finally realized as per this HCOB in 1969 after further research.

I found that Dianetics had been forgotten for a dozen years and was being given a light brush-off as a course and that auditors and pcs were trying to use Scientology grades to handle body ills such as headaches, chronic somatics and so on.

Man’s usual PTP is his body. So if one gave him gold ornaments he’d try to use them to cure his aches and pains.

Thus Dianetics was forgotten and unused and Scientology was being made to attempt cures. Thus they were, both subjects, busily being made to fail to some degree.

Dianetics as it now exists is so simple, so elementary and so broadly applicable to the body that it requires a real effort to complicate it or make it unworking.  Keep the two separate in both application and use.

Recognize them as two entirely distinct and separate subjects with widely different uses.

LRH:jc.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 24 APRIL 1969
Issue II
Dn Checksheet 
Qual Secs 	
Tech Secs	DIANETIC RESULTS

Every once in a while you get a Scientology result while running Dianetics. Also, sometimes you get a Dianetic result while auditing Scientology.

This tends to keep the two distinctly different subjects confused with each other.

A preclear, after Dianetic auditing, tells the Examiner he is exterior and feeling fantastically bright. This is a Scientology result.

Sometimes a Scientology preclear after attaining a grade will state that it has healed his terror stomach. This is a Dianetic result.

There is nothing whatever wrong with this except that it gives an auditor an invitation to confuse the subjects and think they are the same.

The clue is CONSISTENCY.

Dianetics only rarely exteriorises a preclear.

Scientology only occasionally handles a terror stomach. In fact a person whose terror stomach wasn’t handled by Dianetics and its R3R can go all the way to OT VI sometimes with it. He doesn’t get rid of the terror stomach and he doesn’t (since he had a present time problem all the way) make OT VI either.

If it is a body pain, sensation, somatic, illness, disability, the subject to use is Dianetics.

If it is a gain in ability and beingness that is the purpose, the subject to use is Scientology.

After many years of handling cases this emerged as a very factual fact. Dianetics is Dianetics, Scientology is Scientology. If you mix them they attain limited results.

This is so true that when you use all the prohibitives and Never Nevers of Scientology in doing Dianetics, Dianetics also fails.

See these two subjects as clearly separate. They each have their own Case Supervision orders. You don’t use Scientology Case Supervision orders in case supervising Dianetics. And you don’t use the Dianetic rules on Scientology.

One addresses the body, the other the thetan. They both go by their own rules.

There is also STANDARD DIANETICS as rigidly taught and adhered to, so Dianetics is not sloppy Scientology either.

Dianetic results are a well body and a being happy with it.

Scientology results are a free, powerful and immortal being.

They can and do achieve their proper end results but only when used properly, separately and as themselves.

LRH:ja.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 15 JUNE 1978

Remimeo
URGENT IMPORTANT

The key to Expanded Dianetics is:

1. 	Incomplete or misdone Objectives.

2. 	Incomplete or misdone Drug Rundown including Sweat Program.

3. 	Incomplete or misdone Dianetics.

When these are not done, incomplete or misdone, one does not have any real chance of getting down to the basic evil purposes of the case and will at best run off locks and so the case won’t recover or will relapse.

LRH:nc	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1978	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

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

THE AUDITOR’S CODE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Auditor:__________________________

Date: ____________________________

Witness:	Place: ___________________________

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

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

The Time Track

A lecture given on
16 May 1963

Thank you.

This is what?

Audience: 16th May.

Huh?

Audience: 16 May.

16 May? 16 May, A.D. 13. Thank you. I’ve got to get some back flow, you know? Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, lecture on the subject of: as it develops.

Well, I’ve been scouting around and trying to keep a quarter of an inch ahead of you, and that’s difficult. But you pretty well got this taped. It’s very funny, you know, sometimes we develop a big piece of technology or something of the sort, and all the record of the development is there and there’s no summation. I very often never make a summation at the time it becomes passé, see? It’s Superseded in the course of development by a new development, don’t you see? And therefore, concentration and economy of research time—if we had both the time and the resources of, oh, I don’t know, the Stamp Salvage Collection Department of the Bureau of Infernal Ravening of the U.S. government—if we just had that appropriation, you see, we might be able to do it a little more broadly. But it’s always up to me to make a summation.

And it was with great astonishment that I found out that we had never made a summation of engram running! Of all of the key things to leave a summation missing on! There were tremendous things learned about engram running over a long period of time, and it was never summated. And I was quite interested last night. Before session I was trying to get a start on a bulletin which summated engram running, and I was quite interested how easily it was summated. There’s no wonder you’re a bit confused about engram running, because it changed over a period of many years, there were many types of engram running, there were many things done at one time in engram running which were found unnecessary in other times. Various mechanics and improvements came and went. And out of all of this, actually, a very simple method of engram running exists.

There’s not many laws of engram running. I’m not going to give this lecture on the subject of how simple it is to run an engram, because the summation of it is a very precise activity. I’m going down the line and giving the various terms and laws and so forth. And one of the things I discovered on the thing that I think you’ll find very interesting, is we have never changed a basic tenet of auditing.
 
That is, you’ve never successfully audited anything but the time track. There is nothing to audit but the time track. And there is no grand key to the release of things but the time track. And it is a time track.

Probably people think of engrams as something stowed in the PC’s wits like cordwood, you know? They’re just stowed there, and then there’s over in this department, you see, in this file cabinet, there’s a big bunch of stuff over there. There’s some round cylinders of some kind or another; those are valences. Then down in the basement someplace else, why, we have something else stowed there —machinery. And then locks. Locks: that belongs to an entirely separate division; has nothing to do with anything. And secondaries: well, they’re sort of stowed out in the woodshed. You know? And they’re pieces and bits of things. They’re not related, and so forth.
Actually, they’re simply different phenomena of the time track. And in trying to summate the thing, I made that little discovery. And it seems to be terribly elementary, but it might serve to orient you pretty well on what you are doing. It is a time track. It is the continuous record of time of the individual since the first moment he began to experience, straight on through till now; an uninterrupted, 3-D, fifty-two perception movie. And things happen to that movie, and it gets grouped and becomes unavailable to the PC. Becomes unavailable to the PC for various reasons: his inability to confront and the fact that the track itself can get grouped. Like you took a can of motion-picture film and it’s all stretched out there, and so you just start taking it and crumpling it up in your hand in big wads, and so forth. And various things can happen to this consecutive record of experience—various things happen to it. And all that auditing ever does is straighten it out and make it available and as-is it. I think that gives you a simplification of outlook.

I was quite surprised. I was sitting there and suddenly it dawned on me I could make a very simple statement of exactly what we were auditing, what all these things were. As you go along on this track, you get a moment of pain and unconsciousness. All right, that’s just another record. It’s consecutive with the next moment, which is perhaps not of pain and unconsciousness.

Chains, they don’t exist in separate slots and compartments, they’re just sections of the film which happen to be interrelated. A guy is hit over the head with a hammer, therefore every incident of being hit over the head with a hammer makes a chain that is a related series of experiences. And they interrelate in the association of the individual and actually tend to pull this time track down on top of one another. So you’ve got a whole group—a grouper there, so the track actually gets looped at this point. And then you’ve got the basic time the individual was hit over the head with a hammer, you’ve got the basic time the individual hit somebody over the head with a hammer, and then you’ve got all the times that he saw a hammer, see, or thought somebody was going to get hit with a hammer, or something like that. Those constitute the locks, and they pack down on top of this thing, see?

You eventually get a solid wad there that looks like a piece of black God-’elpus. There it is, and the PC of course does not have that experience available. So when the experience becomes unavailable to him, it has a command value over him. He does not know what it is, and when he comes near it, it has a tendency to operate as a command level, and—a hammer is telling him what to do, in other words.

And there’s only two classes of things involved in this time track—only two classes of things—and one is, you might call, the mechanical things, which is matter, energy, space and time, see, and their interrelationships and so forth, see? There’s the matter, energy, space and time which is this track, you see? And then there’s the significance. So the time track is basically composed of matter, energy, space, time and thought, and that’s all the time track is composed of.

Now, people who can’t confront any part of their track, and the reason the psychologist can’t even deal with this thing at all . . . I’m not berating the psychologist We’d train him if we could. We’ll have to one of these days. He has a bad record with us. We don’t just have a bad record with him; he has a very bad record with us. He can’t learn, and he goes off into wild departures and so forth. We’ve had quite sincere psychologists studying at the Academies. I mean, it’s not just a brush-off.

And one of those blokes that I know of over in the States, I don’t know, I think he was there for about six months and he hadn’t finished the Comm Course. That’s right! First week. He was terribly interested—terribly interested. He went away and I’m sure it did him some good. We couldn’t make a Scientologist out of him, and we just sort of dusted it off and forgot about it. Too hard to do. Too many good people around that you could make Scientologists out of, you know, you could train how to audit. There was no real point in breaking our necks with this.

Well, this actually doesn’t establish any rancor on my part at all. If a bunch of psychologists and so forth wanted to be set up with a training course, I would put them through a training course. But I would just make sure that it was commensurate with our experience with psychologists, which is to say, a ten-year course, something like this. I wouldn’t miss! I wouldn’t miss. They’d be happy, we’d be happy and everything would be happy.

I’d just as soon process a psychiatrist, process a psychologist, it’s all the same. But remember that this bird did not make discoveries of the time track or this particular area, the very woof and warp of which the mind is made, simply because he conceives it all to consist of only thought. See, his confront is down to a point where he thinks the brain contains thought.

Now this is kind of silly. It’s like walking down the street and saying there’s nothing on this street but opinions. The street is all full of opinions, and if you just get all these opinions on this street, you’re all set. Whereas it is no opinion that is pushing the PC’s face in. It’s somebody’s fist. Well, maybe the fist might have been pushed, you see, on the time track because of somebody’s opinion, but the fact of the matter is it’s not an opinion that’s pushing his face in, it’s a fist.

The time track, therefore—I’m just making this point here very strongly because you’ll come up against it—is not imaginary. It should not be treated as an imaginary thing.

Is a deck of cards imaginary? No. What is real? Well, what is real has mass and weight and so forth, and so does a time track. You’re into vague, philosophic mutterings when you start saying “What is reality?” What is reality? Oh, my! Boy, you could put on your long white robe and walk all over Greece from one end to the other, making a good living almost in any century by just continuing to ask this question in a somewhat deliberative frame of mind, you know? “What is reality?” You know? If you put enough schmaltz in it, you know, you would have had it.

Well, we have a pretty good idea of what reality is, but it does not really form too much of our technology—descriptions of reality. And we take the shortcut to it and we say reality is what is—you know, what is. Then we shortcut the idea of, well, is it because we’re thinking it is or is it because we’re not thinking it is? You know, just bypass all that garbage pail full of reasons not to look at reality. Just recognize that it’s a not-confront. However it got here, it is! See, it just is. Do more philosophers out of a living, this sort of a direct approach. I mean, you can’t make a living saying, “Reality is.”

Well, you say, “Yes, yes. But, who made it?” Well, that’s not germane. See, the point we’re interested in, immediately, is where we are and what we are looking at. You see, that’s the main point.

Now, the secondary point is where did it come from, and a tertiary point is what’s going to happen to it? But these are all not main points. The main point is we’re here and we’re looking at it, see? And what we are here before and looking at, Scientologically (just to cut the Gordian knot), is. See, it just is. There isn’t any discussion, then, of whether the PC is imagining that he is looking at a brick wall or is he looking at a brick wall? Well, it is. You see? Now, what is it the product of? Well, in the physical universe a brick wall is the product of a bricklayer, a brickmaker, the economics of the society—let’s take it back step by step—a clay bank, which is part of the planet, which was made and put here. And then we get to a divergence of opinion: Was it put here religiously or by the Galactic Construction Company? You see? This is the . . . But that’s actually all the importance it has. It is here. Well, what put it here?

Well, we have another peculiarity as we go along. There are some peculiar things which make a Scientologist a Scientologist. And you all fall into this category. You probably don’t think of these things very much, but you know that what is, is (as far as you’re concerned), and where it came from is a slightly different question, and that you don’t necessarily have to go into these fantastic ramifications, you see? And we also sort of amongst ourselves have agreed that nothing is holy. By which I mean, nothing is proof against being inquired into. That’s a very healthy state of mind, man! Because that does not Q-and-A with the unavailability of sections of the time track, don’t you see?

When people have said, “Well, there are certain things you mustn’t inquire into,” they’re just doing a Q and A on the unavailability of existence or isness. See, they’ve just done a Q and A with it.

Now, recognizing all those things, we see then that the time track has remained undiscovered, undescribed, forms absolutely no part whatsoever of modern mental studies, forms no part of the materials of psychiatry, and so forth.

Now, we must ask why. And it’s because the thing has tricks of unavailability, and the beings who are working in this field do not have a confront sufficient to look past that unavailability. So you have to be just a little bit tougher to be a Scientologist, and that’s the way it is. These guys weren’t quite tough enough. They took something—the time track—consisting of matter, energy, space and time and thought, and said it was all thought. And this of course leaves everything inexplicable. See?

People think they are living in a house.

Well, the bird who is saying this: “These people think they live in a house! Therefore, they are utterly mad because there is no house!”

And then people have gone around and made him feel the walls, you know, and said, “Look, there is a house here, you know?”

“Oh, no, no, there’s no house.”

Do you recognize that’s the lockout as far as this research line has gone? Now, what’s the reason for that? Well, the time track has a great many tricks by which it becomes unavailable. The first of these tricks is that “there is nothing in a mind but thought.” And recognize that, as that is a trick of debarment. If there’s nothing in the mind but thought, anybody who says he’s looking at a brick building (in the mind), of course, isn’t looking at a brick building; it must therefore be imaginary; so therefore he is living in the field of illusion or delusion; so therefore he must be slightly mad.

Now, this line of thought is very productive for appropriations, because I think sixteen billion dollars has just been appropriated in the United States with which to erect some experimental stations (by which they mean, by the way —research and development sections—that means they’re going to train some attendants there). That’s what they mean by this, that’s all. I’ve read the bills, actually That’s not just a crack; that’s what they mean by it.

It’s all on this basis: swell, insane people must be mad because they say they are seeing things.” Well, of course, this compounds the insanity Because then the person who is supposed to be treating the insanity says, “No, you are not seeing these things,” so he makes the track less available.

So the direction of sanity lies in the capability, the capability, of confronting the time track and the present-time environment. And for any individual, for any one individual, existence consists of the physical-universe present time—the physical-universe present time and everything that is in it at this exact, precise, present-time instant—and the time track, which consists of everything that has been. And that is the total isness as far as this thing called reality is concerned. See?

Now, you can speculate on what the time track has been, by reason of the state it’s in now, but that actually is not an isness, you see? What condition is it in? Furthermore, you go around England, you’ll see mounds of dirt, furrows on a hillside. You’ll see mounds of mossy, overgrown whatnot. You look a little bit closer and you’ll see that it’s some old fortification. Could be a Roman camp or a medieval castle that has long since gone to dust and the socialists, you see? And there it is.

Well, it’s a lot of fun, see? It’s a lot of fun to add some significance to this thing, you know, and say, “What has it been?” See? But that is not its isness. Now, it’s perfectly all right to stand. As a matter of fact, it’s a wonderful game to stand and look at this pile of stone and say, “What has it been?” I know I’ve done some of the most learned, marvelous—absolutely astonished myself by the brilliance with which I could reconstruct out of a single mound of stone the tremendous civilization which went before, you see? And the power of the fellows who erected it, and so forth. I remember one particular time I was so overwhelmed by my own brilliance and learnedness in this particular direction that I hardly heard the farmer at all when he said, “Well, yes, that’s the silo we built last year. It fell down.”

Now, that is a suppositional reality, see? Tremendously subject to error, but not outlawed for that reason. But recognize its isness, which is just suppositional isness. It’s the isness of suppositional isness.

Now, every once in a while on the track you’ve met some fellow in a conical hat who was saying, “Abracadabra, hocus-pocus, if you just gaze into the pot here, I will tell you the future!” Oh, that’s great. That’s great. Quite a game in itself. It’s probably a lot of complexities. But it’s suppositional; all futures are suppositional. The odd part of it is that if they’re suppositional enough they come true.

I remember with some shame telling a fortune at a party to some people. I used to tell lots of fortunes. It’s very funny, you know? You look at somebody’s facsimiles This is very funny, you know? And you pull a wise face, you know, and you take a look at the facsimiles and say, “I see you living in a house which is very close to a railroad track, you see, and there’s some tall trees there—some very tall, slender trees—and it’s right there at the corner of the roads. And let me see now, let me see, now, don . . . don . . . don’t . . . don’t interrupt me. It’s . . . uh . . . Acacia Manor. Yes. I see you living at this house.”

“Well, that’s fantastic! We just went out to look at such a house, today. In fact, we’re going to buy it.”

Of course, the character wasn’t going to buy it till you said he was going to live in it, you know? And as a party trick, one time, I told a couple I saw them both being unfaithful and separating—you know, just dealing the cards out—and they both obediently did. And I felt very ashamed of myself.

The future is always enforceable from altitude and authority, and so forth. You get somebody like Toynbee. He can predict the future, he says, you know? He’s got some formula that nobody knows but Toynbee, and he can predict some sort of a future out into the future, and he can tell by that, that this, that and the other thing is going to happen. Of course, he’s actually found a trick method of making a postulate stick, you see? He’s making a postulate stick by saying “That is the way it is going to be, because I can read the future.”

See, that’s just a trick method of making a postulate stick. But it doesn’t escape the fact that it’s a suppositional reality.

So if you break existence down into isness and potential isness, you can probably break down this potential into several categories, and you could probably make quite an interesting German graph out of this thing, you know? You could extrapolate it out, cover the whole wall before you got through. And you could break this down into numbers, types, categories, subclasses, and then subclasses of subclasses, and then subclasses of subclasses of subclasses of subclasses. Pretty soon nobody would know what you’re talking about. So I prefer to leave it at that, you see? There’s isness and there’s suppositional isness.

Now, the time track often gives people the feeling that the “was” can return. And they think if they run back just a few hours, years, millennia down the track, they will once more find themselves standing up at the Battle of Bennington and getting their head shot off or something of the sort, see? And this makes them very nervous about going back.

Well, I one time saw a line of redcoats and a line of militia standing up, exchanging shells, and for about, oh, I don’t know, it must have been the space of a minute or so, they were total 3-D, in a much greater reality than the physical universe had had to me recently, you see? I mean, man, that was solid! That was solid, you know? And I expected these guys . . . And for a moment, I thought I had returned back down the time track, on the physical universe time track, and found it all there yesterday, don’t you see? I didn’t realize I was going down my own time track. And, good heavens, man! You could smell the mildew in the wigs, you know? And it was all marvelous. And you know, I was all ready to duck from the next volley. Probably it’s there so solidly because I didn’t duck from the next volley.

But next thing you know, just looking at it, the isness of it turned out to be what it was, which was simply the isness of my own time track. And at that moment it fitted itself into perspective. It was an exaggeratedly solid piece of my own time track. More solid and more real because of the awareness jammed into the moment of time, don’t you see, and otherwise.

Now, you could mock yourself up futures and so forth. You can do all sorts of things but, again, what you’re mocking up is suppositional.

Now, there’s one more class that you have to take something of a look at; it’s “what is created.” And it’s this whole business of creating that really tends to rock people because, you see, it’s half real and half suppositional. And it’s the borderline between the two.
 
Now, it almost depends on the person who says he is going to create something. When somebody says he’s going to build a building—you know this fellow does build buildings and so forth—well, then it’s very close to reality, his statement that he is going to build a building. See, it’s quite close to reality, because you know he [once] built a building In fact, you can already see the cornerstone —you know, that sort of thing That’s a good reality.

And some guy down in the loony bin, why, he says he’s going to plant ten thousand acres of forest, you see? Well, that’s hardly even a suppositional reality. You know darn well he’s never even going to look at a tree, much less plant a forest. So you know that thing is never going to exist. And it won’t ever exist.

And so this matter of suppositional reality and creation come together. But remember that a creation is just a suppositional reality until the moment it is created At the moment it is crested, for whatever period it may endure, it is. See? So it is an isness; anything created is an isness for whatever period it endures.

Now, all of this is quite pristine pure, from whether it is good for people, bad for people, nice to do, not nice to do or anything else. These again are adjudication’s of what is. And that’s the opinion of what is, but that’s part of the thought of reality.

Now, thought is not separate from reality. Thought is woven solidly into reality and thought is part of the isness of reality. For instance, BBC-ITV down here—finally beginning dimly to learn their lessons on programming. And they’ve conducted, I think it was, a ten-million dollar—pound—test. They went to vast expense to find out who viewed television and what programs they liked. They went into great expense: They built a small studio, they bought a television set (I imagine even paid for it), and hired some children and bought some candy and comic books, and got some furniture and put it in there, and then drilled some spyholes in the wall and turned on canned programs, you see, so the children could watch the programs or talk to each other or eat the candy or read the comic books. And they very carefully noted—I think, oh, probably two or three thousand pounds of the appropriation must have been just paper to carry the notes of the reactions of the children at various points of the programs, and so forth. And they finally learned—the final lesson was (and this is why they’re going to continue it: they’ve learned something)—they learned that little children do not like to look at older children’s programs and that older children do not like to look at little children’s programs. And so it was pretty brilliant. And that’s why they take your favorite program off every Saturday night, you see, and throw it away. See, they’ve got a long way to go. They’ve got a long way to go.

Police pull this trick all the time. Around Washington one time, we were doing Union Station—this walk-about process—and we’re going down to the airport, and so forth, and run it on airplanes and all that sort of thing. We were doing this for quite a while. We found out at the end of about a week that the “Federal Boys Institute” and the Narcotics Division, Interstate Commerce and so forth, detectives, had been hanging back in the wings and behind sofas and chairs, in back of pillars—squadrons of these fellows, you know, had just been haunting every Scientologist and his preclear, and so forth. And at the end of the week, why, they finally grabbed one, and they had already determined that they were not a new airline that was smuggling dope. I don’t know how they determined that. I guess they saw they didn’t have any airplanes in their pockets or something.

It never occurred to them to ask anybody. This is the point I’m making, you see? It never occurred to them to establish an isness on a situation, or to ask anybody, because they couldn’t, for some reason or other, view the thought in the isness. See? So they’re way up around the bend. They can’t even view the thought in the isness. So don’t think that it just goes to a point where people can only view the thought in the isness; you can get further than that, where people can’t even view the thought in the isness, you see, and can’t even ask for what thought there is in the isness.

Now, there are certain opinions abroad in the world today with which we may or may not agree, but they happen to be part of the isness of this world. Now, whether they could be changed, that again is not part of the isness. They are. These thoughts are.

Now, the iron monger who weaves this sign with the curlicues, and so forth, has had a thought when he wove that set of curlicues on this sign, you see? He had a thought when he did it. And you get back and you take a look at this, and you’re actually looking at iron set in space, you’re perceiving it by energy reflected, don’t you see, and there is a time that you’re looking at it in, you see, and you look at it for a certain period of time—and all of this isness goes together. But most people overlook the fact the curlicues are the curlicues, are in actual fact an expression of thought which is part of the physical universe. So there’s a great deal of thought woven into the physical universe that is part of its isness. Doesn’t have to be written up “go here,” “go there,” “this is a bear.” But certainly, either the bear making himself a bear, or somebody else making a bear, is expressing the thought of a bear. So he’s using matter, energy, space and time to express “the thought of . . .” So that thought is expressed by the formation of matter, energy, space and time, and if we look this over, we’ll see that the thought is an integral part of nearly all physical-universe put-together. To some degree—to some degree—thought is a part of the physical universe, and it’s part of its isness.

So we say the physical universe, then, consists of matter, energy, space, time and thought. And the time track consists of matter, energy, space, time and thought. And just as your broadest classifications, you have now made the simplest statement that can be made concerning a time track or the physical universe. That is the simplest statement that can be made.

Now, we can complicate it; we can complicate it tremendously. We can get the suppositional isnesses, we can get the befores and afters, you see, we can get the purposes, you see, the additive utilities, and of all things, the aesthetics.

Now, we really go mad when we get into aesthetics, you see? But the devil whispered, “Is it art?” you see? That devil is always standing alongside the shoulder of every artist or anybody engaged in an artistic pursuit. You see, the little girl doing her sampler, see, and so on, saying, “I think that looks nice. That really looks nice. And I’m going to make it so-and-so, and it’s going to look nice.” And she gets to looking at it: “Yeah, but is it artistic?” you know? “Is it art?”

You see the concert pianist beating his fingertips off at the concert, and you very often are utterly astonished afterwards to find out that he does not consider that his is art. He could do much better or he has done much better or he will do much better. But is he doing better right now? Well, you seldom find that he is ever doing better right now. He’s always on some suppositional kick.

Well, the degree that an individual is on a suppositional kick measures directly his confrontingness, his ability to confront. The amount of suppositional isness that is added to actual isness measures directly the individual’s ability to confront .

Now, that’s a very involved and complicated statement, because it’s almost too broad to embrace. This fellow goes down and he takes a look at this watercolor—doves at the art gallery—he takes a look at this watercolor and he says, “He should have . . .” Well, that “should have” has measured the amount of non-confront he is doing of the watercolor. See? It’s quite interesting.

Therefore, you get into this in the area of critical, and you speak of people as being high-criticals “This fellow has a high critical,” you say, you know? A very critical PC. Common term amongst auditors: critical PC. Well, it’s the degree that he is into suppositional and not into isness that is critical. He’s not confronting to the degree that he is critical.

Now, from being a very esoteric statement, that becomes a very, very interesting auditing tool if you look at it just in its bare-boned fashion. A PC goes, “ You -yow-yow-yow-yow-yow-you-yow-yow-ya-yow-yow-yow” Wow. It’s obvious whether he’s doing it misemotionally: “Now, I suppose,” he will say, you see, “but if it . . . Oh, I—ho-ho, hmmm . . .”

You say, “What’s happening?”

“Well, it sort of looks here that it might have been . . .” (that’s quite acceptable—all these things are quite acceptable and quite ordinary in auditing) “. . . but, it sort of looks here . . . I . . . there’s . . . I don’t know. There’s some kind of a wreck out here. I think there has been a wreck.” It’s quite ordinary to have him then find out that it’s not even an airplane in front of him, but a building. See, he has given you the suppositional, see? He hasn’t given you the isness of it. Well now, the time track straightens out and erases in direct ratio to the amount of isness confronted by the PC. And that’s how sane and capable somebody gets. It’s measured directly by that: the amount of isness the individual is capable of confronting.

And he’s having as hard a time as he is moving from isness to suppositional. Now, in view of the fact that his track is in terrible condition, you have two things at work: You have the PC’s own feelings of incompetence, and you get the unrecognizableness of the track. And these two things come into combination to make a cat’s breakfast.

See, the PC is sure that if he confronts it something horrible is going to Happen. He’s sure of this. You know, so he “h-o-ul-eaahh,” you know, he “auheaeah-w-w!. I don’t know whether I want to be processed or not.” You see it in the extremity of “the PC doesn’t want to report for his session.” See, that’s merely an expression of he’s moved over into suppositional, to that great degree. See, he supposes that it’s not confrontable. He supposes that the auditor is not going to be able to do anything for it. He supposes the auditor won’t be able to handle it. He supposes this, he supposes that, you see? Well, all the time he’s supposing, he’s not confronting.

Nova, the PC’s come down scale and sort of given up on the idea of being able to confront very much anyhow over a long, long period of time. You can more or less measure this and call it state of morale because it’s quite volatile. It will shift with great rapidity.

A thetan’s state, you see, is actually not pinned mechanically by anything. It’s just where he is and what he is doing, don’t you see? It’s not really pinned mechanically by anything. You see, he’s not made less of a thetan or more of a thetan. But when you surround him as intimately as the time track with a tremendous amount of threat, suppositional unconfrontabilities, he is continuously enforced into a state of low morale. He doesn’t think he can do anything. As a matter of fact, he can’t! It’s part of the isness of the situation.

See, he knows what’ll happen. He’s surrounded by jack-in-the-boxes to a point where he’s touched this one time and it’s knocked him flat, and he’s touched that and it’s ruined something, and he’s touched something else and it’s blown him down. And his attention is still terribly fixed on something else, and he knows he mustn’t take his attention off of that. And then he knows also that if he doesn’t take his attention off of it he’s going to go to pieces, you see? And then he’s forgotten that he has his attention on it.

Aw, he’s in a frightful state. But you get his feeling of degradation—because of his capability, you see; what he feels it is—but then you’ve got the actual state of the bank, which is horrible! It looks like a bunch of mad theater managers have rushed in and grabbed all of the motion pictures that have ever been shown, you see, and mixed them up with a stick and set fire to them, see? And a thetan standing in the middle of this debris—you see, it hasn’t even got a bright flame left in it, you know? And there he is in the middle of this debris, and he knows that if he moves or sparks or does anything, something horrible will occur. And every bit of this has retained in full its command value over him.

Just the fact he’s standing in the middle of it is enough to depress him. But at the same time, it’s all the old tin cans he’s got. It has value. It’s all his knowingness; it’s his record files. He’s like somebody who has become totally dependent on the record department and then the record department has been bombed. He can’t even find out his own name, rank and serial number, don’t you see, without the record department.

Well, that dependency and the reason that came about is also included in the record department, so he can’t even find that, you see? It’s all there, and he’s gone into a terrible state with regard to all this: It’s booby trapped. It jumps apart. If he puts a beam on it, he sticks.

And he sort of feels funny because there’s a hand that vaguely shows out from underneath a black plate, and he doesn’t know whose hand it was; he doesn’t know where it’s from; he doesn’t know when it happened . . . but he knows he’d better keep an eye on it.

And we’ve used other methods to approach this problem of the time track. Amongst those other methods were exteriorization. “Try not to be three feet back of your head.” I don’t know how many taxi drivers went out of their heads and their cabs climbed the curb in New York when they pulled that gag over the air, you know? That was pulled over the air and it was done quite successfully. “Try not to be three feet back of your head”—over the radio.

And it’s all very well, and the odd part of it is the thetan is free. You’ll have some fantastic experiences, but you can get a synthetic state—a temporary, momentary state of a thetan which approximates his actual state if he didn’t have a bank—by exteriorization. I’ve exteriorised people, they’ve lost their stammer, their lumbosis, everything else. The only person I had trouble with when I exteriorised him, it didn’t cure his cough. And then we found out he was coughing. Didn’t have any chest to cough with, but there he was out there, fifty, sixty feet from the body, coughing.

But that state doesn’t last. It doesn’t last, because the individual is in a state of low morale at the time you do it. And even though you get him away from the bank, you’ve just taken somebody away from the central control office and made him leave all of his files behind. And he sort of thinks that those files can be straightened out, and he definitely knows that he must have them in order to know anything. And he goes along just so far, and then he’ll jump or get scared or something will happen, he’ll snap back into his head.

You can do this to an individual two or three times and then he won’t come out anymore. He’s very suspicious about it.
 
Everybody, however, can be made to exteriorize. But you’ve exteriorised them out of the bank to a marked degree, but of course the bank follows them. You can exteriorize somebody out of a body and then exteriorize him out of his bank. See just tell him to be three feet back  of the mass that he’s associated with “Be three feet back of your head All right, you’ve got a black mass there? Oh, all right, that’s fine. Be three feet back of the black mass.”

The individual gets a foretaste of what it is like not to be pushed in on all sides by these black masses and things see. But it’s a momentary foretaste, because he’ll take his attention off what he thinks he should hold his attention on; he’ll collapse back into the bank; the bank collapses back into the body and now he says he doesn’t want that experience again. Actually what it does is restimulate dying. This is more or less what he does at death. But he takes the bank with him at death.

Now the only possessions a thetan has consist of this bank. He really doesn’t own anything else at a moment of death on this planet due to the laws of inheritance and other mechanisms. Various times on the track a thetan has tried very hard to straighten this up—when you died, you didn’t lose everything see? And it has been more often true on the track that you didn’t lose everything than it has been that you did. So a thetan is actually conditioned into this. And he considers it a considerable deprivation. So he makes very sure he keeps that bank very close to him because it’s the only possession he knows he can hold on to. Yet it’s in a terrible state, and he doesn’t want it in that kind of state. It’s really no use to him, but he hopes it will be of use to him, and he couldn’t get away from it anyhow. .

Well, the approach of exteriorization is frankly a failure. You can do remarkable things exteriorizing people, but it is a failure. You better know something about exteriorization; it’ll always help out an old buddy.

He’s just been knocked down by a freight train or something of the sort, and there he lays gasping his last. Well, tell him to be three feet back of his bead, you know, and go on his way. Various exteriorizations: Some guy is in perfectly good shape, and he’s just accidentally fallen off the bridge and drowned. And they’re working on him with Pulmotors and he doesn’t start breathing again. If you happen to be around and he hasn’t been dead very long—he doesn’t smell yet—just say to him “Hey! There’s nothing wrong with the body, pick it up!” All of a sudden the chest . . It’s quite remarkable. It’s part of the mechanics of existence.

But as far as a solid processing mechanism, it doesn’t exist as practical processing. It’s more of, this is a piece of the isness of existence. Thetans do this kind of thing; you can do these kind of thing with thetans. And once upon a time, every time you lost a body on Xerxes you went and picked up a new one at home base, you know? You’re always going back and picking up a new body. You didn’t necessarily lose your identity. You’d be surprised, the searching security regulations which sometimes would be stressed home on somebody pickling up a new body. You didn’t want enemy troops in there picking up one of your own uniform bodies. And the security: “What’s your name? Oh? You know Joe? What’s the name of the bar at Yakbung crossroads? What’s the name of the bar? What’s the name of the bartender? You say you come from there, what’s the name of the bartender? What’s his favorite joke? Ah! Have this man shot!”

In fact it’s quite unusual—and one of the reasons why you rebel against it and people are very anxious and willing to be processed—it is very, very unusual for a person to actually forget his identity just by reason of death, and you haven’t been doing it very long. You don’t lose your whole identity and everything you’ve ever been just because you kick the bucket. So the way it’s going now, thought is passing out of everything, and the identity passes out, and the thetan not only loses his physical universe possessions by reason of death but he also loses his identity by reason of death. And he doesn’t like this. He thinks this is a can’t have-no have proposition. He’s not in favor of this at all.
Therefore, he tends to pull even more tightly on the time track. You see, you’ve denied him a new record, so he’s grabbed this record, see?

Well, every time somebody wanted to get even with him on the whole track, somebody booby trapped the record. Somebody threw a bomb into the file room. That was the way it was done.

You go down here to the loony bin and you can find people around there and they’re screaming about being jumped by demons, and “there’s a great bird that comes every night and perches on the bottom of the bed” and pecks at him. Psychiatrist strokes his beard: “This man’s insane.”

“Why is he insane?”

“He sees a bird.”

That’s the end of it. If he sees, he’s insane. Now what kind of a record approach is this? This is just a further denial of record, isn’t it? That’s the way you really make them spin.

“Oh, you got a bird that comes and sees you every night? Ah-ha. Good.”

Scientologist would have an entirely different approach. He’d probably tell his buddy, “Christ, what dub-in, you know?” So he says to the guy, “Yeah, yeah? What kind of a bird is it?” And he finds out more about this bird. He’s liable to find a honey of a series of incidents of some kind or another. But the trouble is, if you approach them from that bird, you’re liable to go straight into one of the doggonedest, awfullest messes of raarr! that anybody had anything to do with. You’ve pulled him right into the middle of it. He’ll eventually collide with this bird in processing. It’s not necessarily the start of his processing, however. And you certainly don’t invalidate the bird. That’s the last thing you’d better do, because whatever it is, it is. He saw it, so it is.

And we don’t care whether other people agree that it is, or they don’t agree that it is. That’s all whether or not we agree to reality, which is another method of making a quick buck, walking up and down the land with a conical hat. That’s philosophic balderdash. I mean, the more you can keep off of these wild byroads . . . you see?

“Well, is reality really something that everybody agrees to? It isn’t, because there are people around who don’t necessarily agree to the reality. So therefore, it couldn’t be that it really isn’t real.”

Well, that’s just a method of making it unreal for somebody else, isn’t its Reality is a miracle, that it is mutual in the physical universe. That’s the miracle. It’s fantastic that it is a mutual reality. And that is the biggest proof of its isness: its mutual reality.

Now, the funny part of it is, banks have a mutuality. They are not necessarily all different. Because the tricks that have been used to wreck the file room have not been very many. And those that were really capable of messing up the film and bending all the reels up and bashing the cans in had to be pretty heroic. It really took some doing. It really took some doing. And the technology which you have, I don’t care whether you’re listing for items, running valences, doing an assist—I don’t care what you’re doing—you’re handling the time track, or a piece or a portion of the time track. And you have never escaped this fact. Because it is the only tried-and-true approach to sanity and to recovered ability, is straighten out the guy’s time track.
 
We have approached it in many ways, we have tried to find out who is mocking up this time track. Well, obviously, the thetan is mocking it up. But that’s again a suppositional reality. We can use mock-up processing; we can take over the automaticity of the creation of this track. The thing wrong with it is, is he can’t find out about it, and it really gives him no opportunity to confront it. The confront factor is dropped to a marked degree by this create approach.

You say. “Well, let’s take over the automaticity of his creation of the bank. All of a sudden he hasn’t got a bank, therefore, he’s Clear.” Well, that’s a very good theory. There’s nothing wrong with it at all. All I can say is that after many years of hard tries, why, we have never been able to make it satisfactorily and uniformly work. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a locked road—barriered. The trick that barriers it is that when you get the individual to create, he very often strikes the button—and oddly enough, there is a goal “to create” in this GPM we’re handling—and he’ll hit buttons like that, and all of a sudden he goes into . . . the bank goes into obsessive create and it practically crushes the individual. Everything beefs up, gets hard, uh-rrr-aurghh! And it happens so often and so frequently that Creative Processing had limited usages. It was useful, but its usages are limited. And it does not result in Clears who will stay Clear, and we’re interested in that.

So it all comes back to the fact that those processes which effectively handle, straighten out the time track, put something there to confront—that is to say, untangle it enough so that it can be confronted—raise the morale. . . Remember. this is an adjunct to this; it isn’t enough just to straighten up the track. You’ve got a PC there too, you know? And if you lower his morale too much while straightening up his track, why, the track doesn’t straighten up. You understand? Because you’re actually not raising the thetan’s confront at the same time. Henceforth, the processing’s got to be rather delicate.

And the only thing we get into is just this: his suppositional isness is so great because his confront is so low in this particular zone or area. After all, look how law it must be. All the “great savants” of the field of the mind never even suspected this track, except Freud. And he said that the body contained some sort of a record or blueprint of its immediate past. Freud did say this, the body contained some such thing. I consider it very interesting. He never went ahead and explored it. And he went into the suppositional reality that it made everybody barbarians and very vicious people to have this. What his conclusions are, I’m not entitled to say. Because I have not studied his conclusions, because they again are a suppositional reality. I can only tell you that he did, however, remark that there was such a thing.

And back about 1914, ‘15, there was some chap back there who remarked on the fact that there was such a thing as an engram—that a moment of unconsciousness was recorded all the way through. It’s a very small portion of a book, printed back then. I heard about it about ‘51, something like that.

Guys trace on this, and they get the hell out of there. They don’t want anything more to do with this, see? They trip over some corner of this thing, and then they say, “Well, da-da-da-a.” It’s the two-dimensional worm trying to describe a three-dimension. “And the third dimension, it’s um-wah-mm. Everything’s flat! We know that! And, yet, here’s this pole.” Occasionally they’ll say, “Well, you run into something if you go across that particular side of the two-dimensional plate. You bump your head.” And most of them say, “Well, it’s impossible to bump your head, because there are only two dimensions.” And then they say, “Well, then there’s nothing there.” It doesn’t occur to most of them to say there might be three dimensions. In such a way, why, that isness gets blocked out and barred out.

We should examine how it does. It’s a very simple answer. How does the existence of the time track get completely wiped away? Why do the great savants never remark on this particular piece of property which can be found in every and any human being, and the handling of which is the only road that we can discover, or that ever has been discovered, which straightens the person out? What is this? Why is it?

It’s the same reason that you sometimes have trouble in an auditing session. These things are in two divisions. There are two things here. One is the suppositional reality of the PC sometimes presses him forward—of course, I’m now not talking about the reasons he can’t see the track; that’s pretty obvious, the unavailability’s and the tricks of it, and so on. No, I’m talking about the PC who is sitting in front of you. His suppositional reality is very low but very great. His “I guesses” about the track are terribly thin. And if you don’t develop those things along a very smooth line and very smoothly . . . You know? He supposes he has a black mass in front of his face. See? He doesn’t see the black mass. Actually, all you’ve got to do—not make the track more solid for him, but just keep going around in the area and take what the PC says, you see, and keep working with it and this thing will start to unravel and the PC will come up and you’ll find less and less supposition. He says after a while, “There is a black mass in front of my face.” Don’t you see?

Well, the principal barrier that you get if you’re inexperienced in this line is that you suppose, if the PC is so vague, that you can’t get anything. You take it that the PC doesn’t know what’s there, then you won’t be able to find out what’s there. You don’t recognize that he is just so far down on suppositional isness that he is not approaching isness. Whatever the tricks of auditing are, and how you audit engrams, it is the process of familiarization—gradient scale. You’ve got to raise the morale of the PC with regard to it and raise the available thing to confront; And familiarization with it and running it, and so forth, tends to unravel the track and stretch it out and make it available to him, and his morale comes up at the same time, and you get to an isness. And you don’t recognize that it’s all a gradient, a gradient from “can’t” to “can.” See, it’s just a gradient. PC says, “Oh, I don’t know anything about this. I never heard of such balderdash. Ron says there’s an incident here of some kind or another, and I never heard of such a thing. It’s horrible for him to say such a thing.”

Very shortly afterwards, he starts to look. After all, he’s been given a little piece of data, something to look at, and he looks. By golly it’s there, you know? And he says, “Hey! You know? Ha-ha!” You know? It makes him feel better. He can see it and it is there to be seen. He looks at it a little bit more, there’s more there to be seen now, you see? And then he feels better about seeing, and there’s now more to be seen because you’ve gone over and developed the track.

You see, it’s at once a problem of getting a viewer and a stack of pictures together. You see, you’ve got to get the viewer so he can see the pictures. You see, that’s your Auditor’s Code and morale of a PC and all that sort of thing, and coaxing him along and giving him the right orders, you see—that’s for the PC —and then you go over the technology of arranging the pictures. And the way you arrange them is just stroke them. That’s all. Just stroke them enough times and stroke the right picture and you say, “Yeah, that’s a nice picture. Yeah, that’s a nice picture. Yeah, get that one all fixed.” All of a sudden the PC says, “By God, there’s my bird!”

You say, “Yeah? What do you know!” “Yeah,” he says, “Yeah, that’s familiar, that bird. There he is. Tsk, tsk. That’s pretty good. Let’s find out some more about this,” see?

Well, if you’ve done it smoothly, then the PC’s morale is up so he can look, and if you’ve handled the bank right, why, that’s been rubbed up so that it can be looked at. It’s this gradient approach. It’s barred out by the fact that it’s terribly simple; there really isn’t anything very involved about it. And one of the things that makes me impatient in teaching people how to run an engram is they always want to know the command with which you run an engram. I don’t know! Give me a command for petting a cat, I mean . . . All the rules of auditing have to be obeyed, and so forth, and it gets to look pretty complicated after a while, but it isn’t complicated. You’re running a Touch Assist on a picture.

Of course, if your PC can’t touch the picture and feels that you won’t let him touch the picture, he’s going to have an awful hard time touching it. And then if you don’t give him the right picture to touch, of course he can’t touch that.

And one of the big boons you have in technology is I’ve been finding out what pictures can be touched, which then produce a tremendous resurge and start untangling this track. By finding out what are the principal things—two things found out: What are the principal things that have the track snarled and which of them can be touched? See, there’s two problems there. You see, what as snarled and what do you touch to unsnarl it? See, those are two distinctly different problems.

The auditor tends to Q-and-A to some slight degree with the fact that an engram contains pain (and he doesn’t want to inflict pain on the PC, of course), and it contains unconsciousness (and, of course, you can’t see anything when you’re unconscious). So all the great savants of all history have simply Q’d-and-A’d with the pain of the engram and on the time track and unconsciousness. And they’ve simply remained unconscious of it—unwilling to approach its pain and of Q-ing-and-A-ing with its unconsciousness. And that’s why they have never said, since time immemorial, every being has a time track. I mean, it’s as elementary a piece of nonsense as that. They say, “Well, you can’t see it and you can’t do anything with it, and there’s really only thought in the head anyway.” And there’s lots of ways they approach this thing, but they’re actually just doing a Q and A. The thing is unavailable to the being, so the savant supposes it is unavailable to him, don’t you see? He doesn’t want to have anything to do with that pain, so he leaves it alone: And because there’s unconsciousness in it, he remains unconscious of it. And I’m afraid the problem is no more complicated than that.

But the auditor mustn’t fall for this, see? In the first place, I don’t think a thetan can go unconscious. I don’t think there is a level at which you could say absolute unconsciousness takes place. It’s quite interesting. You run somebody through an engram where he knew he was unconscious all the way through the engram, and he doesn’t remember what happened in the incident. Well, that doesn’t mean he was unconscious in the incident. It just means he can’t remember what happened in the incident. He might have been conscious all the way through. And you start running this thing through as an engram, and all of a sudden he finds out during those moments of unconsciousness he was conscious of things going on. The only real tragedy of life, I suppose, is that absolute unconsciousness and absolute unknowingness are unobtainable.

Well, the auditor must realize that there is no slightest portion of that time track that isn’t available. And he should go into no “I-don’t-know-anything about it” simply because the thetan he’s auditing, of course, doesn’t know anything about it. This is the expected state. He’d be a Clear if he knew all about it! Well, then you’re saying, “Well, I can’t audit him because he doesn’t know anything about it.” You’re saying, “Well, when he gets to be Clear, I’ll give him a session.” It’s all by gradients.

There’s a great deal of technical information about this. There’s reasons he can’t view the track, and the reasons the track is unavailable to him are very mechanical. I don’t think you would be very excited about viewing a door, that every time you walked up to the door, it crashed open and broke your nose. I think after a while you would get out of the habit of walking up to this door. And after a while you would say, “That door doesn’t even exist. I’m not even going to go in that part of the room.” Because the violence that is contained on the time track cannot be, again, underestimated. Boy, it’s there! It’s there. It’s violent. You can hit portions of the time track that’ll kick a PC right out of his head if you forced him into them. Bow! It’s a sledgehammer proposition.

Let’s take a second-series-goal GPM, and let’s force the PC into the top oppterm, and then keep hammering and pounding the PC from the top oppterm down with the wrong pattern. Give you the shudders yet?

What makes it gruesome? It isn’t that the auditor is pushing the PC; he’s not doing anything to the PC that’s very bad. What’s doing the pushing is the bank. See, that’s solid and tough at that point. Well, the magic of it is, is if you get the earliest moment of the earliest GPM, it runs like hot butter. It runs like nothing.

Pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow-pow.

Do you realize there’s just as much charge on it as there was the later one? See, as a bank, there’s just as much charge on that bank as there was on the later bank. I consider this quite interesting. You can’t run the later one, you can run the earlier one. Why? When you’re running the later one you’re trying to run that and all the banks that come before it. The PC can confront one bank, you’re asking him to confront twenty. You’re asking him to stomp right into the charge of twenty banks. He can’t do it, so he gets a big lose. So if he says, “Look,” he says, “I can’t confront the bank. Look, the bank is too tough for me,” therefore it’s important not to give him loses early on.

There’s various approaches of this kind. This is all technical know-how. This know-how is very simple know-how. It’s not very difficult know-how. You go into too much suppositional and you’ll have trouble. But I’ll tell you that an auditor has success in auditing if he has a good idea of the mechanics of engrams and the time track; if he kind of knows what this is all about. The next thing you know, why, he’s in there sailing. Somebody else keeps asking for a rote command. They say, “Give me a rote command. Do you say ‘The somatic strip will return, (snap!)’ or do you say ‘(snap!) The somatic strip will return,’ or do you say ‘(snap! snap!)’? Just exactly how do you say this?” I’ll show you a person that doesn’t know the mechanics of what he’s handling.

Somebody gives a double command. This is the most serious thing in engram running. It confuses the living daylights out of the PC. It’s almost impossible not to give a false command at one time or another, because you’re right on there. And to give a wrong command—you find out about it before the PC has a chance to get snarled up with it; that’s the only sin, is not to catch it.

For instance, I told the PC to go to the point where the PC was, just one time. It confused him. Well, that’s not very serious. I immediately remedied the thing, and he got it all straightened out and there we went and, see, we were on our way. What if I’d said to him, “Go to the beginning of the incident when you go to the end of the incident, because the beginning of the incident is the place where we don’t start,” and then gotten provoked with him because he didn’t execute the auditing command? Well, I certainly wouldn’t have known very much about the bank to do something like that.
 
But you wouldn’t make a mistake like this—this is a gross error: You say to the PC, “Go to the beginning of the incident where the birds are.” He doesn’t know the mechanics and behavior of an engram, see? Well, what’s wrong with the command? It seems like a perfectly innocent command. You see, this is a mistake almost anybody would make. Yeah, but the beginning of the incident was where the birds are. That was the beginning of the incident a half an hour ago. So the auditor thinks that while he handles an engram nothing happens. See, he thinks nothing ever changes. Well, why is he auditing the PC if he’s never going to get any change, see? Well, he thinks nothing is ever going to change. So he thinks the birds are going to be the beginning of this incident from here on out. Well, the birds are never the beginning of the incident, even the second time!

So you say, “Go to the beginning of the incident,” and you suddenly make this command, “Go to the beginning of the incident where the birds are. Go to the birds. Go to the beginning of the incident.” And you ask the PC, “What’s the matter? What’s the matter with you?”

“What do you want me to do? Do you want me to go to the beginning of the incident, or go to where the birds are?”

And the PC is all fogged up and he can’t give you the data very good, and he just neglected to tell you that there is an incident the day before the birds arrived, when there was an edict that “you mustn’t shoot any birds” issued. And he’s just discovered this and may even have mentioned it, but you didn’t get its time. And you didn’t realize that was the day before. That is now the beginning of the incident.

So you’ve told him to go twenty-four hours deep in the incident while going to the beginning of the incident, don’t you see? And he gets very, very confused. You got things like through and to. You wouldn’t think that through and to would make this much difference. You say, “Move to the moment of the birds. All right, now move to the period three days later.” And you say, “All right, now what happened as you went through the engram?”

The PC says, “What engram? Moved... What—what are you talking about?”

“What happened as you went through the engram?”

“I didn’t go through the engram.”

“Well now, all right, you didn’t follow the auditing command. Ha’“ (“Guess I’ll clobber him.”) See?

The bank follows the hop-skip-jump, you-think-you’re-there-and-you’re-there system of the thetan, see? You moved to the end. All right, you’re at the end, see? You’re at the beginning, you’re at the end; there’s nothing in between. So when you’re scouting, you always use to, and when you’re running an engram, you always use through. It’s little, simple points like this.

Actually, to some degree, it is my fault for not having made these things as brilliantly and shiningly clear as I might have at some time or another. But as I say, the subject was never summated. I frankly didn’t ever think we’d need it again—just per se running an engram.

Now, I found out that it makes it tremendously easier to run the bank, and that on a very few PCs you will be unable to run the bank unless you get an early engramic incident out of the road.

And I also found out that if you can run the overt engram that relates to these GPMs, just as an engram, that a fantastic amount of charge will come off the implants themselves, naturally, and therefore they run very much like hot butter.

I have a little bulletin for you. Found a datum here you might be interested in. That particular outfit was down toward the center of this particular galaxy and was founded at 52,863,010,654,079 years. And I can’t give you it much closer than that, because when places get founded more or less becomes part of their lies. But it was founded at that time, and it was destroyed on the date 38,932, 690,862,933 years ago, by the 79th Wing of the 43rd Battle Squadron of the Galactic Fleet.

It was not a part of the galaxy. It was a wildcat activity sitting there. They used to drag Magellanic clouds out of the center hub of the galaxy, let them follow the lines of force, and just let them come over a system. Then when they got around to it, they’d send planes in with speakers, and so forth, and give the place the business. But the place very often was totally caved in for thousands of years by these Magellanic radioactive clouds which would just engulf the particular system. You got the idea? I just give you that in brief, just as a matter of interest, because I don’t think . . . I’ve now got good data on the dates. These dates we’re getting are accurate. I have now compared them up the track and squared them around. These are the dates.

You’re not likely to find any implant earlier than or even near 52 trillion, and you’re certainly not going to find an implant closer to present time than 38.9 trillion. And if you find any other kind of an implant, you’re probably looking at a different kind of implant or somebody dramatising it someplace else, so it’ll be a subgrade proposition.

So that is the span and period of these particular things. I gave you this second date, 38 trillion, because actually that was quite a battle group that went in to clean up this particular activity. You might have been part of it. Makes a very lovely overt engram that keyed you in like crazy.

But that was not part of the galactic government. They were a bunch of guys that had the dream of everybody in the universe being good. And they are the people who used the Ice Cube. And you’ve all run into the Ice Cube. You’ve often wondered who was the author of this sort of thing. Well, the Ice Cube was used by these people; I don’t say that they authored it. And, therefore, you get all this beach scenery and so forth for people on this planet that came up through the Ice Cube, see, as well as other methods.

But I just thought I’d give you those dates because they are of some small interest, and that isn’t going on now. There is something going on now, or you wouldn’t be here and you wouldn’t have governments on this planet the way you have them, as lousy as this. But that’s a horse of another hue and has nothing very much aberrative connected with it in comparison to the magnitude and so forth. This is the one that really keyed in the people’s time track.

And there’s one thing that I’d like to point out to you. In finding the original incident on the thing, a basic on a chain is the basic on a chain. See, it’s not what I say it is or what you say it is or we hope it is, see? The basic on the chain, then, that you’re looking for, very often may sail back into God-’elp-us. And I found a basic on this chain last night which was of great interest to me. It was simply an assassination attempt of a radioactive bomb thrown in a carriage. That’s the basic implant chain. See, you move the PC—the rule—you move the PC back before, back before, back before, to where he doesn’t have any somatics, heh-hehheh-heh! Didn’t have any part of these people at all, but that one got keyed in. That became basic on the chain. Got the idea?

If you’re lucky, it’ll simply be the first time they saw these Magellanic clouds come in over the planet, and somebody made an unsuccessful attempt to pick them up, or something like this. Something of that sort. And you run that, you get the PC ahead of this and he’s got no somatics. All right, you run him into it and you find your first incident. Don’t be surprised if your first incident expands earlier, don’t you see” But if you run into it, you get your first incident out of the road, the rest of it runs relatively easily. But don’t be too amazed if the first incident is actually not on the same chain but has become terribly interlocked with the chain, and you can’t do anything else until you do it.

I believe somebody was running that last night. And he finally got to some kind of an incident that didn’t apparently have any relationship to this at all. Apparently had nothing to do with it. See? But it was some sort of a beam or blast in the face that left the fellow with a hanging somatic of some kind or another that then connected up into the implant chain and away we go, see?

Well, the good news I have for you is just that these guys aren’t around. But the point I’m really making is that your individual address to the problem of engram running, if it’s giving you any trouble at all, the blame is partially that I never made a summation of engram running, and the only difficulty you’re having is just lack of appreciation of exactly what it is you’re handling. It is not a matter of the rote command; it’s a matter of understanding exactly what is this thing called a time track, exactly what are you handling in the individual, exactly what keeps you from handling it and permits you to handle it. And you get that taped, why, all of this becomes very, very easy.

Don’t blame yourself too hard. Along about 1958, ‘59 or something, I should have sat down and said, “Well, let’s see, what’s everything we know about engram running?” Well, I didn’t bother to do so, because I didn’t think we’d ever be running them again.

It’s with great delight now that I find out we know far more about engram running than has ever been published, just by basis of summation, actually summatable in a very few pages.

Okay?

Thank you very much.

Engram Chain Running

A lecture given on
11 June 1963

Thank you.

Well, how are you?

Audience: Fine. Thank you.

Good. This is what?

Audience: June the 11th.

June 10th.

Audience: 11th.

11th? I lost a day. All right, 11 June A.D. 13, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course .

Now, this lecture today reminds me very interestingly of 42 Aberdeen Road, and Elizabeth, New Jersey, and 1949, Bay Head, New Jersey. Quite reminiscent, because this lecture concerns engrams.

And I finally found out why you can’t run engrams. That’s an awful slow take on my part. There’s been something wrong with the communication; the communication of the matter. And I finally found out you’ve been trying to run engrams. And you never run engrams; you run chains of engrams. So we’ll call this technology which I’m giving you “engram running by chains,” well understanding that nobody ever successfully ran engrams any other way.

This is the way I ran engrams back in 1949. Let me tell you where it got crossed up. Oh, I fancied this up; this is very simple these days because we’ve got tremendous technology. I can give you a very close-to-rote series of actions that are very easy to do. Let me tell you where this got fancied up. You got it crossed up with repetitive processing: “Flatten the process.” So naturally, you have to flatten the engram, don’t you? Hmmm! No, you only have to flatten the chain. You don’t have to flatten the engram, you flatten the chain. But repetitive processing is what raised its ugly head and got you all mixed up on running engrams. “Flatten that process!” “The way out is the way through!” You know? That kind of thing.

So you apply that to a single engram; you’re in a mess promptly, for several reasons. Because it is only part of a chain of similar incidents which, in itself, is only part of a time track which has all sorts of incidents on it. And you’re essentially running a time track—not a stick, not a chunk of something. These things are all related. So therefore, all engrams are handled as parts of a chain of similar incidents. And you never handle an engram all by itself. Because they don’t exist all by themselves. I’ve already said it’s part of a chain, and the chain is part of a time track; how can you handle it all by itself? It’s too closely related to these other two things to be so handled.

Now, if it were just one item, like a hunk of mud or something, you could bring it in and mix it in water and precipitate it, and so forth. And then you’d pick up another hunk of mud, and handle it in some particular way, and then pick up another hunk of mud and handle it in some particular way. Well, that would be relatively easy. But unfortunately, the hunk of mud is a chain of engrams—is never a single engram. You’ve got to handle this thing as a chain and part of a chain.

Now, if you are a skilled auditor, you can pick up bypassed charge. You know why the PC is ARC breaking. You can find it out in a fast hurry. PC ARC breaks, bang! Either you know what you’re doing (know what just must have happened), or you can shake it out of the meter in an awful hurry, and locate it and indicate it. And the ARC break will cease. And until you have a reality on being able to do this as an auditor, you’re going to have very upset sessions. Because the PC will ARC break inexplicably. You won’t ever be able to find out why he’s ARC breaking.

You’ll have the trouble that we used to have in the old days, where we had to have a process for an ARC break. Well, it might have gotten to it and it might not have gotten to it, and it was random, but now we could immediately and directly locate the bypassed charge that is causing the PC to ARC break. Now, that’s very, very important to engram running because the bypassed charge is always the earlier incident on the engram chain. And you bypass the earlier incident on the engram chain, you get an ARC break. This is elementary, my dear Watson.

Charge. There, by the way, will be quite a few bulletins out on this; two have already been written—enormous things—and there’ll be another bulletin on the material I’m giving you today. And these will be dressed up and put out into a new book on the subject; this lecture is the first release of this material. Therefore, I’m not releasing all of this material. I’m not telling you that in order to run an engram—I can tell you this, but not elaborate on it; let me say that—in order to run an engram you’ve got to know what the time track is and be able to handle, the time track. You should know what you’re trying to handle in terms of charge. What is charge.

Now, the charge of course is that electronic ping-bang that hits the PC in the blonk and causes him to go bunk, or blows and causes him to get better. See, you pays your money and you takes your chance on charge. You either release the charge and the PC gets better, or you encyst and stir up the charge and the PC blows his stack. There’s two roads by which you can travel on charge, and there’s no middle ground. There isn’t any middle ground. Just forget the fact that you could go on and grind for eighteen years and get no change on the PC. The PC will either get better or get worse. He won’t remain the same.

Now, what do we mean by getting worse? Actually, he might think better, and feel worse. You get the ideas His knowledge has increased, but the charge is still knocking his ‘ead off. Cow, you can get into that situation in engram running. You can lay open a tremendous amount of engramic information. He can get all kinds of information—you never blow any charge off of it anyplace. Well, that’s because you weren’t looking for basic, you were looking for information .

Many an auditor falls for this, because the PC wants to ‘snow how come he was on the planet Yukzuk in a railway-conductor’s uniform, you see? What was he doing there? And that’s all very interesting, and we can assuage his curiosity to some degree, but if we go in for just assuaging the curiosity of the thing— dramatizing watching TV’, or something like that, you see?—we unfortunately get into the situation where we’re not following down an engramic chain.

So here, you see, is another great liability in running engrams. We get so absorbed in dramatis personae, and that sort of thing, that we actually aren’t running the chain of engrams at all, we are simply trying to find out. See. Get that as a liability, because it is a liability. You actually can find out all about what this PC was doing on the planet Ilkzuk—you could find out all about it. The only trouble is, the basic on it was on the planet Panwan, which was a trillion years earlier. You see?

So, engram handling is engram handling in that you want the chain of engrams which lead to the basic of that chain; you want to go down that chain and get the basic of the chain. Why? Well, every time you run an engram, you open up a little valve. We have a big joke around Saint Hill about the “weather valves.” Workmen and I are always talking about these weather valves. And they get stuck open and they get stuck shut, and various other things happen. Vie have our opinions as to who’s doing it. We think it’s Profumo now, and so forth.

Well, if you could imagine an equally hypothetical series of valves: one between each pair of engrams, see? So let’s take basic on the chain; that’s engram 1. And then we get 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,19, 20 a little valve between each one of these pairs, see? All right. You run number 20 on the chain and you unwittingly open the valve from number 19. And the charge contained in number 19 restimulates and leaks, to some degree, into 20. So you’re trying to run the charge out of 19 by running 20. The charge is coming from 19. After a very short period of time, it’s all coming from 19 now.

Well, now this is very interesting because it poses this kind of a condition: Number 20, if you continue to run it, gets sticky, solid, E-Meter action ceases, no tone arm action on running it. There’s nothing on it, you see, it’s just gum. Or it’s getting more and more solid, and it’ll eventually collapse on the PC. What’s making it collapse? Well, it’s the charge in 19. And you could run 20 endlessly without ever taking any charge off 19. But this makes 19 potential bypassed charge. So the PC will ARC break. Do you see that now? You opened the valve and then didn’t do anything about it. So, the thing to do is to find out—by the way, you don’t have to find 19, which is quite interesting; you can sometimes find 16. But let us just keep it in an orderly progression here, and we find 19.

Now, oddly enough, until we found 20, we couldn’t have found 19, because it’s as though we had a big barrier across the track. It’s all the charge there in 20, don’t you see, prevents us from seeing 19.

And this is a very funny thing: we can say, “Give us the earliest engram on this chain” (this is inevitable), and they give you number 20. See? And the E-Meter only registers on 20, and 20 will register that this is the earliest incident on this line. It’ll do this consistently, you see, because the track is barriered. The E-Meter, the reality, nothing else can get back of 20.

Although you’ve asked for the earliest, that’s true of the earliest part of the incident, you see? You always get more first part of the incident, you see; you can always find a few minutes earlier on an incident. Well, similarly, right on down to basic, why, you can always find an earlier engram.

See, even though your meter kept saying that it was the earliest engram, or even though the PC and the meter said that it was the earliest part of the engram—that nothing like this ever happened before—as soon as we sweep some of this debris away, well, we find out we’re looking at number 19. It’s now the earliest, see? And it’ll continue to be the earliest till we clean it up a bit. And as soon as we’ve cleaned it up a bit, we’ve got number 18. And as soon as we cleaned 18 up, we now find the absolutely regrettable first incident on this line. And what do we find? We find 17. And that is absolutably the first incident on this line. And we get 16. Do you see what I mean?

Now, if you recognize some of these, they’re terribly interesting, but awfully simple, idiotic points. You could take a piece of garden hose, or something of the sort, and put clamps on it, see, and put a block of wood across it, and say this is an engram, number 20, you see? Now run this engram and then loosen up this little clamp, and you will see that the water pressure which you’ve gotten into the hose, you see—it is in each one of these balloons along in the hose sections—will go into 20, from 19. See? It’s just as fluidy and fundamental as that, you know? It’s like pouring beer steins back and forth into one or the other. . . But the charge always flows late; charge always goes later, doesn’t go earlier.

Now, it’s quite interesting, many of these manifestations, but if two things come together, two pictures come together, then there is bypassed charge. In other words, if two engrams collapse or two pictures collapse—no matter what you’re running in auditing . . . This is true of all auditing, by the way. It isn’t a specialized subject. You got this bypassed charge, it’ll cause two pictures to come together.

For instance, a PC is looking at a lamppost. And all of a sudden there’s another lamppost standing alongside it, and he knows they’re not the same picture because they have different periods of architecture, and so forth. And he says, “There’s two lampposts here.” The first thing the auditor knows is that charge has been bypassed. See? That’s what causes the collapse. Got that?

Now, that’s the first thing he knows. See? Whatever else he knows, he knows that. Now, if charge has been bypassed, what’s the PC going to do in the next few minutes? He’s going to ARC break. Yeah. Sun rises, sun sets; bypassed charge, PC ARC breaks. Okay? Very inevitable.

So this tells you why some auditors are capable of running smooth sessions and some auditors have ARC-breaky sessions. Well, it’s just the degree that some auditors pick up bypassed charge and some auditors don’t pick up bypassed charge. See, that’s the difference between this ARC-break and no-ARC-break session .

All right. Now, out-of-valenceness—you know, “That’s me over there”—is also a problem in bypassed charge. You will get this in running an engram. And you shouldn’t make a mistake, because this out-of-valenceness is quite interesting. The engram he is in, if an earlier engram is tapped (you see, he’s in engram 20, and you’ve just clipped or tapped number 19 and it’s bled charge now into 20), it will simply cause a beef-up of the mass, you see, and it’ll cause a strengthening somatic, and that sort of thing, but it probably won’t cause an out-of-valenceness.

An out-of-valenceness is a missing earlier portion of the same engram you are working. See? He starts getting two-pictureness. He’s getting two pictures, that sort of thing, that’s probably out of 19. You understand? But it also may be in 20. But for sure, if he goes out of valence, you haven’t picked up the beginning of 20. There’s another five days at the start of 20.

So we know it was the beginning, because the PC said so in 20. We know that was the start of 20, because we sent the PC to the beginning of it. And he cakes a look at himself, and he says, “I’m way out of valence here.” That is to say, ‘I’m over there.” Well, he didn’t go to the beginning of it, that’s all. There’s more beginning on this engram than he has suspected. And that’s the charge that finally throws them out of valence. But that out-of-valenceness is also assisted by bleeding charge up from 19.
 
You understand what I mean by out-of-valenceness? That’s very simple; that’s very elementary—just as though you were four feet over, looking at your body sitting in the chair. That is the position the PC is running from. You find some PCs are totally in this, all up and down this lifetime; they never can have any picture in which they are (quote) “in their own valence” (unquote). See, they’re always out of valence all the way up and down the line. This case, by the way, also falls too low on the Reality Scale to run engrams.

But this happens to any PC—they flip out of valence. Well, what happened? Well, there’s another earlier piece of this same engram is missing. And the PC gets a couple of pictures collapsed on one another, or pictures collapsing, well, you’ve opened the valve on 19 without finding 19.

Actually, all this sounds very complicated, but actually isn’t complicated. You’re dealing with charge, and if you regard charge as water or cream, or something like that, it behaves in exactly the same way: It flows, and it always flows later. Charge doesn’t run back down the track, it runs up the track. Water falls; charge rises. About the only difference.

All right, now, let’s look at this. We’ve got a PC. He ‘its his ‘ead. It gives him a ‘eadache. So we run the engram—now let’s take an elementary thing, see? We’re bugged, see, on the subject that if you get your hands on something, you must flatten it! See? If you get your hands on an engram you must rub it out! See? All mixed up with “flatten the process,” don’t you see?

Well now, let’s look what happens here. So he ‘it his ‘ead. So we find out we’d better run this engram in which he ‘it his ‘ead. So we roll up our sleeves and we start in. Eighteen hours later we’re still getting him walking in to the cupboard and raising up too suddenly and banging his head on the door. And for some reason or other the PC is getting very unhappy, and the cupboard is getting more and more solid in the picture, and then it gets gummier and gummier, and then it’s collapsing, and so on. And the PC is pretty nattery, but you say, “No, look, I’ve got to run this incident,” and the PC finally goes into apathy, gets too far down scale to have a headache, and you’ve “cured his headache.”

Now, get that approach. Now compare it to this approach: PC has ‘it his ‘ead, and he ‘as a ‘eadache. You say, “All right. Good. Good.” We block this incident out. He walked in to the pantry and hit his head on the cupboard. All right. Fine. We start him into the pantry, we bring him through the moment he hit his head and, for some reason or another, he just skips that whole section; his head comes nowhere near the cupboard. But we get him afterwards holding his head.

Now, what’s this all about? Well, this means you’ve hit a chain of engrams called “‘it on the ‘ead.” And why is that area where he can’t hit his head—why is that missing? Well, the prior charge on being hit in the head is too great, that’s all. That’s simple. So you don’t try to force him through and you don’t need any interesting tricks to push him through it.

You find that was 20, see? Just find 19 and block 19 out. And we find out that he was working in the carpentry shop and raised up too suddenly one day and ‘it his ‘ead. There’s no somatic there either, see? I mean, it’s just all sort of, you know, thud. We just get that, bang! and we run him through it.

This is all done very formally; it isn’t asking any questions like Straightwire, see? We zip him through it, we move on the time track—dress-parade situation, see?

We get him there to 18. We find at 19 that there’s an 18, and at 18 there’s a 17—that’s the first time he ever hit his head, see, was 17—and then we find 16, and then we find 15. And we’re lucky, and we actually do find—all the way down the chain—we find it’s in this lifetime. That’s why we were lucky, because we just started out to cure a headache.

And by golly! We find him falling out of his perambulator with a dull thud, see? And it runs with full somatics, full perceptions. And we run it through and we run it through and we run it through and we run it through and we run it through. And it’s all getting thinner and thinner, and it’s less and less, and it’s disappearing, disappearing. Nothing is toughening up. And with a clank, that’s the end of that chain of being hit on the head.

Well, what happens? The engram disappears, we bring him back up to present time, all these other head-hits—you could touch on each one of those too if you wanted to. He’d get the clonk from each one of them. You hit him on the head all the way to present time. Every one of them would hit. See? And that’s the end of this chain, and that’s the end of his headache. See that?

Now, if we tried to approach it “We are going to run the engram of him hitting his head,” we have made an error by saying the engram. We have to say the engrams of him hitting his head. Now, a great deal can be said, snarlingly and meanly and viciously, and so forth, about what terrible things auditors have done with running engrams. But the truth of the matter is I take full responsibility on the matter. I’ve pretty well desensitized that goal in the Helatrobus implants, “To be responsible.”

But I actually hadn’t made an adequate communication. You’ll find all about basics, you’ll find all about this type of mechanics in other material on engrams, but you won’t find this differentiation: Repetitive processes? Ah, yes. Flatten them always. An engram? The only way to flatten an engram is to flatten the chain of engrams. So the communication factor is you don’t run an engram, you run an engrams. See, you’ve got to run a chain every time.

Now, if you’ve done any sec checking and had any difficulty sec checking at all, it’s because you weren’t running on the basis of the earlier overt. Now, overts will follow this, and it’s very good training finding overts; very good training. But the second that we lay a training restriction on it of “run only overts in this lifetime,” we of course have inhibited the possibility of picking up the complete overt chain.

Well, “this lifetime,” of course, is the biggest lie of all. A person’s life is quite consecutive. And the first time you may find, actually, a basic on the fact of him hitting a mule over the head as his overt on the fifth dynamic, and you find the basic on this thing at 285 trillion. Well, you will get, then, all aversion to mules tearing up. The overt chain, don’t you see?

Now, that’s not an engramic chain, that’s just a chain of overt acts. But there are overt engrams. So there’s two types of chains: There’s the motivator series and the overt series. And oddly enough, it doesn’t matter which you run, because the overt-motivator sequence is itself an installed sequence.

Oh, yes, that’s a big swindle. But everybody is obedient to this particular swindle, and they behave that way below a certain particular level, so it’s operable. So you can use it in processing; you can relieve things. And actually, it is so operatable, that if you don’t get the overts off they don’t progress. In other words, it’s sort of the overts they have committed obscure the overt-motivator sequence as an installed mechanism.

You won’t run into this overt-motivator sequence or undo it for—oh, my God! That’s way back, and way deep, see? That’s quite fundamental in livingness. There are other things like obsessive creation, and that sort of thing, they’re equally . . . Well, the overt-motivator sequence isn’t as deeply laid-in as obsessive create. and that sort of thing. You think you’ve got it time after time, and there’s still an earlier impulse to create, you see. And they’re all engramic, of one kind or another. They contain pain and unconsciousness and implantations and so forth.

But an overt chain is handled exactly the same way as a motivator chain. We couldn’t care which we’re running, except on a motivator chain you have to keep calling for an overt of this type, you see? And on a motivator chain you have to keep calling for whatever follows its line—identifies it.

Now, these two seldom entwine when you’re running engrams, because they’re so fundamental they’re hardly governed by any laws but those of livingness. They are very fundamental. They’re the cause-effect-communication formula, the ARC triangle, and matter, energy, space, time and significance’s, and perceptions (which, of course, are part of the communication formula). And that’s about all there is to engrams. Actually, they’re the most elementary, uncomplicated lineup that could be; they’re the most fundamental. The most fundamental laws of livingness are expressed on this channel, and they undo along these lines. So you don’t have to pay too much attention to finding the overt engram to match the motivator engram, and all that sort of thing.

Oddly enough, however, you can switch over from a motivator line to an overt line. You can switch from an overt line to a motivator line—doesn’t matter which. But I personally would never bother to run the two at once unless the PC came up with it. The PC suddenly looks at you studiously and says, “You know, I’ve got a lot of overts against hitting people on the heads.” Well, all right. Fire away. But you’re now going down an overt chain, don’t you see? You’ll get the same type of hit-on-the-head. But unfortunately, you’ve also got to clean up the motivator chain of the same thing.

Now, what point am I making here? That engram running handles the most elementary laws of livingness and thinkingness, follows the most elementary rules itself, and is terribly, fantastically uncomplicated. It is so uncomplicated that you’re going to overshoot it every time. You’ll never add anything to engram running but complication. Isn’t that an interesting observation? It’s awful simple.

,If I ever show you a demonstration of running engrams without giving you any reasons why, and so forth, you’d wonder how the hell this was happening. Because apparently nothing was happening in the session. You’d say, “What’s going on?”

The way I used to run engrams—the way I still run them, and so forth—runs something like this: Crude date. Very crude date. Order of magnitude, you know? Eighty-nine trillion, something like that, you know? A little greater than eighty-nine trillion. That’s the date, see? Takes you how long to get that, see?

“Return to this incident at eighty-nine-plus trillion. All right. What are you looking at? Okay, thank you. How long is this incident? Minutes? Hours? Days? Weeks? Weeks. Good. Two weeks? Greater than two weeks, less than two weeks? Greater than four weeks, less than four weeks? Greater than six weeks, less than six weeks? Five weeks? Five weeks. . .all right, it’s five weeks long. Very good. Now just move on through this to the end.”

PC, ten minutes later, comes up and says, “All right, I did.”

“What’s it all about?”

“Well, I don’t know. I get something or other, something or other, something or other.”

“All right, fine. All right, now is there any slightly earlier beginning on this?”

“Yeah, there’s a little bit earlier beginning on it.”

“Is it a day before? Two days before? An hour before? Hours before? Four hours before? Five hours before? All right. I want you to go about five hours earlier this time, all right?—for the beginning of the incident. Move to the beginning of the incident. Okay. All right, move on through the incident.”

Five minutes later, PC says, “I’m there.”

You say, “All right, what you got now?”

“Oh, it’s a sort of a thrashing machine. And there’s this long blue-and-white thing and it goes on . . .” so on, and so forth. And “Somewhere . . . somewhere I must have run into machinery. I must have had something to do with machinery. This kind of machinery. Makes me dizzy. Just like this one. Just like all these do. Dizzy.”

“All right, very good. We’re now going to date an earlier incident in which you get dizzy with machinery. All right. Is it greater than ninety trillion, less than ninety trillion?” Here we go. “All right, I got ninety-three trillion—not quite ninety-three trillion. All right, move to the beginning of the ninety-three-trillion incident. Okay. What have you got there?”

“Oh, I’m just looking at this thing and it’s all black.”

“All right. Okay. How long is this incident? Days? Weeks? Months? Incident is five minutes long. Okay, fine. Fine. All right, move through to the end of this incident. (pause) Okay. What’s it all about?”

“I don’t know. It’s a machine. Roars! That’s all. I’m scared by the roar of the thing, so I dump it off a cliff.”

“Oh, all right. Is there any earlier moment there on the beginning of this?”

Tick.

“How much earlier does this go?”

“Oh, it goes three days earlier.”

“All right, that’s fine. That’s fine. All right. Now, that three-day point, now move to the beginning we now have there. All right. Good! Now what are you looking at?”

“Oh, my God! There’s acres of machines. They’re all over the place here; they’re all over the thing here.”

“All right. Thank you. Move through this incident, tell me when you’ve reached the end.”

I sit there and try to make as little noise as possible and PC finally comes up in the middle of it and says, “Ha-ha-ha!” “Took the thing and busted it grrkk! like a big watermelon.”

I say, “Okay. Okay, continue.” “All right, go back to the beginning of this incident now. Go to the beginning of this incident.”

He says, “You know . . . you know, I don’t think this is basic on this chain.”

“Oh, all right! Good. Good. Good, machines that make you dizzy,” you see? “All right, that’s fine.”

“A machine that makes you dizzy? No, I guess it’s just machines. It’s actually not machines that make you dizzy; it’s ‘machines that catch you.’ “

“Oh, all right. All right. Let’s get an earlier incident here. Now, is this earlier incident on ‘machines that catch you’ later than ninety-five trillion, earlier than ninety-five trillion?”

And you find out it’s only a billion years later [earlier] than the one you got before. Same procedure, same action, on and on and on. PC comes to the next session, you say, “All right, now let’s pick up this—we’re going to pick up this ninety-five-trillion-year incident and run it now again. Run it this time.”

PC says, “I . . . why . . . I . . . I don . . . don . . . I . . . don . . . I don’t know, I don’t get anything,” and so forth, and so on and so on, “I don’t get the picture that I had before.” and so on, so on, so on.
 
So you say, “All right, okay. Thank you. Thank you. Now, since the last time I audited you, is there anything you weren’t willing to duplicate? No? Thank you. Last time I audited you, is there anything you weren’t willing to duplicate? Thank you. Since the last time I audited you, is there anything you weren’t willing to duplicate? All right, that seems clean. All right, return to the beginning of the ninety-five-trillion-year incident. How’s the picture now?”

“Hell, that picture’s perfect, thank you.”

“All right. Very good. Move on through to the end of this incident, tell me when you get there.”

You say, where’s all this hep-cat stuff, see? Where’s all this (snap!) (snap!), you know, and bong, and “What are you looking at?” and “Well, is there blue sky or a pink sky there? Well, where . . . what are you doing now? What are you doing? What are you looking at there? Where . . . where . . . have you seen anything? Oh, can’t you see anything more than a house? Well, what’s in back of the house? Is there anything in the basement of the house? What’s in the center of the planet there?” Where’s all this? It isn’t there. There’s nothing there, except just these little, elementary actions. PC runs like a baby carriage.

Now, why won’t PCs do this, when they don’t do it? Well, it’s the wrong place on the program scale I gave you. [See the State of Case Scale] But you can even take a dub-in case and run them early enough to get before the dub. But that’s asking for it, so you’ve got your ARC processes. And lower than that you’ve got your MEST-universe processes; you’ve got these various things that can straighten up a PC and put him into a situation. Because let me tell you this, engram running is important for this reason: You aren’t going to make an OT without it. See, it’s that important. And we now have the underpinnings that we can move any case into a situation where it can run engrams.

Now, all this fancy stuff developed trying to run dub-ins of dubs on engrams; cases that were too heavily charged to run engrams. What’s the common denominator of that program case scale that runs from “no time track” down to “total unawareness”? What’s the common denominator of that thing? The common denominator of that thing is “no-duplicate.” It’s right in the middle of the old communication formula.

Years ago I used to run into a case occasionally, you’d run him on process Z on Monday and it wouldn’t bite on Tuesday, but another process would bite on Tuesday, and on Wednesday another process would bite, and on Thursday another process would bite. What was going on with this character? Well, I finally understood what was going on with him: The duplication was missing from the communication formula. He would not duplicate; it was dangerous to duplicate. And that, actually, is the swan song of this universe: That which you’re unwilling to duplicate tends to go on automatic.

You could clean up somebody’s auditing in a rather rudimentary fashion. Of course, this is like all high-level processes—it’s not applicable because it’s insufficiently fundamental to reach the reality of the PC in many cases. But sometime when you’ve given or had a rough session, something like that, or your PC has given or had a rough session somewhere else, or something like this, just take a crack at cleaning up the auditing on this basis: “Since “ (you know, the day before that session occurred), “what have you been unwilling to duplicate? What have you been willing to duplicate? What have you been unwilling to duplicate? What have you been willing to duplicate?” And just run the process flat. And you’ll all of a sudden find all the ARC breaks and everything else torn out.

We can show you a bad demonstration of auditing, a very bad demonstration of auditing on the TV screen. You’re unwilling to duplicate that, and you fumble the first five minutes of your session. See? That’s showing the bad example. Get the idea? “Unwilling to duplicate” is the only thing it says, see?

All right. You get the idea that you can’t duplicate MEST, you can’t duplicate engrams, you can’t duplicate this action, you won’t duplicate that continuous state of being a tree, let us say, or something like that. This becomes very obsessive, begins to wear on you, and you just start refusing the idea of duplicating a tree, and the next thing you know, there you are, obsessively duplicating a tree. Because that resistance to duplication can be caved in.

Now, a person’s ability to duplicate is what determines their ability to run engrams. Because the engram itself is a duplication of the actual event. And where they didn’t duplicate the actual event—or they duplicated the actual event but then the picture they’re running is an altered copy of the picture of the actual event—that is dub-in. So they’ll run through the engram, and it’s this way, and they run through it that way. All engrams develop materials. All engrams develop surprising changes. And all engrams have a little bit of dub-in in one place or another. You get in the middle of this thing, you wonder, “What’s the surgeon got in his hands? He can’t possibly have a water gun. You know? Looks like a water gun, you know? What on earth is it? Hm?” And it finally turns into a spoon or something else he’s taking your guts out with. Anyhow, the . . .

In other words, things look a little bit different. And the particularly dangerous things—people don’t want to duplicate dangerous things. Very easy on this planet to give somebody a bad name. You know, the public in general. All they got to do is start riding a saw and say so-and-so is no good, so-and-so is no good, so-and-so is no good, so-and-so is no good. Don’t you see? And nobody must duplicate this person, you see; nobody must duplicate him. They all do it obsessively after a while. It’s a sure mechanism of making bogeymen, and then making everybody into bogeymen that didn’t exist in the first place. You see, you can think up a lot of things and there’s a lot of philosophy connected with this duplication, but just add it up to what engram running is all about.

A series of tests need to be developed for this sort of thing—of whether somebody can run engrams or not. The easiest way to find out whether somebody can run engrams or not is to try to run an engram on them. And if they can’t run one, why, you’d better uncork the ARC triangle, that’s all.

But there’s another way to do it. You say to some person, “One, two, three, nine, seven. What did I say?” And he says “You said uh . . . popcorn? Uh . . . uh . . . uh . . .” Aw, skip it, man. Of course, it’s a possibility that you didn’t speak loud enough for him to hear you, but if you spoke loud enough and you said, “One, two, three, seven, nine,” and he said, “Popcorn? Popcorns What’s popcorn got to do with it?” well, you’d better not try to run engrams on that person .

Now, the person who is totally unaware has tried to whip the mechanism of obsessively duplicating everything. That’s his final answer, don’t you see? The only trouble is, his duplications then go on total automatic. And you’ll find people around who ‘nave very, very heavy engrams indeed; they are all very heavy, and they have no control over them of any kind whatsoever, and so forth. And the engrams also are very inaccurate. All life is an engram. Anything is an engram, so forth. But then the engram isn’t the engram. They stub their toe, and they go down the street, and they’ve got a picture of being run into by a truck—in full 3-D, utterly overwhelming. Gruesome flow, you try to run an engram stubbing their toe, it isn’t there. They run this engram of being hit by a truck. Well, that’s great, because if you run the engram of being hit by a truck, you unfortunately aren’t doing the case a bit of good. You’re just running off a copy of the copy of the copy of the copy of the copy, you see? I mean, you could get into that kind of nonsense.

Now, because there are such incredible things on the track anyway (such as the Helatrobus implants, and all sorts of things), people get auuuh.’ Tell some bud of the Freudian school about these things, he’d become very puzzled about this whole thing. As a matter of fact, in the second series there are some tumbler devices—tubes, in the second series—where the thetan on the pole is locked up in a sort of a curled-up position in the middle of a tube, with a lot of lights hitting him from one quarter or another. It’s the perfect fetal position. And that’s basic on the prenatals which we used to find. And those prenatals all fly to pieces if you hit this basic on the thing, you see?

But there’s so much incredible material that it would be very, very dangerous to determine on a PC whether or not he could run engrams be what was the fact of the case, see? This is very dangerous. We’ve tried this and it doesn’t work. So therefore, you need a better test. And that test would be simple duplication.

You’d give him a series of questions of one kind or another. The old driving test is a doll, because that gives you too little to understand and too much to understand, and so forth. That’s a lovely test. A person who got a very bad score on that probably couldn’t run engrams, you see? Because it’s a duplication test. That’s how you’d find—not by the material the person runs, but by the person’s ability to duplicate.

Now, another test of a person’s ability to duplicate is: On Monday, did they get beautiful rocket reads on a GPM, and on Tuesday, you couldn’t get the needle to squeak? That’s an interesting condition. Well, they’ve hit something they’re unwilling to duplicate, that’s for sure; and you could probably turn it back on, that’s for sure; and you can probably handle it, that’s for sure; but you also are running somebody over their heads, that’s for sure!

Well, what are we running over their heads? We’re just running the ARC on this case. This case is too queasy to approach a whole lump of experience. They want to sniff around the edges of life, you know? You let them around the edges of life; don’t let them around one concrete experience of being hit on the head with a cleaver. See? Let them sniff around the edges and find out if they’re alive. You know? Let them run this thing way off, and their track will straighten out and become factual.

That doesn’t mean that you’re only using the ARC processes to improve somebody’s reality. That isn’t their only use. It just happens to be a very good shotgun process. It works at every quarter on almost anything, don’t you see? It cleans up all kinds of things: It’ll clean up auditing and it’ll clean up track and it’ll do this and it’ll do that. And it can be phrased in different ways in order to meet different levels of case, and you could do all kinds of things with this process—this new ARC setup that you have.

You can also do some interesting things with this duplication process. But you do the best in this physical environment. What part of this physical environment, what action or motion in this physical environment can the guy safely duplicate? When he finds out he can safely duplicate something, you’ve got the CCHs in a nutshell. That’s the only thing you’re trying to show him. That’s why the CCHs have such a heavy power when rightly used, and such a weird effect when wrongly used. You make somebody feel like he’s being punished for duplication, you run the CCHs wrong-way-to.
 
All right. So much for all that. So much for all that. We’re talking about running engrams. Well, who can run engrams? Well, it’s somebody who can get a picture of the actual event.

Now, how serious is this to you? Well, it’s only serious to this degree: That if the case is not being successful in running engrams, you probably shouldn’t be running them. Now that, I think, is the most elementary adjudication that you can possibly make. But let’s add to this adjudication, this one: Running them right—as long as you’re running them right. If the case just doesn’t seem to grapple with this at all, and you just don’t seem to do anything about it, or something of that sort, well, you’re probably running the case too steep. That’s the most elementary adjudication that can be made on the subject.

Now, engram running becomes very, very, very important to you, because the Helatrobus implants are actually a long chain of engrams which themselves have, each one, basics. And they tend to grab the whole track together at one point. You will only be able to run, on some cases, as few as six GPMs before you have to start running engrams, because the Raft will shut off. The things are getting too solid; thing is getting too solid. In other words, charge is bleeding.

So let’s get what determines when to go earlier. First, it’s the auditor’s observation that they ought to go earlier—always first. But the second one— and this must never be violated—is the PC’s recognition that there is something earlier. That tells you the curtain has lifted, and this you never ignore—and I do mean never.

PC can state this in a thousand different ways, and it all adds up to the same thing: There’s something earlier. PC says “You know, I think there’s another pole-trap incident ahead of this?” That’s very blunt, isn’t it? All right, let’s just find the other pole-trap incident ahead of this, see? Simple. PC says, “I don’t think this could be the last one on the chain. It’s too late.” Well, go earlier. PC says, “Where’d I get the idea that I couldn’t hold on to things?” Go earlier.

You’re trying to get from 20 to 19. And what is the last signal? What is the last signal, the signal that you just must not go beyond in running number 20 or number 19 or number 18 in its turn? The signal that you must not ignore is the inference that there’s something earlier. Because if you ignore this and continue to scrub away on the one you are on, you are ignoring the fact that something went down there and opened that little valve, and that charge is coming up here from now on. And that charge is going to make the engram that you are trying so arduously to rub out more and more solid, more and more arduous, less and less runable.

You’ve got to get back here and find number 19. Now, the second you find number 19, the charge that was leaking up goes ffttt! That’s charge off, don’t you see? But the later an engram is on the track, the less charge you can bleed out of it itself.

Now, charge of course is a registry of the E-Meter. What is the registry on the E-Meter? Well, it’s the motion of your tone arm, the motion of your needle. You’re getting tone arm motion running these engrams? If you’re not getting any tone arm motion running these engrams, just hope you can get back early enough to get some tone arm motion. If you never get any tone arm motion on it, all the way back, brother, you’re taking no charge off the line at all; you are just restimulating mass and charge. You’re just restimulating, you’re not blowing anything. That condition, I don’t think, however, will obtain very usually with you. You will get little blows of one kind or another.

Those portions of the time track which have had the individual so much at effect that the person could not at all be cause, and attended by pain and unconsciousness, are called engrams. And the only way an engram is ever torn up is by relieving the thing which holds it in place. And the thing that holds it in place is always number 1.

There’s twenty engrams in a chain, if you can’t find number 1—and you can find number 1 if you go down the chain—but if you don’t even try to find number 1, and then don’t erase number 1, then that chain will not blow up. But you’ll see some of the funniest concatenations of charge release you ever wanted to see when you finally put your paws on number 1 and scrub it out real good. Number 1 erases. The rest do not.

Now, because of the complex nature of the time track, there will be some portion of number 1 addressed to something else or some other subject which may, in itself, not erase. Now you’ve got a new chain of engrams running back from number 1. Well, go ahead, run it back.

Don’t get the idea of an absolute basic. There’s only one absolute basic on the time track, and that is called basic-basic, and it’s going to take you a long time to find that one. Basic-basic is unburdened with steam shovels and gangs of coolies and working for Lord knows how long. The ants that were emptying that granary—that’s a very good example. Fortunately, if you go ahead at it in a very businesslike fashion, you will eventually find basic-basic. The character of basic basic is something I needn’t go into at the present moment, but it contains these impulses which eventually became aberration.

Now, I want to call to your attention, just rapidly here, some data. There are two things you can do with dating: You can relieve charge or just identify something. Now, if you get a total dating, it goes on down to the second. It’s how many, you know, trillions, hundreds of billions, hundreds of millions, hundreds of thousands, thousands, hundreds, days, minutes, seconds ago. And if you get that accurately, and in no argument with your PC, you’re going to have a PC there who uhzuhh! He gets somatics and the thing rights itself on the time track, and that’s all very interesting. That’s that type of dating; it’s to relieve charge. You put something accurately on the time track and you’ll get charge off.

Well, that’s fine, and as an activity, is quite an interesting activity in itself. But remember that dating also contains identification. You want to know about the incident that was 89 trillion, 450 million years ago. So you say plus or minus. And you’ve got one that was almost—see, 89 trillion, 450 million—you’ve got one that was slightly more than 89 million and 450 billion, or something like that, see?

And you just identify it. And sometimes your identification is as clumsy as “that ninety-trillion-year incident.” Of course you’re only hung when there’s eight in a row. So then you have to get into ninety trillion, and you have to date these into the hundred millions, or something like that. Sometimes you have to date them into the hundred thousands, but that’s differentiation. Mostly, mostly. you will be satisfied with your trillions. See, you say, “Well, that incident that was not quite eighty-nine trillion years ago.” That’s dating. That’s sufficient. That identified it, don’t you see? Fine, nothing wrong with that.

Now, let me give you this operation of blocking it out. This is known as blocking out an incident, and it has just exactly these steps. It’s a very precise action: You identify it by date. You get the approximate date of the thing. See. that’s an identification by date. You move the time track to that date (but, of course, your dating has already moved it there), you ask the PC what’s there. And the PC says, “Nothing. I can’t see nothing.” PC says, “Green cats.” PC says, “Solid-black automobiles are stacked around. Their license plates are number 869, 942, 747, 815. And there’s a D.C. plate over on the other side, and so forth.
 
And that’s there; that’s what’s there.” And you say, in every case, regardless of what the PC sand—and hear me now, hear me—in every case you say, “Good.” Understand? You don’t say anything else.

It’s very interesting. The PC can say, “But it’s all black and I can’t see a thing!” and so forth. And you say, “Well, there’s no reason to go on with that.” He’s there; he’s there. So it’s all black? So he doesn’t know what it’s all about? Well, hell, he didn’t know what it was all about a few minutes ago either. Funny part of it is, by the time you run him through a couple of times—I’ve even seen a PC blow a grief charge through something they didn’t know what it was all about, cry all the way through the whole thing, then come back to the beginning and begin to find what it was all about. All sorts of weird things happening like this, don’t you see?

So it doesn’t matter what they say. This has no tendency on that; that does not influence the auditor’s action at that point. Next thing you do: Find its duration. You know? “Is this incident minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years?” Find its duration. Block its duration out fairly accurately, you know? If the answer is days, well, just get the number of days, don’t you see? Don’t go down to hours, minutes, seconds, and split instants, and galactic microseconds, you know? I mean, this is . . . This wastes time.

Find its duration, move the PC through it. Through. Get the difference of to and through. To get a PC at a point of the track you say “move to,” and to get them to go through something, you say “through.” If you want them to go through something, say through. Don’t say, “Go to the end of the incident,” because, of course, the PC just goes bang! and he’s at the end of the incident. “Yeah, all right. I’m here at the end of the incident. What do you want?” I can see auditors now—I’ve already seen an auditor do this idiotic thing: Said, “Well, go to the beginning of the incident.”

“All right. Well, I’m here. What do you want?”

“All right. Now move to the end of the incident.”

Bang! “I’m here. What do you want?”

That’s pure idiocy, see? If you want the PC to pick up the incident, you had better move them through it. And let me assure you, if it’s forty days long I normally say, “Move rapidly through the incident.” I like to be able to end my sessions on schedule.

But you move them through to the end, then establish what was there. Just ask the PC, “Well, what happened?” you know, when they come to the end of the thing. Anytime the PC says anything while they’re going through the thing, you say, “Good,” and one more word: “Continue.” You want them to realize that auditing command is still in effect.

When they get to the end of the thing, you’ve moved it through it once, you say, What’s it all about?” And a funny thing, if the PC doesn’t talk to you, it’s all right. Okay. Move him to the beginning of it, move him through to the end again. Simple as that. Never move him backwards through one. When they get to the end of the thing, why, ask them again.

I’ve seen a PC go through one several times before they could tell me anything about it. Thing wasn’t beefing up at all. Just, you know, “What’s this?” It’s a solid mystery. Don’t be impatient, in other words. You don’t vary this routine. PC says, “I don’t think I left.” I’m afraid I’d be more prone to say, “You left all right. Run through it.” See?
Now, if the PC keeps saying, “I’m stuck,” and all that sort of thing, just forget the bouncers and denyers, man. You’re just running somebody over his head, and you get them out of it any way you can and revere to ARC processes.
 
Any time the PC is that much at effect, where the auditor has got to kick him around inside the incident and do all sorts of weird things, and that sort of thing, you’re simply running engrams on somebody who can’t run engrams. There’s no sense in my developing a technology for somebody who can’t run engrams, for you not to run engrams with. You get the difference?

All right. Now, when he’s told you all about it at the end, your next step is simply to find out if anything is a little bit earlier. You know? “Is there a little...’7—because the end always remains the end. You don’t have to vary the end. If there’s anything more, they’ll eventually tell you; but you don’t care about it because the charge is always earlier, you see? But always suspect the beginning.

PC says, “Well, I just got off the train, and there they were,” you know? Aw, it’s all right. Buy it. Sounds all right, and so forth. But ask before you send them through again, “Now, is there any earlier beginning on this incident?” and so forth. Yeah, he was shooting at them out the window for a half an hour, you see, before he got off the train, you see. There’s always that little tag beginning. And sometimes you’re lucky and there is none, but it just doesn’t matter; it’s whether it registers or not. Send them back to that earlier bit and tell them to move through it again.

Now, up to the moment you tell them to move through it again, you’ve simply blocked the incident out. Now you know how long this incident is. The second time you tell them to move through it is, however, quite perfectly safe and can be included in blocking out an incident. But I just want you to know that it doesn’t perfectly belong in blocking out an incident. You’ve actually blocked the incident out now.

But to finish this incident off, just move them through it again. They’ll pick up some more stuff. That’s the time they’re going to tell you there’s something earlier. And it doesn’t much matter how many times you run them through an incident. Less than twice is suspect. That’s maybe a little careless. But might very well—if the thing appeared to be awful gummy and so forth, and messed up, once would be plenty. There’s where judgment comes in. More than twice? Well, you’re getting into questionable ground—very questionable ground. Trying to chug them into it and make them have more view of it, or more picture, or get more event out of it, or do something else with it than they can do at that particular time? Nah! Verboten. It’ll turn up in an earlier incident or you got no business running engrams. That’s all there is to that.

Now, how long would you run one of these things? I think if the PC was terribly fascinated with the thing: “You know? You know, that’s where I got shot, and that’s where I shot Bill. Yes. That’s right! And then this place id-hmmmmhmmm-hmmm-hmmm And I’ve often wondered whether or not, you know, hmm-hmm, this funny hole in my ear . . .”

All right, that’s dandy. That’s dandy. I’m afraid I’d just go along with this, as long as I was getting motion on my meter. Getting some motion on my meter, had the thing going tick and tock and click and clock and bong, and he was still running through the thing and wasn’t wandering off into the fields, I’m afraid I’d run that. But I would never run it longer than “You know, I think we’ve had a fight before.” All right. Hit the silk.

Now, if you do not bail out of an incident and find the earlier incident when the PC sights the earlier incident, you spoil the PC’s ability to move back. You blunt it, and the PC will get tied up in this area of the track you’re trying to run. And the only reason a PC gets tied up in an area of track is by insisting he stay there. You insist he stay there. He says, “Oh, God, I want out of this.” Well, anybody who wants out of this . . . You’ve just gone near it, and he sees that there’s a whole bunch of threshing machines, and they’re cleaning up the wounded with these threshing machines, see? And he says, “Well, I . . . I can’t have anything to do with that. That . . . that’s . . . that’s too much for me,” and so forth. I’d say, “Okay.” I’d let him bounce to present time and I’d run ARC processes.

In other words, I don’t say, “Oh, come now. I’m sure that you could confront that part of the threshing machines,” so forth.

But if a PC started telling me, “Eh, it’s getting awful solid around here. Pressure is getting heavier! A little harder to run—I don’t care if I was getting tone arm action or not—I’m afraid my action would always be “When did you spot something earlier?”

“Oh, well! Come to that, it was about an hour ago.”

Yeah. He spotted an earlier incident. And I would realize that it was my fault as the auditor if the PC got tied up on the track that he couldn’t get out of, or was unable to run the chain, and so forth, because I would have refused to let him move earlier. That’s the one cardinal rule of this.

Now, there are several things I’ve tried to teach you here today. And one of these: You’re running an engram chain; you’re never trying to run a single engram. The only reason you run basic is not to get rid of basic. Sometimes basic is “I walked up and blew all of the powder out of the barrel. But nothing happened, see? Yes, I walked up—well, of course they lost the battle. That’s the reason for it. I blew all the powder out of the barrel.” That’s basic, see? That’s just bzz-bzz-bzz-bzz-bzzz-bzz-bzz-bz-bz, and it’s gone. It’s the basic there was.

You look for basic to be the more powerful incident; it’s never. It’s the shorter incident, it’s the simpler incident, but on that keystone—because the thetan never bothered to say that was important, you see—these other things built up, built up, got tougher, tougher, bigger, bigger, bigger. You get that basic, the rest of them will tear right up. Just like one of these patent sacks, you know—a patent-flour sack? You get the right string? Well, here she goes.

All right. Now, you’re running a chain. So don’t think because you’ve read Book One or snapped your fingers over engrams you know how to run engrams.

Learn this as a brand-new skill. And it’s the skill which we’ll call “engram chain running.” And that is done by finding an incident, we don’t care how. One of your best takeoff points is the Helatrobus implants. Run a few GPMs, then you’re really making knots, you see? We don’t care how we took off on this, whether we had to prepare the case for this or not, we got our paws on an engram. And then we block it out. And we get the earlier one and we block it out, and we get the earlier one and we block it out, we get the earlier one, we block it out. And eventually we’ve got nothing over here to block out. We then decide that we have our paws on a basic for this chain.

Now, as we now have a basic for this chain, this basic will erase. Okay? So we proceed to erase the basic and tear up the chain. Theoretically, if you kept wandering back, some of you could make an error of winding up eventually with basic-basic. Seemed like you never got your hands on a basic. Well, you eventually did get your hands on a basic, but this apparently is the first engram on the track or something like this. I would erase it and suspect that I had simply discovered a basic.

You see, when you discover basic-basic and erase it, all engrams and pictures disappear on the PC, so that is the clue to that.

Now, the next point is: Never under any circumstances prevent a PC from finding the earlier incident—never do it; that’s courting disaster—even if you suspect the PC is telling you there is something earlier in order not to confront what he is going through because if he’s trying to bail out of incidents because he’s scared of them, I would watch this performance just once or twice, and then I would decide that I was misguided to be running engrams on this case. And I’d prepare the case a little bit more and get him back into running engrams later, you understand?
Now, those are the cardinal points of running engrams, and if you follow those things you actually will be able to develop one fantastic amount of case gain, because you’ll be blowing charge all the way.

It’s the easiest running you ever did, and the only mistake you’re going to make with it is to depart from the little blocking-out routine which I have given you here; depart from the earlier routine; you fail to realize you’re running a chain, you’re not running a single incident; and preventing the PC from going earlier when the PC spots something earlier; or this mistake: just complicating it up, man. You know? The PC says, “I’ve got a picture here of a green house.”

“Does it have gables?”

Blow your brains out, boy! You’ve done it! You’ve done it, you’ve finished it. You’ve wrecked the work, that’s it. You’ve had it. You just opened your mouth once too often. Do you realize what happens? You’ve pointed the PC’s attention to a large object, and the rule of the largest object goes into effect instantly at that point. And the PC will interiorize into that incident. Well, you didn’t want him interiorized into it. What do you mean you didn’t want him interiorized into it? You didn’t want that incident all swelled up, fully charged, 3-D. How can you make an incident fully charged and 3-D? By making the PC look at it and look at it and look at it, and examine it and examine it, and then prevent the PC from going earlier, and look at it and look at it and look at it, and look at the largest objects in it, and feel things in it, and so on. You’re going to have a universe built around this PC to a point where you’ll never get him out of it. Got it? Well, that isn’t what you’re trying to do.

If you were trying to discover the secret formulas of the Kabob civilization, and you got the PC into their formula security room, by all means follow this process! But make sure you don’t do it with an OT, because he hasn’t got any pictures to swell up. You actually could only do it safely with a Clear. And a Clear is so close to an OT if you’ve got him to a totality of Clear, you see—that’s dead-easy—that if you just made an OT out of him, he’d remember. You understand? So it becomes a very difficult thing to stay simple enough about.

I wanted you to get this data because, actually, there’s never been a recapitulation of running engrams, mostly because I never really had my fingers on why people had a hard time running engrams. And I find out there’s a miscommunication concerning it, and I’ve given you that miscommunication, which is just the fact that people said, “Well, if you have to flatten the process, you have to flatten every engram you laid your hands on.” And I think that’s where the whole thing broke down. Very easy to run them. I wish you lots of success with it. Thank you.

Voice: Thank you.

Thank you.

Errors in Time

A lecture given on
18 July 1963

Well, glad to see you all here, dry. Summer is gone now, you know? I find out when summer is gone by watching the banyan tree. It’s on the other side of the house there. And when its leaves start to turn brown, why, we know autumn is amongst us. So break out your boots and dogsleds.

This is what?

Audience: 18 July.

18 July A.D. 13, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, and another lecture on dating.

Now, I’ve already told you that dating is a very high caliber activity, very important in auditing, and that the tone arm sticks only because of wrong dates. Got that? That’s really the real reason tone arms stick. Frankly, it’s the only reason tone arms stick.

And you might have asked yourself, some time or another, “If you do have this much track, why does everybody around believe so implicitly that they have lived only once?” See, it might seem rather odd to you, the insistence on this fact that people have lived only once; the near-psychotic frenzy which people go into, insisting they have lived only once. It must really take something to shut off somebody’s memory to that degree. It really must take something. Actually, a GPM doesn’t account for it. The goal “to be dead” in the GPMs is not enough. Because that doesn’t say you’ve lived only once, that just tells you to be dead.

So you might ask yourself, why is it that man is so wrong-dated? Now, when I was able to run down the common denominator of people who can’t run on the time track, I found out that the common denominator was not whether or not they got sonic and visio, but whether or not they got tone arm motion. Very good, we’ve just covered that in a lecture. And the reason they don’t get tone arm motion is wrong time—wrong dates. All right, so much for that.

Behind all aberration there must be a lie. And you can mark that down in letters of fire. Aberration cannot exist in the presence of truth. Aberration can only exist in the presence of a lie. If somebody is hung with lumbosis, you can make very sure that there is a lie connected with the lumbosis. Elementary, my dear Watson. That is one of the common denominators of Scientology. That is one of the truisms, one of the maxims, something that weaves through everything. There are others of similar nature. For instance, don’t talk around a person who is unconscious. You know, and it’s that sort of thing. And you want to know something about aberration, that’s a better contribution than anything “Wuffwuff Pavlov” ever dreamed up. Didn’t you know that was his name? Later part of his life, you know. His papers, as far as I’m concerned, go “Bark-bark-bark-bark (comma), bark-bark-bark (comma), bark-bark-bark (semicolon).”

Reg was kind enough to dig me up some Pavlov. I wanted some Pavlov. I was studying how not to write up technical data. I didn’t know that was why I wanted Pavlov; I just knew it must be important to do some study on this, and that’s what I found. I didn’t find that dogs were very informative. I know more about dogs than he does. I mean, just as dogs. Dogs are friends of mine, and he didn’t like them. But “Wuff-wuff Pavlov” gives us a marvelous example of how not to write up technical information. It’s heroic, man. Try it sometime. He wanders all over the pastures and the fields and dales, and so forth, and he finally gets down to his something-or-other.

It’s much more important to him that he used “surgery comparable to that applied to human beings” when operating on dogs. And he goes on at great length about the surgery precautions taken on his dogs. And he was taking perfectly healthy, happy dogs, and cutting out half their bladder or half their esophagus or half of something. He never could go all the way, you know? And he admitted that this more or less damaged his laboratory animals, and therefore he had to take surgical precautions. And it isn’t a textbook on surgery. He’s giving, of course, the conditions of his experiment. He never gets around to the experiment.

But anyway, “Wuff-wuff Pavlov” is a marvelous example of a lot of things. He is a man who is totally dedicated to the dramatization of one engram: the Darwinian theory—man from mud. He’s a physiologist turned psychologist, and he’s in wild protest against the psychologists. Because, remember, the psychologists of his day believed in the soul. Some of them were still around who did. After all, psychologist means psyche-ologzst. And he’s the great physiologist. And you want to look at “how you get aberrated because your neurons have turned into morons . . .”

I was trying to ask a question—I’m not wandering afield from what I’m talking about here—I was asking a question. Why is it that the Russians know nothing about some of the basic laws of social behavior? Why is it that they overlook these laws? And I thought, they have Pavlov, and Pavlov stresses the salivation of the dog—not his salvation, his salivation; that’s all he was interested in—the salivation of the dog when stimulated by beefsteak, and the whining of the dog when beaten with clubs. So he would mix these two stimulus-response mechanisms up, and so on.

And I wanted to know if Pavlov had ever drawn the conclusion—I haven’t found this out yet; I can’t wade through the stuff—but if he’d ever drawn the conclusion that a reward was also part of existence. That was what I was trying to draw. Do the Russians know this? Is this part of the Russian mental technology? And apparently it is not. And apparently that fact reads through Pavlov without being punched up, as near as I can tell. He doesn’t say, “existence consists of reward and punishment.” See? That is not the thesis.

Now, thee and me, knowing more about this, would immediately conceive that if somebody had a dog salivating or whining under punishment or reward, that he would conclude that there were two stimuli, and one was reward and one was punishment. But this is far too simple, and Pavlov never made these comparisons, apparently as far as I can tell, wading through the stuff. Isn’t that interesting?

I consider that extremely fascinating, because the whole Russian system is caving in because they haven’t got this little factor of reward. That is what is wrong with the Russian communist system. Frankly, thee and me could probably sit down and figure out a communist system that would be a gee-whizzer that would probably work. Probably the fault is not with communism; the fault is the lie which lies behind communism, which is the physiological nature of man.

Now, with that lie back of communism, communism becomes a scourge. See, it becomes an aberration. There are probably many things about communism that aren’t aberrative. You could probably do lots of things with the idea of the communal activity of man. You could probably do a lot of things with collectivism. We do things with collectivism. We try to make it work. The Russians are not interested in making it work because they’ve misunderstood the nature of man. This is not a lecture on Russia; I’m just showing you the lie back of aberration.

So communism becomes fought, and communism becomes very disastrous when practiced. And the poor sods that are walking around with communism wonder where their next magic is coming from. They don’t know. And that’s because when Pavlov did his work, he never said that life consisted of reward and punishment. He does a total anatomy of punishment. And here’s this drifting factor, reward, which is apparently on automatic. The reason capitalism works is because nobody has analyzed it, and people want pay and they give them pay.

I almost started a riot amongst Bantu’s by telling them that if communism came to South Africa—this was real mean of me—why, they wouldn’t get paid; that communism didn’t pay you for your work. And they thought this was terrible. And they were spitting on the street and stamping and damning Khrushchev, see? I mean it was very upsetting to them. Because the one thing—the very, very commercial little culture the Bantu has . . . And boy, you talk about the importance of debts! Some guy owes some money, why, that debt will be passed down, and next generation, and next generation . . . Somebody’s great-great-great-great-grandchildren are still worried about those two cows, you see, that uncle Zidd, or something, is owed. The idea of commerce and money, and that sort of thing, is very deeply ingrained in these people. And to tell them that communism was a system of getting them to work so they wouldn’t be paid, that just about finished it.

Now, if capitalism was earnest about fighting communism, and so forth, it would dig up a few salient truths and let them have it, see? Because that is the lie back of communism. The lie back of communism is man is a physiological animal going forward on the basis of a punishment stimulus-response. And of course, man does not - does not - respond to punishment stimulus-response. Very ununiform response.

You’ve had the experience yourself. You take somebody and you say “If you don’t so-and-so and so-and-so, I’m going to raow-rrr-rrr-rrhh-rrrhhh!”

And A, that you told this to, cringed and said, “Oh yes! All . . . all right, all right. Don’t beat me.” And B. C and D said, “Why, you son of a bitch. Knock your block off, see?” You’d knock their heads in, and they’d get back up and they still wouldn’t do it. And you knock their heads in, and they get back up and they still wouldn’t do it. And it’s not a constant, don’t you see?

In other words, not all living beings succumb to the stimulus of promised punishment. The whole Roman Empire caved in because a sect called the Christians moved in, who didn’t “respo” when they got the stimuli of punishment. The court said, “We’re going to burn you at the stake.” And they said, “Burn away! We will become martyrs.” And the Roman Empire couldn’t handle them! That was it! That was it. See, they’d met their match. Very important. Extremely important.

Now, stimulus-response, then, is half of the picture, don’t you see? Man does not go as a total stimulus-response mechanism. Down in various homely locales I’ve heard “Ya kin ketch more flies with honey then ya kin with vinegar!” You’ve heard that sort of thing. Well, they’re talking about the reward part of existence, see? That’s very important, the reward part of existence.

Now, the Christian had a greater reward promised him than the punishment. In the first place, he had to die in order to go to heaven. And he simply considered this very accommodating on the part of the Roman Empire and its courts. It got him there that much quicker. And so the Roman Empire could do nothing with the Christian, the Christian overthrew the Roman Empire, and it became the Holy Roman Empire. Literally, Actually, yes, you see?

Well, there was a lie. There was a lie involved, then, in the Roman Empire. So it didn’t survive. And what was that lie? Well, they must have been subscribing to the same thing Pavlov was writing about: That man is a stimulus response creature who responds to punishment and threat of punishment; and that to get something done, you threaten or you punish; and if you threaten and punish enough, you will get things done.

Well, I will give it to the Roman Empire, they got quite a ways. They got further than anybody else. But there was a lie involved there, in that there wasn’t a whole statement of the proposition. There was also reward. And the funny part of it is that men will do more things for reward than they will for punishment. So they had just cut out three-quarters of the pie, and then said that the remaining quarter of the pie was the totality of the pie, and tried to carry an empire along on that basis. And of course, it folded. And what do you know! After all these years . . . You think things change—actually, in this very finite period of time since the Roman Empire, and the equally religious fervor of the communist Russian Empire, you get the same fault cropping up.
So you have the philosophy which they adopt is the one which assures them that punishment is all. They adopt this philosophy, and they have immediately adopted something which gives them a commercial upset, economic upset. And although they’re very clever people and have a great deal on the ball on the subject of economics—they say economics are nine-tenths of life; life is only one-tenth political. They’ve got a lot of things like this. They have a terrific propaganda machine. They have practically every newspaper editor in the world working for them. Khrushchev has more press agents than any other single ruler in the world. And yet, in spite of all this, on one of their collective farms, they go around and take a look at the tractor, and its wheels have fallen off. And they want to know where’s the tractor driver, and they don’t know where he is. Well, he’s down in the woods. “Well, where’s the woods? Who else is in the woods?” this manager will be saying.

And, “Well, he’s down there, and they’re picking berries.”

“Oh, they’re picking berries. Well, all right.” And he goes down and he says to the guys down in the woods, “What are you doing picking berries?”

And all the old women and everybody down there says, “Well, got to do something to make a living!” And they found out that they can pick berries and put them in boxes and sell them in the local town, and they can make a couple of quick rubles. See? So to hell with the collective farm! See?

Half-a-ruble reward for sweating it out in the woods picking berries is much better than a no-ruble reward, because they’re going to get their heads blown off if they don’t drive the tractors and plow the fields. See? You get the idea?

So they’re running into this all the time. This causes them, then, to go into a terrific campaign of some kind or another, you know. They go into this terrific campaign; what you want to be is ‘The New Man,’ ‘The Total Communist,’“ the this, the that, the. . . Those guys are just sweating themselves to pieces all the time. And they’re trying to compensate for this lie.

They think capitalism produces, in some peculiar and mysterious way, more goods than a communism. And they don’t know who this is. They’ve never analyzed why this is, because Pavlov didn’t tell them. Capitalism has many, many things wrong with it. But it hasn’t clipped off totally—not until they invented internal revenue, anyway—the totality of award. You can still—if you’re very, very clever, and so on—you can still keep some of your pay, if you’re careful. But it’s still a reward system.

Now, as that reward system dwindles, so dwindles the actual health of the society. And the more internal revenue and the less reward, and the more threat of punishment and the more you can go to jail if you don’t turn over all your pounds, shillings, dollars, francs, or something, to the local income-tax people, you see—the more that works, why, the more difficulty their society gets into. See, not spending any time to work out, How do you go about making a healthy economic society? They never spend any time on that. They’re just chipping away at this award and punishment. So actually, they’re starting to borrow Pavlov, too.

So here is a lie. Here is a lie, the statement that: Man acts totally because of punishment and only because of punishment; that man is a driven animal. That lie, all by itself, is destroying the social structure of man. Because man doesn’t go like that! You see? But we enter this lie upon the stage, and here we go. All you’ve got to do is have a great big lie floating around someplace, and you have trouble.

Now, it is perfectly all right to have difficulty isolating the truth, as long as you are continuing to try to isolate the truth. That’s the difference. You sit down hard on one lie and say, “That now is the truth,” and you’ve done the trick, you see? You say, “Pavlov has written all there is to know about the human mind,” and at that moment, you’ve had it. Because he hasn’t. He hasn’t even written about the human mind. And the reason I mentioned his prose is because it’s obvious why nobody has ever read him—you can’t. So a sort of a tradition has grown up as to what Pavlov’s work is all about. See? And we have not even the work of Pavlov motivating this kind of thing. We’ve got a superstition about what the work of Pavlov is about. It’s never been properly presented, you see?

We’ve got a lot of lies around, and so forth, but we’re not betting on those lies to carry us through, see? That’s perfectly all right. You could have a whole bunch of misconceptions and still not do your nut. But the second you settle completely on a lie and say now that that is the truth, from that moment on, you’ve had it. And you’ve had it to the degree that that truth can be pervasive in your life. You can say, “Joe is a good man” when, really, the truth is he’s a bad man, and this may cause you some inconvenience, but it won’t destroy your sanity. It’ll cause you some worry. But you say, “I have lived but once,” and then believe it, defend it and contest it, and of course you’re going to have trouble from there on out. It takes a lie of this magnitude to continue the aberration of man. It takes a magnitudinous one.

Now, to maintain such a lie must at the same time take a fantastic amount of duress. I mean you’d have to work at it to maintain that lie. And whenever you find a maintained lie, you’ll find somebody is working at it. This guy has got a headache—well, I don’t know that you could do an all-therapy on this basis—this guy has got a headache, you find the lie connected with the headache, and you could probably resolve the headache.

That very well might be an open sesame to all psychosomatic healing. You know, you could probably work a whole parade of stuff out: “Let’s find the lie connected with .” See? “Recall a lie about a headache,” see? Something like that. And bang! the guy’s headache is gone. You see, you’re working now with one of these first principles when you’re working with a lie. You got that?

Now let’s carry this just a little bit further. I didn’t mean to get off into communism. I thought you might be amused. Now, carrying this off a little bit further, let’s find a lie about what. See, now that we’ve found out a lie is this pervasive, see—now, what would be the most disastrous type of lie? And the most disastrous type of lie as a common denominator—although there are many disastrous types of lies—would be about time.

So let’s combine these two things, you see? You see what a lie can do, all by itself, that has nothing to do with time. All right, now let’s combine it with something which has the power to freeze a tone arm on a PC—that no matter a big mid ruds on “which bad things you’ve done to him in the session”; no matter what horrible this-a’s and that-a’s, and what processes you were to run (without paying any attention to lies or time, you see); no matter what you do to correct this tone arm, if you do not pay attention to wrong time, it will not correct. Got that? See? This is the only one capable of putting a total freeze on a tone arm.

Well, a total freeze on a tone arm is a total freeze on a case. So this gets fantastic. This gets very, very dreary indeed. So we must be looking, here, at something like a pervasive common denominator of aberration when we say “a lie about time.”

This immediately brings to view processes by the ton. You start thinking up processes, you can just string them out by the hour. “Recall a lie about time,” you see. “Recall a lie about time. Recall a lie about time. Recall a lie about time,” see? This kind of a process would just string on and on and on and on and on, don’t you see?

Oh, you can think of others. You can think of others. Let’s just date everything in somebody’s life. That’s an ordinary one. He believes he’s lived but once, well, let’s date everything in that life that has lived but once. Soon as we got that think kind of dated up, you’re liable to find out that he’ll fall through.

Now, just think of this approach, see? You might even apply this on an institutional level to just getting the when-ness of things. The when-ness of things, you know? For instance, when is this E-Meter? The guy would have to think for a long time. He’d finally decide it was now, see? Might be quite deaberrative; might straighten out his time track most interestingly. Of course, that’s highly experimental—not advanced as something that is proven. But I’m just giving you an idea that you can extrapolate this idea of “lie about time” almost any place you want to look, and you will have some interesting results on a processing line.

See? Because that combines, then, the single action that is the most aberrative action (which is an alter-isness of truth or a denial of truth) with the one thing which, if aberrated, brings about, then, the greatest mess-up from the viewpoint of a person. We won’t call it anything technical—just messes him up most; time messes him up the most. And we get these two things in combination, of course, we get a lie about time, and we’re off to the races.

Well, having recognized this situation, I looked it over very carefully—we have the GPMs, and we have things of this nature—and looked those over, and then I said to myself, I said, “Well now,” I said, “Ronny, if you’ve gotten this far,” this sort of thing, “just take a look at this now: Do you suppose some peculiarly and particularly brilliant blankety-blank somewhere on the track has also discovered this and used it to aberrate? Ah well, if that’s the case, then there must be such a thing as false time track, complete with times. Let’s see if we can find some.” And I found some.
 
Give somebody a false past. Implant him with a false past, complete with pictures, complete with times. And times in the order of magnitude of a thetan’s actual existence—trillions and trillions of years. We could also give him some weird and incomprehensible dates. That’d be a little fillip on the thing, you know; that would be some way to throw a new curve into it. Give him 1,069 times trillion to the tenth. Let him chew on that for a while. And he never can find out what date that is.

And you would effectually have blocked out the past by making it so confusing to be entered, and so dreary and so terrible and so awful, that nobody would want to have anything to do with it. Now, nobody ever would spend any time enhancing the powers of the thetan, unless he was more diabolical than is believable. But they’d certainly tend to make them derogatory. They’d make the life as a thetan seem very, very dangerous, very unpleasant. “Because look! Look at the horrible things that can happen to you.” And therefore, if all these horrible things can happen to you, why, then of course you don’t want to have anything to do with it.

And you could get a guy fixed up with a sufficient number of false pasts, that he’d even dramatize a false past. He’d become a fiction writer or something like that. He’d even automatically give you a false story of his past, don’t you see? He could get quite loopy on this subject if he were driven in with enough explosion, enough bang, and so on, and if the incident itself were hung up with a double explosion—you know, a left-right, bang-bang—sort of double-RI the thing, you see; plus-and-minus RI the thing, hang it up on the track real good. And just give him a good, long time track. Let’s give him a few trillion years to chew on, or a few trillion trillion years to chew on. And let’s give him some incident on that track. Let’s give him a nice history that goes along with that track. Let’s give him pictures. Let’s even give him some times when he’s been implanted.

Of course, we couldn’t give him much of an implant, but we could give him a clue that he might have been implanted at this point. You know, let a couple of the pictures leak out—looks like they’re implant pictures. That’d sort of keep him tacking that point of the line, wouldn’t it?

And by giving him enough false track, and maybe giving him four or five or six false tracks, he would rapidly get of the opinion that the one thing he shouldn’t do is to return on the time track. Because if he does, it is far too painful and confusing.

And you’d have him saying at last, in self-defense, “I’ve only lived but once.” Yes, that is one of the tricks that has been pulled. Now, you say a false past. That’s good terminology, by the way. Find some auditors may trip it around on their tongue, but you can learn how to say it. “A false past” is better than “phony pictures,” or something like that. In discussing this with a PC, you say a false past. Well, he understands this.

And R3R is good enough to be able to find a moment when a false past was installed, date it, and get its duration. Really takes some doing, now having dated it and gotten its duration, to actually run it out. Now, the incident pretends, let us say, to be many trillions of years long. And the actual duration of it is seldom more than three or four hours.

So you get the appearance of enormous duration’s, and you get the appearance of tiny duration’s. You know, two- or three-hour duration, or eighty billion trillion squillion to the nth tex boonk, see, years. You’ll get two duration’s on the thing—some past duration and some little duration. And the incident can be run out. But don’t get mad at the PC if he keeps stepping in the mud, you know, and finding himself going to the beginning of the incident, and wondering whether or not, and so on.

Now, these incidents have as common denominator—in the few I have seen (I expect there are other kinds; I have seen some of them)—and they are confused to this degree: The point where you approached, and the moment when you approached, is quite commonly repeated in the incident. So you walked up a set of steps to get there, so you now have a visio that looks like you’re walking up a set of steps in the incident. Same set of steps. So you’ve got two walkings-up the steps. One is in the incident, one is the actual one.

And there’ll be two departures. There’s the actual departure, in which one was usually anaten and didn’t know whether he was going or coming, and the picture of his departure. And thetan-wise, of course, it’d be a picture of exteriorizing from the area; it’s getting dim in the distance. In other words, there are two beginnings and two endings on such an incident.

Now, they also occasionally have a mechanism that shows troops marching away, and troops marching to you. This is how they communicate the beginning and end of things. The beginning of things, of course, troops marching to you; the end of things, troops marching away from you. And these incidents usually start with the troops marching away from you and end with the troops marching to you. That set of pictures was therapy at one time, and is used consistently in therapy, so they copied this therapy device in this other action. Only, in therapy, they show you the beginning of something by having the troops marching to you, and in the end, they show you the end of the thing, about the troops marching away from you.

Sometimes they’re sailors. Sometimes they’re sailors in pompon hats. Sometimes they’re people who look like West Point cadets. But you’ll see these two marchings connected with it sometimes in these incidents.

So knowing these things, you actually can find beginnings and ends of it. But it’s very confusing, of course, because the couple of hours there that aren’t taken up, give you a whole time track. They give you some catastrophic accident that happened to you, you see, and then you remained dormant for a long time, and things were very mean, and so forth.

Well, the way you can tell false track is it really doesn’t move. You’ve got motion to such a limited degree that it doesn’t make very much sense. Let me show you what I mean.

As you walk in that door back there, you see the front of this room; don’t you? When you turn around, you see some more of the room, don’t you? And when you sit down, you see some more of the room in front of you, but from a different viewpoint and level, right? And then when you look down, you have a scanned area of passing your eyes down, toward a book or a meter, or something like that, you see? And you have the continuous sound channel that goes all the way along that accompanies this; any sound in the room is continuous. Well, that is a proper sequence—very proper sequence.

Well, false track never looks like that. They’ve not got the time for it, don’t you see? They crowd in all this thing. So you vet a picture—if the picture is in motion, and they can be—you get a picture of the front door, then you get a picture of the Font of the room, then you get a picture of the book in front of you, see? And they seldom add the sound that goes with it. Many a PC who doesn’t think he has any sonic is simply running false-track incidents where there is none. Diabolical, isn’t it? Makes you go wog just to think about it.

Now, coupled with this is the tact that there is actual track. You have actual track. And this track, of course, is more sequitur but, again, can be in segmental pictures if there’s points of anaten. You’ll get the pictures right up to the point where you knocked yourself out, see? And then you’ll pick up pictures after this point. You don’t have a complete series of pictures, but they don’t go chop, chop, chop. Let me give you an actual one:

Thetan is lying on the ground. Airplane comes overhead. Thetan sees airplane come overhead—it just sort of moves into view. Airplane falls apart. We stand up and take a look. But that’s simply a picture of the parts of the airplane falling, you see? And then airplane parts are all over the ground, only they’re plastic parts. It’s not a wrecked airplane, see? We just get jump-jump-jump-jump. See? It’s something like the movie director would cut when he was making a documentary. You know, typical modern documentary: Children starving in Armenia! Children startling in Egypt! Children starving in Washington! Children starving! See? You know, cut-cut-cut-cut-cut-cut. This is typical of one of these false incidents.

Now, why does the thetan look at the false incident? Why is he more likely to be on false incident than he is on true incident? Well, a false incident is safe. There’s no bite to the stuff. There’s a hell of a bang. Now, don’t think it isn’t aberrative to get one of these bangs! at the beginnings and ends, and the somatics that went with it. But once you’ve got those somatics under control, it’s much easier to look at false track than it is . . . Just like you’d rather—a lot of people would rather look at a movie of life than live, see? See, it’s safe because one really never lived it.

They’re usually a derogatory or unhappy state of affairs of some kind or another. They’re not well plotted. There isn’t anything very good about it. It’s messy. But in running the incident out, of course the false track is part of the incident you’re running out, right? So the PC, in running these two and a half hours, gets the sensation of running several million trillion years of track, very often, except it doesn’t take that long to do it.

Only, he would gasp if he thought he was having to scan through many trillions of years of track. This would just fill him with “Uhhhhh! Oh, no!” you see? The time factor is too great. When he really thinks of the number of pictures there could be on just one trillion years of track, you see, he’ll say, “Well, am I going to be here the rest of the night?” you know? This is the idea he gets in session. Well, the longest it could take, if it were one for one, would be a couple of hours.

Anyway, the somatics being wrong and the scenery being wrong and the character of the scenery being wrong, the whole thing is therefore a lie. This is a lie about time. It tells him where he has been, when—when he wasn’t there. It puts trillions of years into two hours. There couldn’t be a fancier lie about time.

Now, they very often have wheels running over to the side with numbers on them. So you can get all the dates you want on the side of the picture. Sound familiar? But a thetan also can do this. He also can visualize numbers to give himself “years ago,” and that sort of thing.

Now, the one thing you can be absolutely sure of (on a question of false track and dates on false track, and that sort of thing) is that there are no GPMs that I know of. There might be signs of them implanted on the false track, but no actual, runnable GPM could possibly be on a false-track-implant basis. That would just be totally pointless. In the first place, you can’t, on a false-track gag, get a guy to go over the top of the ferris wheel several times with the full kinesthesia and motion, don’t you see, and have him stuck from both sides with all kinds of firings, and that sort of thing. So you know if you’re running a GPM that you’re not on false track. Otherwise, beware.
 
Now, it would be adventurous to say that you know you are not on false track if you are running this lifetime. I’m afraid that would be an adventurous statement, however, because I’ve seen some false track with brownstone houses on it that I could never account for in this lifetime.

Now, many a PC starts to recover his sanity by just getting him to run entering the room. See, he can verify that that is the picture. He walks in the room and sits down in the chair, and then you have him close his eyes, and he runs the incident of walking in the room and going and sitting down in the chair. Now he knows that’s his picture, and he knows that is present time, and he knows it isn’t an implant; makes him feel pretty comfortable. Kind of a weird operation. But don’t discount its value in this sort of thing. Because, of course, a total swamp of a memory is the target of this, and a desire not to go back into the past—these are the immediate fruits of it.

Now let’s look at actual track. What about actual track? Can you also find actual track? Oh yeah, that’s pretty easy to find. It’s pretty easy to find. GPMs are very easy to find. The dates of GPMs, this sort of thing. That’s all perfectly accurate, don’t you see? But you’re always walking there with the possibility that you got some false track that may turn up on this PC. So there’s two things you want to know when you find an incident and date it. Two things you really want to know is, one, does it contain opposite-firing items? That is to say, is it a GPM? And the other thing you want to know about it, does it contain false track?

Not, does it contain any pictures? This very often will not register. When I say “false track” I’m using a term that we would use, but not necessarily on a PC. Better to say “false past.” Does it contain any false past? Because all these picture implants have the ambition of teaching somebody a false past.

Now, you need all this data. You need all this data, as discouraging and as upsetting and as miserable and as disheartening as it is. And I know you will go home tonight and lie down, and say, “God, that’s terrible. Ooooo! Ahhh. Are my pictures real? Am I really real?” Remember the old lady that the robbers caught, and cut her clothes up, and when she finally got home, her dog barked at her, and nobody knew her, and she finally decided when she sat down, “Can this really be me?” you know? She herself didn’t know her after a while. Well, there’s no particular reason to get in that state, and it’s perfectly all right if you do, because it’s simply a restimulated state. And the cure of the state is, when dating, just make sure that you don’t have any GPMs in it, or if you do, maybe you’re looking for GPMs.

Neither of these things debar you from running the engram. But let’s just make sure we know what we’re running. You scan somebody through a GPM and you’re going to go blang-bang-bang, and he’s going to stir it all up, but he can’t see the pictures, and you don’t know what’s going on. It’s much easier to just, not move him to the beginning of the incident, but move him to the first pair of items. You don’t move anybody anyhow. You just say, “Give me the first pair of items in that GPM.” See, after you’ve dec . . . If you want to establish what it is, you haven’t got a pattern, it’s off-date, and that sort of thing, just what are the first pair of items? He’ll give you something. Work it out. Muddle through.

When you’ve got it all straight, why, you can scan him through the whole incident. It’s perfectly all right if you do that, also. But on false track, what it tells you is be very, very alert to getting a wrong date for the incident, and a wrong duration. Because any incident which contains false track is of very short duration.

How long does it take to give somebody a feature-length picture in 3-D— with complete somatics hitting him in the breadbasket—of several trillion years, if you only give him a few pictures of each? See? Doesn’t take very long. Well, that’s the criteria.

Now the Darwinian theory . . . Now, I’ll give you some idea of the influence of false track upon this society: The Darwinian theory, which probably influenced Pavlov to the greatest degree, is just an implant. That is an implant from man to mud. And it starts out, oddly enough, with the goal “to persist.” Starts with the goal “to persist,” which I consider very, very interesting, because there’s not another item in it. There isn’t even “not persist.” There, you see, they didn’t have the word, you know; they didn’t have a double-firing item.

And then they show you your arrival, which you . . . See, actually, they have you in a cell for a while, so they show you being in the cell, and then show you arriving in the room to be implanted. Got that? If you were conscious when you went in the room, you’ve got, now, two arrivals in the same room, see? And then they show you—complete with pictures, not unlike a modern motion-picture screen—they show you all that has happened to you (very briefly they give you background on how mean you are), and then they show you getting implanted.

And, actually, the implantation takes place—the picture never touches the person being implanted, but simply stacks mass around his body. All the time he’s looking at the picture he’s having hell knocked out of him many feet away from the picture by electronic mass stacking around his body. See, he’s being hit with waves around his body, you see? So this mass, you know, it holds it in the picture, and so forth. And there isn’t another thing said. There’s not one word said.

And one of the things you’ve got to be careful of in running false past is getting the PC all mired up with giving you a fantastic number of items, or something like this. You understand? But in this particular Darwinian one, nothing is said. You occasionally do get something said in one of these things; you do sometimes get sonic in these false past lives, or you get conversation or you get this, or you get that.

But beware! Beware of running things in incidents which aren’t there. It’s almost more deadly than missing things which are there. Don’t overrun these incidents. You know, you can take a GPM and you could just pull conversation out of it by the hour. Did you know that? And every item is wrong. You realize that? The guy is sitting there in the middle of the GPM, and you don’t know what the goal is, and you don’t even know that it’s this type of GPM—you might have landed by accident in the middle of the Helatrobus implants, or something of the sort. Maybe the goal is “to leave.” And he just gives you item after item of “Goodbye!” “Farewell,” “Adios,” you know? And, you know, he just gives you item after item, of goodbyes and farewells. It’s just the goal “to leave.”

It’s just “leave,” “nix leave,” “absolutably,” see, “left,” “not left,” or “nix left,” “absolutably.” You know? He’s giving you wrong items. And you’ll pay the penalty for getting wrong items sooner or later—the whole incident tends to fold up. If you want to see an incident get crunchy, get a wrong date, a wrong duration, or run things out of it that aren’t in it. So this is a point that you have to watch.

This incident, now, with a wheel dating device which gives you a series of numbers that gives you the time of these events, shows you being implanted; shows you finished implanting; shows you leaving (being pushed out of the implant room); even shows you a couple of your fellow crew members, or something like that, there, who are tied up, ready to be put into the room; shows you being put aboard a spaceship; shows you being taken to another planet; shows you being dumped in the sea; and shows you start from the sea and become seaweed, and become this, and to work up stage by stage (giving the millions of years which elapse on each step, see?).

And you go on and on, up the line, each step, each step, each step, on an evolutionary channel; and you run all the way through on these evolutionary channels (a lot of this stuff starts looking awfully 3-D after you’ve been looking at it for a while); and shows you eventually arriving at the state of being a man, see; gives you a bit more louse-up in the way of pictures ending, pictures beginning, something of this sort.

And then they push you out through that exact corridor, past the exact two dummies that are tied up, to the exact spaceship, put you in the exact capsule, drop you into that exact sea, and expect you to make some seaweed and go on up the beach. We were fooled only to the degree of some of the incidents of What to Audit are actually out of that. Some of the incidents of What to Audit are actual, some are out of that Darwinian implant, see?
Now, that’s very interesting, to recognize how they can make you live your life twice. Because that one pretends to go into the future, not into the past. Gorgeous louse-up, see? I know—I caught this with myself. But after they dumped me down at the bottom of the sea, I said “Ho-hum, skip it!” and went over and picked up a young fisherman’s baby, and so forth, and hung around there for a while, catching my breath. Didn’t bother to go through all this; seemed pointless.

That’s very finite. That’s a very short time ago. That’s only a couple of hundred million years ago. A lot of characters around here got this. Most of them become scientists. That actually is the sole foundation of the Darwinian theory. That’s the lot. Evolution: There’s no such thing; bodies don’t evolve. They deteriorate, but they don’t evolve.

You can trace all kinds of reasons how they evolve, and why they evolve, and you can figure it all out, but the truth of the matter is, when you get horses on a planet, somebody came along and mocked up some horses! Now, they also mocked up these horses with the capability of growing hair or not growing hair. You’ve’ got adjustment factors, but not evolution factors. So you confuse the adjustment factors and prone the whole theory of evolution. And now you know man came from mud, and you can write a book like Pavlov and get the whole world poisoned. You see how this one goes?

All of this is based on what? It’s based on errors in time. Errors in time. Because an individual has this incident: It’s a wrong time, wrong place, going wrong the whole way, and it took up two hours and, actually, looks like it takes up seven million, see? There are such incidents.

Just before the Helatrobus implants, they were practicing these. Just before the Helatrobus implants, you’re liable to pick one up on a PC within a few hundred billion years earlier than the Helatrobus implants were. Perhaps even after the Helatrobus implants you’re liable to pick up one of these false-track incidents. So they last . . . They’re liable to be found almost anyplace.

Now, if you know that these things exist, you can whip it. See, it’s all in what you know exists. When you first collide with one, you’re going to be “Gee whiz!” you know, and you’re going to be much more nervous than you need to be. If you know there is such a thing as a false-past incident and you check up for these things—at the risk of invalidating the pc’s actual track—you get yourself sailing along there, and you got this incident, and it’s at forty-four trillion years ago. Perfectly valid date, you see?

The reason I’m talking to you so strenuously about this is you’re just about to be correcting somebody’s dates. As a matter of fact, you were at it today. You start correcting the dates of incidents, and you’re going to run into this other phenomenon. It’s going to drive you mad, man, if you don’t know it exists. You can’t correct dates on a case unless you know this other phenomena exists, because it’s full of false dates, see?

PC and you could work at it, correcting false dates, I don’t know, another couple hundred hours, all out of one two-and-a-half-hour incident, see? The thing to do is to—when you start correcting dates of incidents—the first thing you should look for is: an incident contains a false past. Not, an incident contains false dates. Don’t worry about false dates so much. You just want false past.

But remember that it can also contain a false future. So that mustn’t be totally dismissed as a possibility. Fortunetellers practice that to this day. It’s very popular—false futures. They get you sitting over the crystal ball, you know, and they say, “I see a dark man coming into your life. And he’ll be six feet tall if you give me two bucks, and he’ll only be five foot eight if you don’t give me . . .” They’re tailor-making future. And most fortunes depend on the fact that pcs have future implants that they dramatize, and tend to dramatize. They want to always know about the future. They’re really not nervous; they’re just dramatizing an implant.

You must ask for a false past—that’ll give you the most loused up, because future doesn’t too often contain dates. But also check for false futures—an incident about false futures. And between the two of these things, why, you’re all set. False present, well, everybody knows it’s false anyway.

The task is not a very difficult one, providing you know this information. As far as GPMs are concerned, you go back on the track on GPMs, and you got GPMs at eighteen trillion trillion years ago, and they start banging you in the head and firing left and right, and you’re going over the roller-coaster, and you’re doing this, and you’re doing that—yes, there’s always the possibility there could be an implant that also refers to this GPM, but that cannot be done.

What type of equipment is used, now, in order to implant false dates, and so on? It’s quite varied, but it really never moves off the basis of something you look into, or something you look at, attended by electronic blasts. And that’s the common denominator of all such equipment.

In other words, you can have a room; and the person is put on a bed; and the screen, and so on, is at a diagonal up in front of them or at the other end of the room; and it shows a three-dimensional view of events, or something like that. Meantime, the person is being hit with this and that.

It could be as simple as some kind of a scope that has a movie running in the back of it; you put your face, or your face is put up to, this scope and anchored there with some electric blasts. And at this close range, why, the thing runs off at a mad rate. And there it goes, with appropriate jolts in the right places.

This is earlier track, when they didn’t mind mass so much. If you find any back there, they probably have full sets connected with them. They move them like a stage set.

One of the trick ways of building these things—you take these two crayons here. You notice that they are not a consecutive line, if I hold them like this. And if you pull them down like this, they look like they’re a consecutive line, don’t you see? But there’s a hole between the two of them. So the set moves up, and then goes this way around the person. You understand? If a person is anchored there on a stake, or something like this, you see, when the set moves then, why, they just jog the set and he passes through this slit which he can’t see.

It looks very mysterious to him. He’s in one environment, total 3-D environment; he’s in the next environment, total 3-D environment. After his sonic and visio picks up a little bit, however, he can hear the scene shift. They really make a lot of noise. And that type of thing, by the way, is used in some very early implant series—types of pictures of this kind.

The Helatrobus, the Bear and Gorilla and Glade implants, none of them use pictures. The only picture I know of used in the Helatrobus implants is on a railroad on which you travel sideways at a vast rate of speed. And when you meet the railroad, when you come down to the railroad, you’ll see that there’s a section house right at the point where you’re put on the track. There’s a house there, see? And then as you move down the track, just before you move down the track, a board goes up in front of you, and it’s the same section house. So actually, you’re moved at sixty miles an hour sideways, with the same section house sitting in front of you, and this is supposed to confuse you enormously. But almost any thetan, no matter how anaten he is, can see that it’s just a board shoved up in front of him.

In the Gorilla and Bear GPMs, and so on, they do put a figure on the cart with the thetan. There’s a guy in a pink shirt with a monkey peeking out from behind him put on the ride carts—a guy in a pink-striped shirt. Very, very interesting. That was their badge, the Hoipolloi. And you’ll see this bird with a pink-striped shirt. Sometimes you have a gorilla in front of you. Sometimes it’s the gorilla who is spitting things at you, and that sort of thing.

They use figures. But this is not the same thing I’m talking about. Don’t think you’re mixed up in one of these things just because in an implant, why, somebody jumps up with a picture, see, or something like that. That’s just a momentary picture. This is not the same intention. That’s just to get you to make pictures, or louse up your pictures, or something like that.

No, we’re talking about another type of incident, another type of incident entirely, where you’re hit with electronic blasts at the same time you’re hit with a series of pictures, which purport to be a past or a future for the individual. And when you run into that one, why, if you don’t recognize that these things can exist, why, you’ve had it.

Now, this also gets in the road of running an actual incident. You’ve got an actual planet-builder incident, and it looks pretty wild to you. And it doesn’t look like the PC could possibly have done it, and so forth. And you date it, and it’s got a perfectly right date, and so on. And you’ve got no read of any kind on false past or anything of this character. And, yet, there’s that picture. And it seems very incredible to you that the PC could be running this at that particular level or line, and that sort of thing. You can get tangled up on this, but just don’t forget to run the incident. Get tangled up all you please, but run the incident. If it’s a right incident, it’s a right incident. If it’s a wrong incident, you’ll never be able to find the beginning of it.

About the most maddening activity you can get into is get into one of these false-past things, and go whirring along at a mad rate, trying to find the beginning of the incident. Of course, you never make it. You eventually will find a beginning of an incident, but it’ll be an incident of such fantastic magnitude that you’ve got yourself a “Ahh! The hell with it!” You know? It could take you four, five, six sessions, just to try to find the beginning of that sequence of events. Well, there’s no sense in beating your brains out. If you can’t find easily the beginning of an incident, you better get interested in whether or not this thing has got a false past or a false future in it.

That all depends, of course, on having your date right. Now, how do you clean up somebody? How do you clean up somebody with something like this? Your approved technology at the present moment is clean up his wrong dates.
 
I’m giving you this material because right now some of you are engaged in running a Prepcheck on wrong dates. And it’s a very good thing you are. You re getting tremendous tone arm action, you’re getting results on this sort of thing, and this is all a very happy thing. Remember this: When you start correcting dates, the first thing you’re going to run into is any false-past or false-future incident that you have triggered on the PC. And you’re going to run into it head-on. So you beware of redating. Don’t redate incidents endlessly.

The first order of business is get in there and pitch on the subject of an incident containing a false past. And when you’ve got that found (because it’ll be there), when you’ve got that found, and when you sue got it run—don’t just find it and date and walk off. Because, look, you’re not going to date any-thing else from there on except the track that is in it! You can date endlessly. You could run a PC maybe thousands of hours, cleaning up this false track which didn’t exist. They can see it and so forth.

So, look, if you got your hands on an incident (now, here’s one of your rules of the game), when you’ve got your hands on an incident—even though it’s hell to run and upsets the PC, and everything else, and so on—when you’ve got your hands on an incident which contains a false past or a false future, you finish that incident. You understand? Finish it from one end to the other. Do anything necessary to get it the hell off the track.

The best way to handle it, of course, is with R3R. You just do standard R3R on the thing. And remember that it’s pretended duration will be in the millions or billions or trillions or quadrillions, and its actual duration is probably in the matter of hours—at the most, a day or two.

So I have to give you all this data now, and it’s a good thing that it’s turned up, because you just start correcting dates on a PC and about the first thing you’re going to trip into is the phenomena of false past with all its attendant false dates. And the moment you get collided with one of those things, you’ve had it. You want to do a PC an awful lot of good, however, get rid of one of them. Don’t mistake me, they’re hell to get rid of. You take the PC to the beginning of the incident, and he goes to the beginning of the incident. Only, the beginning of the incident is also inside the incident, as well as at the beginning of the incident. You get the idea?

He finishes up the incident, he leaves the incident at the point where it says he left the incident, but that’s a picture of his leaving the incident, and you haven’t run out his leaving the incident, you got the idea? These things usually have a minimum of two beginnings, identical; and two ends, identical. If you know that, why, you can sometimes pull the fat out of the fire. You don’t do anything with it, unless it starts running badly. If it runs badly, why, re-duration the actual incident itself, and square it around, and just do a routine, workmanlike auditing job. It doesn’t need anything extraordinary about this thing. The PC will eventually plow on through it. All you need is very standard auditing. Very standard R3R—just its usual steps.

You get into a fight with the PC about the thing, however, it’s still perfectly kosher to tip him off and say, “Well, are there two beginnings?” Ask on the meter, “Are there two beginnings to this incident?” Pang! Pang! Well, you know you got a false-past incident, see? “There two endings? The reason you’re having trouble with reaching the end of the incident—are there two endings to this incident?” Pang! Pang! “Yeah, you got your two endings on the end of the incident.”

PC says, “Huh! There are!”—as well as another beginning and ending of the incident that merely says it begins and ends at this point, which is inside the point when it really begins and ends. Talk about confusion.

These things are confusing to handle. But standard processing, right as of this minute, handles them. And you’re going to run into them head-on the instant that you start correcting anybody’s dates. It’s one of the first things that’ll raise its hand and elect to fall in your lap as an auditor, is one of these incidents.

Well, what if you’re in X unit, and you’ve been ordered to do a Prepcheck on wrong dates on the PC, and so forth, and the PC starts sliding all over the track, and you’re not supposed to do anything but correct that? Let me tell you the wrong thing to do. Let me tell you the wrong thing to do: Get your hands on one of these false-past or false-future incidents that’s full of dates, get it dated precisely and then walk off and leave it and try to do something else. You’re not going to get anything else done. I can tell you that’s wrong. I won’t tell you what else to do, because I’ll probably contradict the orders your Instructors will be giving you. But I can tell you what not to do. Don’t walk off and leave it.

Because you have run into, restimulated and excited thousands of dates. Hundreds or thousands of dates have been excited, just like that. And if somebody didn’t have that pc’s Auditor’s Report, and that PC ceased to be audited in some way, somebody would be wading through that for a long time trying to find the actual incident again.

One of the rules of auditing, one of the little rules that goes along with don’t talk, you know, around people who are unconscious, and all aberration is (at the bottom of the aberration) a lie—a lie causes aberration—along with that is the fact that when you got your paws on something, you handle it. That’s a maxim that I go by in my own auditing. When I find that lying under the needle of my E-Meter is something that’s bothering the living daylights out of the PC—not because he put it there, but because it arrived there in the course of auditing—I handle it.

I don’t expect the PC to go on struggling with this thing as a PTP while I do something else because “I’m supposed to.” When I get my hands on something in a case, I handle it. You understand? It makes for a little—much less trouble with a case. You get your hands on something—this thing is going crash! on wrong dates, crash! on wrong dates. Well, Err! what the hell! You got the PC right there on wrong dates. What are you going to do now? Are you going to skip that? You see? Walk off and leave it? Well, you know it’s top-level stuff. How come wrong dates? What are these wrong dates all about? Let’s deal up a few of these wrong dates. Let’s find out what this wrong date thing is. You’re unfortunately liable to find yourself in a process you’re not permitted to run.

Just remember this: If you louse up your PC, well, I always make sure that you get two thousand words! And remember this: I never ask how it was done. That’s good enough, see? Somebody loused up a PC, why, bang. I’m very interested at that point. He loused up the PC. I’m not interested if he loused up the PC because the Instructor said, or because he did, or because the bulletin said, or the this said, or the that said, or something else said—I’m just interested in he loused up the PC, see? I have a very short-circuited view of the whole thing.

Because auditing is auditing! You’re supposed to do auditing! I can lay you down thousands of rules on the subject of auditing. I can guide your footsteps very directly. I can give you information on the subject of auditing. I can do everything else. But I can’t sit in that chair and audit your PC. You understand?

And auditing, from my point of view, is supposed to produce beneficial results on the PC. That’s my narrow-minded attitude. You understand? Here’s the PC, and we’re supposed to produce good results on the PC. Well, if you don’t know how to do this or how to do that or something else, I can show you how to do this or how to do that. Well, you can’t ever tell what is going to come up in this case; when it’s going to come up. You can’t tell.

Now, when you’re auditing a PC, very often a PC comes into session in no fit shape to go on with what you’re running on the PC. It’s very heroic of you to try to keep on running what he’s on, but remember that you can sometimes not accomplish anything by doing just this. You sometimes have to handle the PC right there in front of you.

Now, similarly, you innocently set forward to do a fundamental action on a case, like straighten out his dates, and you suddenly see yourself staring down the barrel of the incident responsible for the wrong dates.

Now remember, there’s your big auditing cycle. [See lecture chart] Your big auditing cycle is to accomplish what you’re trying to accomplish with the case. And you better figure out what you’re trying to accomplish with the case that you’re auditing. In this case, you’re trying to straighten out the pc’s dates, right? All right, that’s your big auditing cycle, right? All right. So, you’re trying to straighten out the pc’s dates. Now, if you go ahead and handle his lumbosis, God help you! See? I mean that has nothing to do with it. You’re trying to straighten out his dates. That’s a Q and A or a mess-up, see?

You’re trying to straighten out the big auditing cycle on this PC—we’re going to get the wrong dates off this case—and suddenly, you are presented with something which is outside the perimeter of the permitted process, or something like that. What do you do with it? I can tell you what not to do with it. Neglect it. Now, that’s what you must not do with it. Because you very often can’t get your paws on it again. You’ve made a big problem for somebody else.

Listen, when you’ve found the source of the pc’s upset, what other source is there to find? See? You got that? So if you’re supposed to be running “Which ruddy rod have you stuck between your ears?” and you all of a sudden find yourself staring at the source of his upset about ruddy rods, I can tell you how not to help the PC: ignore the fact that you have found the source of it. This results in an invalidation of the source, and nothing happens. You understand?

You have to ask yourself, why are you running this thing about ruddy rods between the ears? That’s the big auditing cycle. Don’t ever subordinate your big auditing cycle to the minor auditing cycle, you understand?

See, there’s your big auditing cycle, and then there’s your process auditing cycle—you’re supposed to flatten this process, see? But your big one is what you’re trying to intend with the PC—what process you’re running on the PC. And then you’ve got your other auditing cycle, which is your repetitive give-and-take of auditing commands, don’t you see?

Some auditors can just get on this give-and-take of auditing commands and neglect even the process they’re trying to flatten, see? And some, running the process they’re supposed to flatten, actually can run into the denouement of the big auditing cycle. That’s the end, see? The big auditing cycle—they’ve collided with the thing.

This person has been terrified of ghosts. This person has been terrified of this particular subject. Every time they go to bed at night, why, they won’t turn out the lights. You see? They’ve been this way since childhood, or something of this character. And all of a sudden, you’re running this process of some kind or another, you’re straightening out something, and the big auditing cycle turns up and drops into your paws. See? They say, “No! Not really! I’m a ghost! Ha-ha! Me! Ha-ha-ha! What do you know! I’ve always been afraid of myself.”

Now, what are you going to do from this, on? What, are you going to be
 a complete knuckle head? Going to be a complete jackass? Having found the source, now you’re going to try to do what? I’m just bringing to your attention, what else is there left to do? There isn’t anything else left to do.

Somebody cognites his level-item assessment out: “Say! What do you know! It’s a so-and-so, and it’s a th-lul, and it’s a du-du-ddl, and fa-dt-d-d-dt! And, ha, well, ha-ha! What do you know! That . . . that’s in the bag! That’s why that level operated! “

And you say the level, “be leery of cats.” Tone arm is down. Now, what are you going to do? Flatten the chain? You have to ask yourself this question. What chain? What chain are you going to flatten? Where? It now isn’t! That is known as your big auditing cycle. That’s what you’re intending to do with the person.

If you don’t know that, I can see you some day auditing a person up to OT, and they arrive at the point of OT, and you get very upset because you haven’t completed your auditing cycle! You understand? So that’s present in all auditing. Having found the source of the aberration in wrong dates, what you going to do? Look for another source?

What you haven’t got in your mind, then, is the big auditing cycle: What were you intending to do with the PC? What does this process intend to do with this PC? Wrong dates? Well, it’s supposed to straighten out the pc’s wrong dates, what else? And all of a sudden—you didn’t even ask for it, and you possibly in a lot of cases won’t get it right away, unless you’re running R3R work—all of a sudden you’ve got your paws on the source of the pc’s wrong dates! And what you going to do? “Run the process,” of course. What nonsense.

You’re going to go on and say, “Give me another source for wrong dates. Give me another source for wrong dates. Give me another . . .” He’s just given you the source for a wrong date, see? The second that you say “Give me another source for wrong dates,” what are you looking at? You’re looking at invalidation of the source for wrong dates, and from that point on you have thereafter defeated your auditing. See that?

So there’s where it’d go. So all of a sudden this guy suddenly says, “Hey! Hey, hey, hey! There’s a bap-ut-ut-it, and . . . and a dzu-zu-zul-ul and all that track I thought I . . . uh . . . mmmmauuup!” You speak about wrong dates, well, there it is, see? What are you going to do?

Now, you make your peace with the Instructors, but remember I count on you to handle the PC.

Thank you very much.

Dianetic Auditing

A lecture given on
21 July 1966

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That’s a nice welcome.

Well now, today we’re getting down to business. We’re getting down to business, and this is the 21st of July 1966, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, a lecture on Dianetic auditing.

I go away, and right away everybody forgets how to audit. No, the processes today are so fast, they’re so rapid, that an auditor cannot be trained. That’s it. I mean, it’s as simple as that. I recognized this some time ago, and back in April wrote a bulletin which covered this, which has actually not been put into action yet, and which is being put into action right now. And I think went into action at 2:00 P.M. That’s it. Ron’s back.

All right. The main thing about this is that if auditors can’t audit, why, then no auditing gets done. Now, that’s very, very horribly true. And then nobody will make it up the line at all. And it’s also factually true that our first Clears are uniformly good auditors. But today I turned a PC over to an auditor, and he didn’t know enough to flatten the process. PC went unconscious, so he changed the process. Huhoo! That’s awful! That’s awful. Don’t do things like that!

So the guy goes unconscious. All right. Get your question answered. So a PC says he can’t answer the question, just sit there till he does. If a PC has no more answers, and so forth, the process probably went free needle and you didn’t notice. It probably is already squared away. But don’t just change a process because a PC went unconscious. Do you see? These are the little truisms of auditing.

Man to man, and man to girl, I make a plea: Follow the fundamentals. Get your auditing question answered. It’s a plea. Don’t change processes because the PC goes out like a light. Don’t panic; don’t be a psychiatrist.

Now, if goofs like that can occur, it’s because one doesn’t have enough drill. But drill, just on the TRs, is not adequate to produce the whole of auditing phenomena for the auditor, and so he doesn’t get used to handling them, and it’s like a greased ball in his hands, you know? Like: “Let’s see, it said in the bulletin that the next thing I huh-hah . . . and . . . yeah, and I hope that’s right.” And the PC goes Release, and so he says he gets no more practice with that.

Well, I can assure you, Dianetic auditing carried on this way is not likely to release anybody very rapidly. And if it does, it only releases him on a chain. If you get any Releases in this, they’re subzero Releases—way down.
 
Now, I have made Releases with Dianetic auditing, and so on, and they were the first Clears. It’s not too hard to do. But of course, they were simply keyed-out Clears, which today we call Releases. Those people remained stable or didn’t remain stable or something of the sort, but it completely changed their lives. The trouble I had in those days was the person felt so good—and there was no training, of course, pre-’50—they just walked away. I kept tabs on them for some years, from time to time, but somebody stole my book and I don’t have any idea what happened to them. But I can tell you that these people were in much better shape. They really weren’t up to a Grade 0 Release, but they were certainly in much better shape. Something had happened.

So there’s value in this type of auditing. But I wish to make you another plea, is don’t go out and use it in practice. It’s practice auditing. Don’t practice with it on people. Because all sorts of disastrous things will occur. If you become an expert Dianetic auditor, then we’re all in trouble. Because we will start curing everything, you know, and knocking out psychosis and neurosis, and doing all those poor doctors out of their jobs. And you don’t want to do any doctors out of their jobs.

But I say this in all sincerity: This leads you in to the fact that you can heal; and that is not your profession. You’re trying to clear people. And these processes will heal people, even badly run. They’ll cure migraine headaches and arthritis and lumbosis and medicosis, and all kinds of wild illnesses. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that it’s uniform. In other words, you don’t get one for one for one, you see, for the excellent reason that the whole reactive mind is the reason for very severe illnesses. It’s the whole mind. And you can key out parts of it and make somebody quite well, you see. You can key out some very specific illness like that and have it go away, but don’t be too surprised if it comes back. So therefore, “cure” is not well used. It’s ill-advised as a word.

The way to make somebody well is to make a thetan Clear, and just never, never depart from that and you’ll be fine. But you do need practice. I don’t use “you” broadly. But you as an Instructor, you as a Scientologist, and the new student, all need some process which doesn’t produce an instantaneous result. And then you get so that you can handle ARC breaks and you can handle a comm cycle and you can do this and you can do that. And you get practice. You can sit there and grind away by the hour, don’t you see? You can use a meter; you can fool around with this and that and so on. You could go on a project like cleaning up all the engrams of the last three lives. Well, you’re not likely to release anybody doing this, but it’s awfully interesting—great interest to the auditor, great interest to the PC. You might change some things; you might improve somebody. We’re not interested in that particularly. But it’s quite rewarding, quite rewarding for the PC. But we’re only interested in the auditor in this particular case, you see?

Now, the auditor will get so that he knows that a PC who is being critical has got a withhold. And he knows enough to get his question answered. And he knows enough not to overrun. The PC completely runs out of answers: well, you should recognize that the PC has done so, and ii isn’t just a dodge; he’s not a very imaginative PC.

You say, “Where did you put the cat?”

And the fellow says, “In the living room.”

Now, there’s no point in now saying, “Where did you put the cat?” because there aren’t any more answers to it. And sometimes you get into this squirrel cage and you must recognize these things.

But the way to learn how to audit is to get y our hands dirty, and the dirtiest you can get your hands is going down the reactive bank on the time track. Now, there aren’t any bugs in Dianetic auditing; there aren’t any bugs in it. They’ve all been ironed out. Even visio: There is a way to run on somebody’s visio so he can see the picture. There is a way to do this. All you do is get the duration of the incident, and if you get the exact duration of the incident, the boy will have visio in it. It’s the most remarkable thing you ever saw. So you’d have to know how to get the duration of an incident.

You know, if he was being hit on the head with a sledgehammer, you have to know if he was hit on the head for one minute or five minutes or one day, you see? All right, if you get the correct time on your meter, and so on . . . This fellow that’s 811 black—this case is a black V; he’s never seen pictures or anything like that—if you get the exact point where he’s parked on the track with your meter, and then you get the exact duration of the incident, bang! he has visio. Startles him most to pieces. That’s what used to chop us down in running engrams and so forth.

Well now, one has to go into this from the most basic and elementary possible ways; the most fundamental fundamentals have to be gone into to teach somebody something about Dianetic auditing. Now, there is a book on the subject, Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health. But to give you this practice material, I have condensed Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health into HCO Bulletin 3 April 1966, which is one, two, three, four, five pages long.

You get brighter as you get older, you know—and processing. And I wish to point out that HCOB 3 April 1966 is a far simpler and better method of running secondaries and engrams than Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. So, if you’re reading this and read Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, realize that this bulletin written sixteen years later takes precedence. You got it?

Now, there’s a lot of dope in Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health, but it runs engrams quite differently; it runs them by repeater technique, it runs them by phrases, it does all kinds of things, and so on—whereas this doesn’t run them by repeater technique and run phrases. Now the main danger that you run into, then, is not really reading what it says in this bulletin, and actually trying to run Dianetics secondaries and engrams the way it is described in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, you see? You let some of the old Dianetic technique get into this bulletin, and you will have, to that degree, just this much trouble.

Now, a Dianetic session today would look like a repetitive-auditing session with this single exception: that it takes longer for the PC to answer the question. If you tell him to go through it and tell you everything that has happened, and so on, that is an auditing command, but it may take him five minutes to answer it. And the only danger is, is I don’t want you to pick up the idea that your PC ought to gab, gab, gab on Grade 0 processes, and so forth, any more than it takes him to answer the question. We don’t want the PC continuously itsaing.

Well now, he isn’t continually itsaing. He’s told you—you tell him to go through it and say what happened. And when you tell him this, why, he then goes through it and says what happened. When that finishes off, why, you give him a final acknowledgment.

Sometimes he gets scared or lonesome, and you have to give him an “Shhuh” to encourage him, but this is a sort of a half-acknowledgment. If you give him too many of those, he’ll start talking to you obsessively because he feels that he’s got more to say and you’ve already acknowledged him. So get your half acknowledgments really half, you know— “Uh-huh,” you know? “Uh-huh.” Don’t say “Good!” You know? Now, if you really want to start him talking, just do that to him a time or two. Then he’ll feel that you’re stopping him from talking, and so he will then talk more and more and more. These continuously talking PCs, where the auditor never has a chance to get a question in edgewise, have either been trained in the field of psychoanalysis, or the auditor is over acknowledging and the PC is trying to get past that acknowledgment.

So anyway, you’ve got a lot to learn about auditing. And it’s about auditing that you are learning while you’re running Dianetic auditing. But to use Dianetic auditing at all, you have to know something about Dianetic auditing.

That brings us back to a subject called the human mind. Now, there was a fellow one time called Sigmund Freud. And Sigmund Freud started out on an adventure in hypnotism with a fellow by the name of Breuer, to explore the entirety of the human mind. And he explored it down to a light lock at three years of age and figured out he had done the whole works.

That’s something like looking at a mountain, telling everybody you have found the entire mountain because you now are holding a pebble; see, a little pebble came off the top of the mountain. Or the tip of a blade of grass growing on the top of the mountain—then you’d say that’s the whole mountain, you see?

But he had this occasional experience: That after he had let somebody chatter for a while, he would find some kind of a childhood experience of some kind or another—and maybe that was his own case he was running, who knows— and he would take some charge off of this, and all of a sudden the person would feel a little bit better, and then he would be told, “Now if you are very, very careful for the next thirty years, you will not be neurotic anymore.”

That was psychoanalysis. Eighteen ninety-four, he released a libido theory, saying that all life is based on sex. Now, that is maybe an unkind statement with regard to the libido theory—libido for love—but, nevertheless, that was it. Later year psychoanalysts had an awful lot of trouble trying to explain away this, and say that what Freud really meant was that life was based on social things as well as sex. But Freud didn’t say that. He said it was based on love.

Now, this guy Freud, in spite of all of that, was a sharpie. And he did discover that there was possibly some coordination between mental reaction or mental experience and psychosomatic illnesses, or physical illnesses stemming from the mind. He discovered that there was this relationship, only he didn’t have any proof for it. And how medicine has gone on believing it ever since has got me staggered, because he couldn’t do it one for one. So of course, therefore, it was not really proved.

But medicine today believes there is such a thing called psychosomatic illness. You understand? They think there are physical illnesses that stem from the mind. Well now, how they know this, I don’t know. Because, you see, they’ve never proven it, because they can’t take somebody’s lumbosis and get away with it by doing something with the mind. You follow? But we can. So it’s quite factual that physical illness can result from mental aberration.

Now, we’re not much interested in the vagaries of neurosis and psychosis, and all that sort of thing. Let somebody else worry about these, or use more basic processes. Or if you got a psychotic, put him someplace where it’s nice and quiet and where he gets something to eat, and nobody disturbs him for a long time, and where he feels safe. And let him look at a motionless object that has some mass as the common thing for him to do, and you will find out that he generally will come out of it.

As far as neurosis is concerned, neurosis is... The difference between neurosis and psychosis is that, psychosis the Guy is just generally the effect of everything, and in neurosis, why, he’s more or less singly the effect of things. He’s a deranged being on some subject.

Now, all of this is very easy to say today, and it’s very easy to cover. If you want to know more about it, read some things on psychoanalysis and so forth. Good practice for you to do so. Nobody is trying to make a psychoanalyst out of you but you might be curious about it. You won’t find very much there, and knowing Dianetics, you will read far more into what you are reading than what was ever there. They didn’t know what was there.

Now, let’s get into this subject called the mind. The mind is a record, a literal record of experience plotted against time from the earliest moment of aberration until now, plus additional ideas the fellow got about it, plus other things he may have mocked up or created on top of it in mental mass, plus some machines, plus some Valences. Joe Doakes is a monster; Joe Doakes beats him up; therefore, Joe Drakes is the winning valence. And after that he can keep a valence called Joe Doakes. Got the idea?

Now, it’s just those pluses. But all of those pluses—you can audit almost any of those things. The least profitable is to audit the machines. It’s very often a lot of fun to audit a machine. When I say a machine, I mean it has wheels and smokestacks and so forth. And every once in a while a thetan has got a machine parked out there. This isn’t very uniform, but you have to comment on it. You have to comment on it.

Now, valences are interesting because they make circuits. And these circuits will talk to the being; he can talk to them, and they talk to him. Oh, he has a ball. And very, very disturbing, this idea of circuit. This gave the Arab his psychotherapy. And the Arab psychotherapy was to chase out the demons, and what he was really talking about were these valences.

Now, the auditor can actually talk to the PC and get the PC to talk to the demon or the valence, and have the valence talk to the PC, talk to the auditor. It gets that complex. What it is, is an endowed-life object.

Now, when we say record or when we say mass, and so forth, we are speaking of mental mass. A thetan is quite capable of mocking up mass. He actually is quite capable of mocking up matter, energy, space and time. He’s quite capable of doing this, only he mocks it up—in his aberrated, wog condition—he mocks it up very thin, very thin indeed. Its proportionate weight would be terribly slight compared to the real objects which he is mocking up a picture of.

He mocks up a picture of a car; his picture of the car would probably be . . . one hundred-billionth of a gram would be the total weight connected with it, and the car weighs two tons, you see? But nevertheless, he can mock up a full picture of a car in his aberrated condition. When he gets better and when he’s no longer sick or human, and so forth, why, of course he can mock up a car. But that’s beside the point. We’re getting off into more advanced therapies now.

Now, here’s the score with regard to the mind, then. For auditing purposes, it has these valences. And that’s what you are working with when you do what’s called a Search and Discovery, or an S&D. You’re not working with mental image pictures, you’re working with valences; you’re trying to find the valence that is raising the devil with him. Every once in a while you miss because he is the valence that is raising the devil with him. Sometimes, if you wanted to really do a profound S&D that went the whole track, you’d say, “Who are you?” You’d possibly even get a suppressive. But that would be a very, very fundamental S&D.

The psychiatrist and the psychoanalyst more and more began to try to address what the person was creating, and they began to consider that everything there was there, was what the person was creating. I said there’s the things the guy mocks up in his mind, you see. Well, so they addressed the things that the person had, himself, created, and they are not very aberrative. They’re the lightest of aberrations.

So the fellow says, “I think the room is full of Martians,” and their immediate therapy is “You’re just imagining it.” You possibly, through accounts of hospitals and that sort of thing, know that that is the standard response. Well, that’s because they’re addressing the illusion or the inactual. They think the inactual or the illusion is what is wrong with the person.

Actually, what is wrong with the person is that he is producing illusion. And [if] you want to find out why he is producing illusion, then you have to get down to the cause of the production of illusion, not “Oh well, you’re just imagining it, Mr. Jones.” “Mr. Jones is crazy; he thinks he’s prime minister,” see? “He thinks he’s Napoleon,” and so forth. Illusion.

So the psychiatrist attacks illusion, and he’s trying to get rid of that. And that is something that you neglect entirely. You’re only interested in experience. He would have gotten much further had he actually attacked experience.

Now, sometimes a person gets delusory after they’ve had an experience. This is perfectly true. But you’ll find out that that is a minor problem. Because as the person confronts the experience, he will lose the illusion and get the actual experience. Illusion is a surface manifestation which disappears when experience is consulted. So what you are doing is auditing—with Dianetic auditing—you’re auditing experience. Now, don’t get all clouded up about “Is it illusory or isn’t it illusory?” or “Wah-wah,” you know, this or that or the other thing. No, just skip that.

Now, you’ve got processes, advanced processes that handle valences. Those are by assessment and they’re summed up today in Search and Discovery. If you want to change somebody’s personality graph like that, why, audit a few valences. Because the personality graph is actually a picture of a valence on any human being. He himself is not really enough there to have a personality. He’s very subdued.

So, we take that out of Dianetic auditing; we take machines out of Dianetic auditing. They’re fun, but they don’t do anything. You think I’m just joking, probably, about these machines, or you think it’d be some little object someplace like that but, actually, every now and then you will run into one that’s got great beg red flywheels, and brass, a body, you see, and little whistles and things. And it’s something that produces predictions for him or something like that. It shuffles them out to him, you know? You know what I mean? It’s crazy, man. These people aren’t insane. Their perception has to be much better than the average in order to perceive that they have these things.

So, we’re going to neglect that, and then we’re going to neglect illusion. Now, you must remember, you must neglect illusion in Dianetic auditing. That’s very, very important. Because illusion is simply the product of the actual. And if you attack illusion, you prevent him from reaching the actual. Now, the actual is so bizarre (from the viewpoint of a human being), it is so strange, so weird—the actual is—that, of course, people are all too prone to call the actual and the illusion both illusion, or hallucination, see?

There are people around who work on the basis of making somebody hallucinate. You know. There’s a whole play dedicated to it called Gaslight. You know, they work on this? A guy works on this girl, and works on this girl: By changing the actual physical universe, makes her think she’s crazy you see till— “Where did you put the staircase Paula?” And anything that happens, he does it and then he blames it on her. And she can’t remember doing it, so she thinks she’s gone mad. So therefore, she thinks she’s having illusions, you see, or hallucinations. So people work on this all the time.

For instance, the newspapers would like you to believe what they print. You only have to read stuff about yourself in the newspapers to know doggone well there isn’t a line of truth anywhere in the paper. But somewhere in the human world there was probably some event that had an actuality on which the news story is based, you see? There probably was something. You get down to more solid objects like “trains run off bridges,” it’s easy for them to write something like that because it’s at their tone level, you see? “Disaster.”‘ and “Everybody messed up!” and “We’ll sell lots of papers!”

But it’s remarkable how much illusion they’ll even write about a train wreck. There was a train wreck, but what appears in the paper is very often quite different. No, as I say, you only have to read about yourself in the press a few times to then wonder about the story to the right of that story and to the left of that story. You wondered if Senator Snodgrass was even in Washington at the time he made the speech, you see? It’s spooky; it’s spooky. What a river of lies. So that is the social illusion—what normally, laughingly is called news.

This is based on old women’s gossip. There used to be gossips occasionally who were put in stocks because they said nothing but vicious things about everybody and stirred up trouble for everybody and ran all around doing this sort of thing. And they just made nothing but trouble and told nothing but lies and so forth. Well, the modern gossip is the newspaper. And if those characteristics were in one human being, that human being would be driven from the community. Why everybody buys newspapers, I don’t know. I’m tired of them myself.

But I’m just giving you an example. The newspaper is the illusion of the event. Well, very often a person will get an illusion. You can expect a PC running things to get an illusion of the event. The event was too much for him to confront, so he dreams up what it was. Now, if you’re really running a real engram, illusion will often come off of it. The fellow will start changing his mind about it. Well, for heaven’s sakes, don’t fix him with the illusion till he reaches the actual! Don’t stand around saying, “Well, the last time we ran that . . . last time we ran that you went off the bridge. Now, apparently, you weren’t in the car at all!” And yourself, don’t be baffled. Because the fellow couldn’t confront the experience. So he partially confronted and partially dreamed it up, see? The part he couldn’t confront, he dreamed up. Now as he audits this, his confront gets better and he sees what it is.

Now, a PC quite often will get himself confused because he says, “The mental image picture is absolute, and that is what I see the first time I run it through. And therefore, I’m very upset because the second time through the woman has a red hat on, and she wasn’t wearing a hat the first time through. So what is this? This then isn’t a real experience.” Well, it’s not for you to evaluate for him. Just put him through it again and he will say, “Oh, I . . . I guess I never could confront her,” you know, or something like this. You get the idea?

So actual experience is at the root of all illusion. And you are not in the business of evaluating the content of secondaries and engrams! That is not the business you are in. The business you are in is the alleviation of the incident— mental image picture of the incident itself.

All right. So what happens in life? A thetan is a busy little bee, and he will make a picture of events as they occur. And then he clutches these pictures to his thetanish bosom and wonders why he’s so sick. This is not very bright, but he does it. Now he has a great loss. All secondaries depend upon loss. We say secondary, and the reason it’s a secondary is because it depends for its charge on an engram which contains pain and unconsciousness. It’s secondary. It does not contain pain and unconsciousness, it contains emotion. Any emotion or misemotion may be contained in a secondary, but, of course, pleasure and so forth does not make a secondary, and it also doesn’t make an incident. It doesn’t make an aberrative incident because he was so happy.

A person, however, can have a win which is so magnitudinous and 90 unexpected that it hangs him up forever. He’s always going back to this big win, you know? Very often, old men will sit around and go over their wins with one another. And it was always amazing to me as a little boy, listening to former road agents (which is to say, robbers who are now very respectable), cattle rustlers, ex-sheriffs (not much difference to choose between them because, actually, they swap their hats almost at random, you see?) talking about the horses they had stolen and the cattle rustlers they hadn’t shot, and all of this sort of thing. It was interesting to me that their stories never wore out. And while I would find their stories of interest, sitting around as a little tad, I would very soon become very familiar with all of them.

And they would still tell them. And one of them would be talking and the other one would simply not be listening at all, but be waiting to talk in his turn. And it was interesting to me that those incidents never wore out. They never desensitized at all; they just were good forever, like an unperishable phonograph record. And that is true about pleasure moments, and so forth, is the thetan just goes on with them forever.

All right. So we’re talking then, when we talk about a secondary, about misemotion: grief, fear. . . Well, actually it’s the old Tone Scale. We got the old Tone Scale from the fact that as you run a secondary, if you run a classic secondary, it will come up from below apathy, into apathy, and move right on up the Tone Scale in its tones. And it will finally wind up at boredom, and that’s the wrong place to stop, because there’s enthusiasm just above that. And at that point he doesn’t care about it again. But that is a secondary; it’s misemotion. The Tone Scale was plotted from the behavior of secondaries under auditing.

But to have a secondary (a moment of loss which is aberrative), an individual must have had an experience containing pain and unconsciousness, and that is an engram. An engram is an experience mental picture of an event of pain and unconsciousness. The person had to hurt, and he had to have gone unconscious to greater or lesser degree—and sometimes they just go unconscious during the center moment of the hurt, but there’s always a little unconsciousness connected with great pain—and the mental image picture of that event is the engram.

Now, the word engram itself comes from “trace on a cell,” is what it means. And at the time I was first working with this, I was thinking in terms of cellular memory. I didn’t know where these things came from (it was way back when), and so I chose a word which was preferably different than other terms being used, and that was the first consideration. The second consideration was that we could define it and say what it did mean. Any time an individual was hurt, like a faithful little idiot he made a complete record of the event. A complete record of the event was manufactured at that moment.
You’d be surprised how complete it is. Do you know that you could take somebody through a tonsillectomy with a stopwatch? You can even have a doctor there who knows the speed and action connected with a tonsillectomy, and have him criticize the quality of the surgeon doing the tonsillectomy. You can move the person right through the tonsillectomy by calling off the time in the tonsillectomy—one minute deep, two minutes, three minutes, four minutes, five minutes. You know, you can get the event, and so on, you can put the time in it.

A thetan is fantastically accurate in terms of time. Time is something which a thetan has a good, solid grip on. He has a very, very solid grip. A being does not make errors reactively about time. Analytically, he gets confused about time. But right down deep, right down deep, he never makes an error about time.

He knows reactively exactly when it happened and for how long, but he now is incapable of confronting the fact, so he makes (quote) “errors” while he’s wide awake. You ask some girl how old she is, you’ll understand what I mean. She sometimes looks very vague.

Very often a person can’t tell the date. Well, that’s because he doesn’t particularly want to confront dates. But if you went at it with a meter, you would pick up the exact date. It is recorded but is unconfrontable. So he records what he can’t confront, and that is where he gets engrams and secondaries. I find that very amusing. And would he record it if he can’t confront it? If he can’t confront it, why didn’t he just skip it? But the truth of the matter is he didn’t. See, we’re only dealing with what is, not what should be, you know?

So we have a time track, let us say—well, we have a consecutive series of events, beginning with the first aberration of the being, on through to the present. And the wonder of the E-Meter is, is that as a person is more capable of confronting, the E-Meter will reach just below, to what he slightly can’t confront, and will give you a read on it. The E-Meter sees deeper than he does. That’s very interesting. But the E-Meter doesn’t see all the way down.

You’ll run right straight across events that won’t register on the E-Meter. But then the PC is improved by auditing, he comes up, and then all of a sudden you’ll find the E-Meter is registering on those events that it didn’t register on before. That’s because they’re closer to being confronted. So the E-Meter will register on anything that is close to being confronted. And it reads deeper than the thetan can confront, which is quite amusing.

It’s like life is at this level you see—four feet off the floor—and then we have the E-Meter able to sound a foot deep. See, the being himself can only see this strata four feet off the floor, but the E-Meter can see three feet from the floor. See, it can see one foot deep. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t event between three feet and the floor. See, there’s tons of event in there.

But as the being becomes more familiar with his own mind and his own past, and as he becomes more able, then this depth increases. But of course, the four-foot level is now very, very easy for him to confront, the three-foot level where the E-Meter was seeing before is now confrontable by the being himself, and the meter is now confronting to two feet. And eventually, the being can confront as much as the meter can confront. But at that time, unfortunately for auditing, the individual is Clear.

Now, therefore, the function of the E-Meter is not a sees-all, end-all seer of some kind or another with a swami-type turban and a big glass diamond; it’s just something with a little bit better telescopic sights. It can see a bit deeper than the being himself. Don’t feel completely reassured, because there is no meter read, that everything on that subject is gone. No, everything that is in restimulation that will have any effect upon the thetan is gone. Do you see? So, therefore, you can easily unflatten things which you have flat.

In other words, you’ve gotten something down to a point where it no longer registers on the meter, and you say, “Good, that’s flat.” Now we go over it again just to make sure, and now we get things reading in it again. I want to caution you about this in auditing engrams, because you can flatten them and you can unflatten them just as easy as scat. So you want to get it down to where you aren’t getting tone-arm action, you more or less got it.

Now, the mind, then, that is being approached by Dianetic auditing is the mind of event. And the things which are aberrative in that mind are the engrams and the secondaries. They are very often visible through their locks or tiny surface manifestations.

A guy is hit on the head with a hammer. That makes an engram. There’s physical pain and unconsciousness in it. A few days later he walks into a hardware store. He doesn’t like to be there. He can’t tell you why, because he can’t confront the incident of being hit in the head with a hammer, but there are hammers in that hardware store. He doesn’t even see what is restimulating the engram. He just is uncomfortable and he will take a picture of the hardware store as an uncomfortable place.

So you chase a guy down the time track and he has a picture of a hardware store. Well now, you couldn’t possibly guess why he has a picture of a hardware store. He might have been hurt with a blowlamp; he might have gone bankrupt, making a secondary. We don’t know why he’s got this little picture of a hardware store, because there’s no pain and unconsciousness in connection with a hardware store. But with a meter, and getting him to look it over and think it over and look around on the incident, and so on, we could pick up what it was the lock on. Now, the lock is in view and the incident is out of sight.

Now, what a person knows about is not aberrative. I’ve had more people walk in and say, “Oh! I know exactly what it is. My second husband . . . and he beat me all the time with a club, and I’ve been in terrible shape ever since.” And they go on and on and on and on and on. Well, we point out this interesting fact: They know about that. You’re the thousand-and-first person they have told about that, and it hasn’t blown yet—which is to say, hasn’t disappeared, hasn’t erased. So obviously, that isn’t what’s wrong.

Now, it would be your job as the auditor to discover what was wrong. Now, maybe in actual practice that would be an exercise in finding valences like a—you know, listing and assessing lists for individuals or things they have known. But we’re talking about it from a Dianetic approach. This is the processing we want to work slowly; we don’t want any speed out of this process. We would go on down the line now to find out what was this all about. And this is her second husband, and according to her, her first husband was a knight in shining armor. That’s illusion.

You know that you could say to almost anybody, “Who”—you notice this fellow is terribly silent, see, always silent, never has anything to say. So you say to him, “Who is the most talkative person you ever knew?”

“Oh, my Uncle Bill. Oh, he just talked all the time.”

“What did he look like?”

“Oh, he was a tall fellow, and he had green hair,” and so on. And so on. “He just talked continuously, and he’s the most talkative fellow you ever—”

You say, “What’s the matter?”

“That’s funny. I can’t ever remember him saying a word.”

He’s in Uncle Bill’s valence, don’t you see, resenting everybody being talkative, but he’s actually transferred valences. So his valence at the time has now transferred to Uncle Bill’s valence. You get a swap.

You ought to try this sometime just for fun. You notice something about a person and ask him who was the reverse. And watch him get all confused and mixed up. You notice this girl is very sad; she’s a very sad, moping-type person. “Who’s the happiest, gayest, most enthusiastic person you ever knew?” You want to ask her this, see?

“Bessie Ann.”

“Well, tell me about Bessie Ann.”

About halfway through the dissertation: “You know, Bessie Ann was the most sour sourpuss I ever ran into in my life.”

They themselves had loses in being enthusiastic in trying to cheer up Bessie Ann. You get the idea?

That’s a valence problem, which you’re not interested in, but this comes into auditing because in engrams they sometimes swap valences. And if you want a real tough engram, you will find somebody has been the scaffold, the headsman, the ax, the block, his wife, a little boy in the crowd, an egg, a hen . . . You’ve got this incident, and the game in running this thing is to find out what was he? And if you run it long enough, why, you’ll generally find out that he was the guy being beheaded, or he was the executioner. And you’ll run into valences just to that degree.

Now, if an individual is looking at himself in the picture, he is out of valence. You can actually briskly tell him to get into valence, or just run it. He eventually will.

Now, there is a danger in running Dianetic engrams, in that you run too late on a chain. Now, incidents of similar nature strung out in time are called chains.

Now let’s take the automobile-accident chain, the auto-accident chain. Now, this is a fascinating thing, but the individual will tell you he’s been in one automobile accident. When you start checking it over, he’s been in three. You have to have the earliest incident on the chain before you really start grinding away.

But you can get too enthusiastic about this, and you can work too hard to find the earliest incident on the chain. Because unfortunately, even though the psychiatrist doesn’t like us to say this, and even though the Church is quite insulted occasionally when we mention that their converts have lived before this lifer this is one of the first phenomena you run into in Dianetic auditing. And you run into it in everybody.

Now, a this-lifetime address to the situation is recommended, because the number of automobile accidents the fellow has been in may be nearly infinite. He might have been in dozens, hundreds, thousands. Maybe he’s stuck in an incident in a space-opera society where a flying car hits him, you see, and that last truck accident, and so on, is simply hung up on it. But you can’t always insist that he stay in this lifetime. Because it’s very hard for him to do. So he’ll skid. But the danger that I’m telling you about is not a danger of him going into a former lifetime, but the danger is trying to erase something that is getting more solid. The reason for that: It is too late on the chain.

Now, there’s two mistakes can be made here: You can continue to grind, grind, grind, and it’s just getting tougher and tougher and harder to do; or you can hit it too lightly and go back too quickly, and then go back too quickly again, and then back too quickly again without taking enough charge off, and the guy will become just a ball. He’ll get all messed up.

Let’s say we have fifteen automobile accidents, and we can only find the fifteenth. So we take a light pass through it, but we get all the charge of it off, and then we go to the fourteenth. We think that is the earliest one now, see? That’s what it registers on the meter. And it’s a bad thing for you to always be using earliest one, and so forth, because you quite commonly have a lot of earliest ones earlier than the one you’re running, you see? So it’s better auditing terminology to say earlier—the earlier incident.

So you get the fourteenth. You don’t know it’s the fourteenth by this—see, you don’t know it’s the fourteenth yet; you think it’s number one—and you go through it, but it also behaves in a peculiar fashion, and if you started to grind it too hard, why, you’d be in a bad way. So you find the thirteenth. And here’s where you would enthusiastically make a mistake: You just note that there’s a thirteenth, note there’s a twelfth, note there’s an eleventh, a tenth, a ninth, and all of a sudden bluu-lualluuth!

What you did is you tried to shoot him down with the same perception as the E-Meter. There’s not enough charge off. You should have gone through those incidents. You should have gotten enough charge off of them so that he could go through them and go down earlier on them. Do you follow?

So an auditor can make this error, and it’s a very serious error. I give it to you very, very, very severely here as a great error: To try to follow down a chain without running what you’re finding on the chain—just out of your impatience or the PC’s curiosity or something like that. You got fourteen automobile accidents, you’d better run him through fourteen automobile accidents until you get the first one. Now, maybe in the last two or three at the bottom he’ll suddenly jump to the first one. You run that and the whole chain blows. But you can ball him up, man! Do you see?

The area has got too much unconfrontable stuff in it. But the more of these he goes through, why, the more he can confront and the deeper he can go and the more charge, see; the more material he has confronted, the more he’s able to confront it. And you’ll finally get him down to where he can confront basic on the chain.

Now sometimes a PC will fool you. And he himself will get so anxious that he skips five, six, seven incidents, just in an anxiety to get to that bottom one, you see? And the next thing you know he’s glug!—he’s gone into the glue. Now, a PC gets very confused if you do this.

The right way to do this is to erase the auditing. You don’t go back and do what you should have done; you just erase the auditing. Treat the session as an incident. And erase it as a lock. And everything goes back together again rather neatly. And that is something we’ve almost forgotten how to do in Scientology. Guy has a rough session, right away we want to get him over to Review and get his ARC breaks off and fool about with it and do this and that.

No, you don’t want to have to do that. Run the session as an incident. “You remember the beginning of this session? All right, go to the beginning of this session. All right. Rapidly pass through to the end of the session and tell me the incident and tell me what happened.” Do that two or three times: pssth! That’s it.

You can erase anything if you’re good. But, oddly enough, if you took him through the session two or three times it might gum him up. Because he’s had some earlier, rougher sessions now that you should have gone back to on a chain, and you’ve got another chain on your hands. So you might say you can always go through something once, but if it’s a chain, watch it.

So the whole of Dianetic auditing is the tracing of experience. There are thousands of things I could tell you about this. There are tons of phenomena. We probably know more phenomena about Dianetic auditing than any other single activity. And the funny part of it is, all you really need to know—well, lam giving you data in this lecture which is highly explicit and which is very useful to you, but it’s all contained (pretty well contained) in HCOB 3 April 1966. If you had this lecture too, of course.

Now, there’s power in this stuff, and you can become a drug addict on Dianetic auditing very easily. Because it is very, very, very interesting stuff. It’s the root material of life. I probably, from time to time, will remember little bits and pieces and give you some more. I just thought of one just now that’s a handy thing to know. If you get some life time in restimulation, run the engram of the death and it’ll disappear; the life will desensitize.
You get the guy stuck in a lifetime as a sewer cleaner in Paris, or something like that, and it’s such a degraded life—when he at first was telling you he was Joan of Arc during that period. He isn’t necessarily wrong about this, don’t you see, but he actually was jumping to an earlier life and getting it beautifully confused so that he wouldn’t have to face the degradation of that life.

It’s the lives that almost make it are the bad ones. You know, the lives that almost make it. Or the lives which are just so degraded, a guy can’t imagine himself as that kind of a being. And that’ll upset him. It isn’t really the successful lives. People will run Julius Caesar with the greatest of ease. But they wouldn’t like to run Cassius.

People who run Julius Caesar were probably something horrible during his lifetime. You see, they’re just like the guy flying around in the incident, and he is the headsman, he’s the headman’s ax, he’s the block, he’s the executioner, he’s himself, he’s the executed person.

Now, you have a lot of fun running stuff like this. You can find out a lot about track, PCs have an awful lot of cognition’s, and you may hit some lower levels of Release. But it’d be release by chain. You’re not going to get release from the whole experiential track. That’s not possible. But you might get a free needle on automobile accidents. And if you do, pull out, man. But then don’t stop running engrams. Find some other type of engram.

I can assure you that you’re not going to get a total bank release, because those total releases are up there at 0, I, II, III, IV, V, you see, and they’re all above this. You’re going to get negative releases. Releases on the negative lines: the minus scale which you have on your first Gradation Chart, and which should have been repeated on the next one—and will be repeated again—because they’re quite vital. Do you know that you can apparently assess the minus levels and sometimes produce a Release just by assessing them—where the guy is stuck at. But don’t keep on assessing after you see a free needle.

But here is practice auditing—practice auditing.

Now, somebody will tell you that it’s very, very bad to fool about with the mind—Very bad to fool about with the mind. But in actual fact, any Dianetic auditing is better than no Dianetic auditing. You see, that remark was true about Dianetics. We’ve moved up into such powerhouse auditing today in Scientology, and so forth, that you can perhaps knock a guy around with auditing. But not with Dianetic auditing. The guy will struggle out of a session and so forth.

Now, we used to tell people to come up to present time, and in view of the fact that’ll also put him at the beginning of track, there’s no particular reason to tell him that. So, the thing for you to do if your PC is very groggy after a Dianetic session, why, just get him to look around the room. Get him to name two or three objects in the room, and it actually will orient him in PT.

Now, try for light secondaries when you first go into this sort of thing. Well, far as that’s concerned, try for what will really be light locks. Try for a little bit more in the way of secondaries. Actually, if you just kept auditing secondaries, you’d eventually fall into engrams. Because it’s very funny: the engram lying there, and the secondary, is visual. I mean, he can run the secondary, but the engram is too much for him to confront; so he can’t run that. But the reason for the secondary is the engram.

You say, why is the fellow sad at the departure of his wife? The fellow is sad at the departure of his wife. If he is way over-exaggeratedly sad and she wasn’t a very good cook, you can’t see how this is going to ruin his next hundred years, don’t you see? But he’s all set to have this ruin his next hundred years. Why is that? Well, it’s setting on an engram. It may be sitting on an engram. And maybe he was a wife in the life before and got shot. See? Something like that. There’s pain and unconsciousness associated with a similar contextual incident. Now he gets this terrible grief—heavy grief-type incident—and he doesn’t know what to make out of this.

This has great value, by the way—auditing of secondaries. There’s a lot of tricks associated with this. It takes a long time to audit these things sometimes, but there’s a lot of gimmickry associated with Dianetic auditing that you don’t really have to particularly know. You sort of fall into it; you start developing it; you start recognizing it, and so forth, because it’s very obvious. But I could take ten or fifteen years off the appearance of any widow by simply running her husband’s death. It’s fantastic! You wouldn’t believe the change that would occur.

There are certain things that you can do that produce remarkable and fantastic changes in a being. There are certain things that you can alleviate. But I give you this warning: If you start using Dianetic auditing to cure up somebody’s lumbosis . . . He’s got lumbosis, so you’re going to run the engram that causes lumbosis. And that is now going to cure his lumbosis. Forget it! Every so often you will cure his lumbosis. Every so often you’ll have a win. That’s the wrong way to go about it, because you’re Validating a down statistic. You’re giving him this attention because he’s got lumbosis, and he tends to deteriorate as a being.

you want to use this just as you use any other kind of auditing: You should use it just to improve the being. Just improve the being. You’re auditing a thetan, you are not auditing lumbosis. Now, you’re not medical doctors (thank God); not psychiatrists (heaven forbid!). You are people who can make beings totally recover. You have the technology of total recovery of a being—and that doesn’t mean a body. And that is so fundamental a truth, that as long as you use any auditing just to make the being better, there you are. All you’re trying to do is improve the guy’s confront, that’s all.

This guy wants to be audited because he’s got medicosis—deadly illness! And he wants you to cure his medicosis. I don’t think I’d take that PC on; I really don’t think I’d audit him. I’d much rather audit his sister, who wants to dance better. Because this guy is down the line in a sort of a cave-in, don’t you see? He’s going to be rough. He’s going to be this, that and the other thing. Entirely different emotional frame. Now, he’d be very anxious, and he’s already told you he had a hidden standard. He’s saying—when he says, “Cure my medicosis”— he’s saying in essence that “If you can have an effect upon my medicosis, why, then I will believe in Scientology.”

And you say, “Isn’t that sweet of you!”

There’s an ant over there and, you know, I just don’t care whether he believes about Scientology or not. In fact, I don’t think it’ll change any part of human history whether that ant believes in Scientology or not.

Slow, if you know somebody who thinks he can be better, I’ll happily audit him. But I’m afraid I would be that nasty I’ve had enough hidden standards, man! Because let me tell you, his medicosis probably won’t alleviate until he’s about a Grade V, and he’s asking me to do it with two seconds at Grade 0. glut he’s so stuck on a hidden standard that he wouldn’t even care that his communication was better. He’s just all wrapped up in problems like mad, and so on. Well, there’s ways to handle this person. There’s ways and means to handle this person—but not as a practice case in Dianetic auditing. This is fun. Why get serious about it?

Now, you yourself as an auditor should know how to run an engram; you should know how to run a secondary. Because you yourself in your early career very often burn your finger, cut your hand, and you can run it out. It’s very remarkable. You can make burns go down and you can do all sorts of magical things with yourself. I wouldn’t advise you to do it for some little kid, just because he’s burned. I’d give him a Touch Assist or something like that. But it’s very interesting. Anybody ought to have this experience, but don’t burn yourself just so that you can have the experience. To watch a blistered finger go down as you steadily, steadily, steadily on, run the incident out of having burned it: it’s quite interesting.

Every once in a while, in auditing somebody with these, you’ll get an awful win. And the last I want to question you about—one thing I want to warn you about very, very much—is please don’t get stuck in those wins!
There’s value to this auditing; there is greater value to this auditing than man ever before had. This solves the problems that Sigmund Freud was trying to solve. It solves them with spectacularity, man’ And compared to Scientology, it’s nothing.

Don’t go getting stuck in a win! Have wins by all means, but don’t get stuck in them and suddenly say, “You know, Ron’s really got something there: You can cure people with this. Hey! Woof! Look at that! The guy had a withered arm, I ran three engrams, his arm grew the normal size. My God! This is for me!” You go out and collect a whole bunch of withered arms and that’s it.

The danger of Dianetic auditing is it wins. The road out is the road you have, up through the Grades. And it took all this knowledge of Dianetic auditing, it took all the material, it took all the odd observations, it took all those years of work to carve that very thin and now rather ordinary-looking path that works too fast, up through the Grades.

Dianetic auditing was very useful with which to learn the fundamentals about the mind, and that’s what I want you to use it for. You will all of a sudden be rather interested to learn about these recorded incidents, and you will become very familiar with this thing called the human mind as you use this in auditing. And you yourself will get a very interesting insight into such things as history, customs and habits of bygone races. You have lots of fun. You get practice in handling PCs and you might make some minus-grade Releases. You won’t even make a Grade 0. Don’t expect it. But this is great training, great training. If you were to go out and hang up a shingle with this, you’d get enough wins. You’d get probably 50, 60 percent wins. So what? You’re rewarding a down statistic. The guy got sick, so we’re auditing him. That’s probably what’s wrong with him in the first place: he wants attention.

And if you go bog yourself down at this stage of development of Scientology with handling all the sick and the insane of this planet, you will never get anyplace. There are all kinds of people who aren’t.

Now, somewhere up the line, in a century or a millennia or something like that, somewhere up the line the registrars are going to run out of auditors and PCs. By that time, everybody will either be very adept or very disinterested. But wait for such a time as when an organization, to function, must have such PCs. Then get into it. Then get into it. You’re not strong enough, stable enough, or anything else, to suddenly take on all the woes of the world simultaneously. I can confront them, but that’s no reason I have to audit them. You could just bog yourself down right there.

I’ve seen more auditors ruin their careers by making a career out of one psychotic. Think of all the able people that could have been made more able while one psychotic was giving an auditor a total failure! Because the reason he was totally psychotic was probably his environment, and he wasn’t even removed from his environment to audit him. And he gets up two feet and gets knocked back three.

I remember one girl in New York City that . . . They kept auditing her and auditing her, auditing her. And they’d get her up to anger, and she’d blow the household, or something like this—she’d get out of there. And they’d promptly blame the auditor because the girl was now angry, and go back and put her into apathy and get the auditor to audit her again. And she would audit her up to a point where this girl was in anger, and then the family would blow up because the person now couldn’t be lived with, and so they’d knock the person back into apathy again. And this went on and on and on, and what an awful waste of time. Do you see?

So Dianetic auditing is not for the psychotic, the neurotic or the sick—in spite of the fact that it probably could handle the psychotic, the neurotic and the sick. It is done in this wise for your practice. You’ll be able to ARC break people and have other people come along and help the ARC break out; and you will learn all the things you aren’t supposed to do; and your comm cycle will get smooth; you’ll become very familiar with the mind. And that is why it is being given to you at this particular time.
I have never seen anything really more interesting in the realm of human endeavor and activities than Dianetic auditing. It is the champion of all time. A tremendous amount of fun. It does fantastic things. So there it is, and I hope you’ll have some fun with it.

Thank you.

Dianetic Auditing and the Mind

A lecture given on
28 July 1966

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good, you made me smile now.

This is the what of the which? I get these planets mixed up. It’s 28 July, A.D. 16, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course and a lecture on Dianetic auditing.

Now, needless to say, had you listened carefully to the first lecture, you wouldn’t need this lecture. I hate to have to point these things out but that’s the truth.

Now, let me ask a question here. What are you handling when you are running Dianetic secondaries and engrams? What are you handling? Well, boy, you should sure know this. You are handling the human mind. That is all there is to it. If we add to that then, as another picture, a valence, and as we add to that another thing called a machine, then you’ve got the lot. That’s the human mind. You are actually getting your hands all dirty with the human mind. That is the human mind. It isn’t anything else and there is nothing else in the human mind.

Now, that was a basic discovery in Dianetics. Now, what the mind was coating was the discovery of Scientology. It was coating—you know, paint coats, globs of glupf coat—it is coating a thetan, and a thetan is a life unit capable of many things as described in the Axioms, but most familiar to one and all as you.

So you, a thetan—and if you don’t believe you are a thetan I’ll give you a little exercise: Look around you; what do you see? You see the physical universe, correct? All right, and look at another person next to you; you see a body. correct? All right, very good. Now look at a picture of a cat. Make a picture of a cat. Those who are too black to do so, why, just skip that exercise. Make a picture of a cat. All right. Now, that picture, although it is synthetic and a creation at the moment you’re making it up and so forth, that’s the mind. And what’s looking at the cat? You are. And those of you, now, who couldn’t get a picture of a cat, whatever you got, look at it. Now, what’s looking at it? You are.

Now, this is the entirety of the human mind. Now you say, “Well, if we created a picture of a cat, oh, well that wasn’t part of the mind, it was part of my crea___ “ Who the hell do you think is mocking that thing up called the mind? You are. Now, that was the great discovery of Scientology. That was discovered after Dianetics days. What is the source of this thing? Engram originally meant trace on a cell.

I know, it’s fashionable for the newspapers to say I never went to college, and there are several colleges at this particular time that are wishing that I hadn’t gone there. But I can also assure you that you give them another decade or so, those colleges I haven’t even done more than go to a prom at will have some plates on them. You know? Man is silly, you see?

Anyway, in college we were taking atomic molecular phenomena, which is a very interesting subject. And they should have left it there as a toy subject and shouldn’t have gone any further with it, because out of that subject came the atomic bomb. Now, it’s originally called atomic molecular phenomena. Well, they narrowed the subject down and made it very compressed and highly specialized and called it nuclear physics. And today, why, people get degrees in nuclear physics and go out with aplomb to blow human beings all to pieces because politicians don’t know how to handle governments.
Now, the whole subject of the human mind was so unknown, so bedazzled and mucked about, people hardly even knew there was a mind. You find Mary Baker Eddy saying, “All is mind, infinite mind.” Well, we’re into a problem in semantics, meaning the meaning of words. She was using mind in some other connotation and so on. She thought the universe was a big think. Fortunately it’s not. We’re here. A lot of think but there’s also us. No criticism of her. She was trying like everybody else.

So, this thing called the engram came from a theory I developed while I was in George Washington University. And it was an interesting theory because man had no explanation for the storage of thought. But if you consider—now hold your hat because this is typical scientific think, see; some theory to embrace the phenomena. Now, if memory is contained in a molecule, there are ten to the twenty-first power binary digits of molecules in the brain, in the neuron system. Yes, ten to the twenty-first power binary digits.

Now, what a binary digit is, I’ve forgotten. You know as well as I do. I knew once, but I don’t know anymore. Binaries to me—you see, I’ve been in navigation since and they’re the two suns that go around each other and make a dumbbell sort of star. You see, I didn’t know what it is.

Well anyhow, I know it’s a long figure. And if there were a hundred holes in each Molecule—see, this figure is something you just go on writing for a day or two, you see, or weeks—and if there were a hundred holes in each one of these molecules, and there was one memory in each hole, why, man, by calculation then of the number of things observed and remembered, and by actual inspection of man’s memory, man had enough memory storage to last him three months. And although this may not be true for psychologists, psychiatrists or many professors, there are those who can remember further back than three months.

So I wrote this up as a proof that this wasn’t how man remembered. In I think 19 - oh, I don’t know when it was, 1936, some five, six years later, something like that, this was issued in Austria (from Vienna, where else?) as the way man remembered. So, man is so scarce on data that he will even buy ways people have proved man doesn’t remember in order to explain the mind and memory.

Now, there’s a mirror theory that is even more ridiculous than that one whereby one perceives by having a mirror which reflects the perceptions and concentrates it. By the way that was—in the 50’s and so forth—that was the psychological school of thought explanation. Now, don’t ask what looks at the mirror, because they’ll tell you another mirror. And we get into a sort of an infinite—one of these German periscopes, you know, where the submarine captain lays in his bunk and looks at Berlin’s nightclubs or something. I mean, they never followed the thought all the way through. Something had to look at the mirror.
 
It’s the same idea they have about computers. They talk about the wonders of computers, you see? Marvelous computers’ Boy, can they think! You know? Great, great! Can they think! Every once in a while I’m standing around when I see some of my friends, and they’re in there with the ENIACs and UNIVACs and MUCKLUCKs, or whatever these things are called these days, and they’re doing this gorgeous stunt of praising the computer and sating how much better it is than a human being. And I shatter their comparisons by saying, “Who asks the computer questions?”

And they say, “‘Well, of course, we do because we’re so stupid.”

And I say, “‘Who then does it answer questions for?”

Oh. They’ve sort of got the idea that a computer answers questions for other computers that ask questions for other computers, you see? But the truth of the matter is any time you go near one of these ENIACs and UNIVACs and MUCKLUCKs or something, you see some guy there feeding it cards and feeding it questions and—whatever slots they have on the things and so forth. You’ll also see somebody come over and take out a long tape and then read it And it didn’t mean a thing until somebody read it. Do you see? All I’m trying to give you is man’s approach to this was so childish as to be silly. What data he had about the mind, he couldn’t even think about.

But now, it’s very difficult to think about the mind. And don’t blame him too much, because the mind essentially, if all there was, was a mind. . . The psychiatrist thinks the mind is the brain. He’s got it moved over sideways. That’s why he keeps sawing up brains and drilling holes in them and so forth. He thinks he’s getting something. You can’t drill a hole in a mind. It’s not possible. He would if he could.

But this thing called the mind, you see, is being asked to think about something called the mind. An ENIAC or UNIVAC (names of the big electronic computers) are not able, actually, to think about computers, see? They’re not able to design themselves. But fortunately, fortunately, why, the mind doesn’t have to understand the mind because there’s somebody there to understand it. And fortunately for us and unfortunately for a lot of other isms and ologies and so forth, I for one was there to understand it. Do you see?

So this thing called the mind is probably the least understood, the most mysterious object that anybody ever heard of. You would have to know that an individual was quite capable of making pictures, of creating mass, energy, space and time, before you could understand what the mind was. That would require, then, that you understood there was such a thing as an individual. And an individual isn’t something walking around in a frock coat or faith prince-new glasses or something like that. An individual is a static. Well now, static is something that’s motionless but actually a static by definition in Scientology is simply the ultimate in “what is it?”

Now, there is no reason to try to explain a thetan or say where it came from, because it didn’t come from anyplace, it Ls.’ And we have to understand now the Scientology idea of what is reality. And this really baffles people because this is the biggest philosophic conundrum of the ages. What is reality? Now, people tell you to face reality and so forth. But you could say with a philosophic quip, “I’ll be glad to face it if you’ll explain it.” That would of course stop them cold, because they can’t explain reality.

Reality totally lacks philosophic definitions, and we got into such weird things as: “If the tree fell in the forest and there was nobody there to hear it fall, then would it have made a sound?” I think that’s marvelous, you know? I mean, the jokers—and they couldn’t have all been serious. Hume, Locke, the rest of these birds, and some of the French philosophers and so on—these fellows really dreamed some up. You want to have a ball sometime, read some of these old-timers of two, three, four, five hundred years ago and get their definitions for some of these commodities which you have to know about in order to be free. And reality is one of them.

Well, reality in Scientology is what is. And people who can’t see very much, of course, don’t have much reality. You say, is the E-Meter real? Well, the E-Meter is real because it is. And honest, you don’t have to go beyond that as a definition. You don’t have to go into why is it there, and who made it, and who put it there, and how come it’s running along in time with us? These are other questions. Well, for heaven sakes, break them all down to their proper tiny components. Now, one of these questions, of course, is simply what is reality? Reality is what is. And you can experience reality so easily that I wonder a little bit at anybody having any trouble with it. You can stamp, and it is, so there it is; it’s real. “Yes,” they say, “but a lot of people have an awful lot of delusions.”

You say, “Okay, what’s a delusion?” That would probably stop them. We could answer it easily. A delusion is what one person thinks is, but others don’t necessarily. You might say that’s a reality for one person out of agreement with others.

And I’d hate to have a mental practitioner who himself had a very low level of reality, you see, because he’d be out of agreement with everybody else’s, so that everything to him would be delusion. Just the fact that somebody said it was real would be enough for him to then state that it was delusion.

Now, one of the ways to handle such a person—and I say this in all kindness because, don’t cheer boys, the poor devils are dying, you know—is just get him to feel the table, you know? Don’t be amazed if he experiences a fantastic case gain in just that instant. But just get him to feel that table. And let him in on something: You feel the table and you say, “I can feel it, too.” And it will be such a relief to him, because for a long time he thought only he could.

Now, out of these things of What is reality? What is a being? and What is a mind? and so on, we can walk, we can map a path with great security and find out what it is that has man trapped; why man acts as he does, why he reacts as he does. And all this is very elementary. Once you know the basic definitions.

But I don’t think you would have very good luck in auditing Dianetic engrams—engram definition today is just a mental image picture of an experience which contained pain and unconsciousness. And, of course, it still contains pain and unconsciousness. A secondary as a mental image picture of an experience which contains loss, and is therefore misemotional. Now, that’s all there is to that.

Now, in Dianetic processing, then, you have to know what the mind is. And in the process of being processed and in processing it you are running head-on into what this thing called the mind is. And it isn’t anything more complicated than what I have told you.

Now, how it got made: Well, a thetan is a compulsive mocker-upper. By mock up we mean a mental image creation ordinarily. And he’s able to create just like that. So a bullet hits him, so he makes a full picture of him being hit by the bullet. He is so overwhelmed by it that he thinks the obvious thing for him to do is to make a picture of it. He is stupid, man! And that is the flaw which makes him aberrated, and that is the one flaw in a thetan.

Now, if you can get him over doing this so that he can recover from this mad obsession to make a picture of everything that happens to him and then hide it from himself and then fix it up so it can impinge itself upon his existence. you can get him out of the cage. And, the funny part with all this, you say, Well, he didn’t have enough experience, he didn’t have enough pictures, so therefore . . .” You can rationalize all you want to. The case happens to be that the individual is trapped by his own creations.

Now, he dramatizes these pictures, or they enforce computations on him. He will go through being shot because he has an engram of being shot. Nova, the way he does this is get dislocated in time. No, each of these pictures . . . You want to know about precision, man! The precision with which a thetan mocks these things up as they happen and then puts them on the time track with the exact time on them is amazing! You talk about the inaccuracy of a human being. Boy, that is accuracy to end all accuracy. It is correct within seconds. It is an amazing feat! If it happened four years, two months, one day, and three hours, seven minutes and two seconds ago, that is the exact thing that will fall on the meter.

Now, he can also turn time around, you see, to how long ago it was. You can run it from the beginning, but you’d better not, because there are some booby traps at the beginning. But you run it from PT back and you’ll find that this amazing ability to spot in time these mental image pictures of the things which have happened to him are absolutely gorgeous. It is so great that sometimes all you have to do is date how long ago the incident occurred, to have it blow. An individual has to be in pretty good shape, however, before you can do that.

Now, this, then, in essence is the mind, is: those pictures which have been made of experiences and plotted against time and preserved in energy and mass in the vicinity of the being, and which when restimulated are re-created without his analytical awareness. That is the mind. That’s the mind you’re working with. That is the mind you’re trying to get out of.

Now, you say this: “We’re trying to get this individual out of a body.” No. You won’t get anybody out of a body worth a nickel so that he’ll stay out of a body, and 50 forth, because he is so weakened by his mind that he cannot control or handle himself in relationship to his body.

Now, the trick of all of this is that you cannot make a postulate or an intention through this mass called the mind. And whenever you do, the mind restimulates, so a thetan is not able to make or handle things by postulates. He says, “You will be all right.” You know, he has this impulse to say, “You will be all right.” You talk about spot healing, you know, or something like miracle healing, you know. Saint Pete or somebody walks along and sees somebody and he wants to heal him up. The intention is there to make the fellow all right. His intention goes just so far, collides with whatever engrams are in restimulation and goes splat! So he says, “I guess that’s not a good thing to do.” Whereas his intention is actually terrifically powerful.

So a thetan’s thought can’t go through his own barricade of his mock-ups. So obviously the less creations of experiences an individual has around him, and the less that he has to restimulate, why, the more he can think or project his thoughts or the bigger he gets. Do you follow? Now, you can delete these experiences and Dianetic auditing is that activity by which these experiences can be erased.

Now, if an individual is always going around like this, you’re fairly sure (I’m now talking from a Dianetic viewpoint. Of course, there may be dozens of reasons he’s going around like this—all contained in the mind on the same thing—but I will give you a simplified action of it)—he’s going around like this, you can be absolutely sure he’s got a mental image picture where something made him go like this.

So much so that you could even—and you better not do this with any case that is having any trouble at all. But somebody who is pretty well uptone and is doing fine, you can actually ask him things like that. But the trouble is, if they’re uptone they aren’t obeying their engrams to that degree. But theoretically, you could see this fellow bent over like this, and you could say, “All right, the incident in which you are bent over like this will now appear.” And he would get the incident.

If he didn’t get it and it remained black, you could then get the date of the incident. You date it—how many years, and so forth, ago? And then you would date the duration of the incident—how long did it last?—and he would get the picture of it. And there he is, dangling from a tree or something like that, with a rope under him, having been shot with fifty-four arrows, you see, after being flogged or some mild, minor experience of this character.

Now, there are various ramifications to all of this. There are various complications, you might say. This individual is all messed up because he’s trying not to dramatize the engram in which he is stuck, you see? He’s trying not to dramatize it, because the tendency of the individual in a dramatization is to repeat in action what has happened to one in experience. That’s a basic definition of it. But much more important, its a replay now of something that happened then. It’s being replayed out of its time and period. So that this individual who is dramatizing is actually either totally unrestrained and therefore totally dramatizing (at which moment we consider he’s mad), or he has the impulse to dramatize it, but he knows he’d better not. And a fellow will tie himself down like Gulliver in Lilliputian, you know, with all those strings. Just tied down and tied down and tied down and he will hold himself back and so forth. He’s trying to keep from dramatizing some incident.

So you get a double action here. You get the impulse to dramatize and the effect of the incident on the individual, and you get as well the individual’s analytical awareness that it’s not a bright thing to do, whenever one sees a rock, to pick up the rock and hit somebody with it. He’ll think he’s rather odd. He doesn’t know where this comes from, so he begins to lose confidence in himself. Every time he sees a rock, why, he has an impulse to go over and to pick up the rock and bash somebody’s head in with it. And he knows that that is not a nice thing to do. It isn’t because he’s afraid of the police. It’s because he’s basically good; he doesn’t want to do those things. But there’s the rock and there’s a head, and he’d sort of start holding things up so that he can’t look at rocks. And then the next thing you know he walks around like this all the time, you see, so he won’t see any rocks. You get it? And he’s dramatizing an incident where somebody else picked up a rock and hit him over the head with it, and then he went into their valence. Do you see? He became them because they were the winner.

So this is the way all of this stacks up. There’s a tremendous amount of interesting phenomena and bric-a-brac, and so forth. You’re dealing with the basic mind, because what is the core of the reactive bank also has this same character. But it is so outrageous and so different and is so overwhelming that you’re not about to touch that unless you’ve got the exact map. And even when you’ve got the exact map you occasionally knock your block off. But you’re going in this lightly, lightly, dealing with this lifetime, the last year or two probably, and some people nave probably not penetrated any deeper than this morning’s breakfast. But the existence is all mapped.

Now, in view of the fact that he didn’t know what happened, occasionally he tells himself what happened, and so he will sometimes have his actual experience overlaid with another experience. This is the way you get too many Julius Caesar’s. You can get an almost infinite supply of Julius Caesar’s. The man was a mad heterosexual [homosexual] nut who had very nasty personal habits and whose ideas of conquest were so laughable as to be nonsense.
 
He conquered such countries as England, which were ready to welcome the Romans at that time. They were all ready to practically bring them ashore and shake them by the hand and say, “Hey, what do you know,” and “We’ve been using your stuff for a long time, boys. Come on in and sell us some more,” and so forth. So he lands with chariots and spears so he can conquer everybody. You knows loony. He cut off the right hand of fifty thousand Gauls—the act of a madman .

Now, this is a pretty suppressive punk, isn’t it? Huh? Well, this made him the winning valence. So, I’d say that a lot of people who served with him on his side and a lot of people on the other side, and so forth, would register loud and long as Julius Caesar.

Now, whenever you have a personality that has been either terrifically successful (only, that’s less so), or a personality who has been terribly overwhelming. vicious and oppressive, you get a lot of people in that time in that valence. Because there’s a lot of mental image pictures of it, see?

So don’t get too baffled about past lives. Every once in a while past lives get so invalidated to people that they don’t want to have anything to do with them because they’ve seen too many Julius Caesar’s. And it tends to suppress one saying that, you know, “I was Cassius,” you know? It’s the invidious comparison.

Get the chap who’s walking along and he’s got a plan that is going to help the British Empire, you see? And he’s a perfectly valid statesman. He’s going along; he’s doing all right. He’s perfectly capable of doing so. Some bird walks up to him who is a complete frothing idiot, see, and he tells him that he used to be Disraeli and he has a plan to save the British Empire. At that moment the fellow who is the sane boy has a tendency to feel that he must be crazy because he has a plan to save the British Empire. Do you follow? And by invidious comparison, you say to yourself “I couldn’t have lived before, because look at those nuts talking about . . . There are three Julius Caesar’s over there and two Napoleons,” you know?

So sometime if a PC is being too doubtful about all this and he’s had a hard time on it, just run invalidation’s—run your suppress and invalidate and so on —on the subject of “have you lived before?” You’ll get some very interesting results of it.

It is fashionable, simply because thetans, meshed in to the degree that they are, smashed down by mass and the mind and so forth—it is very hard to remember. It’s very hard for a thetan to remember more than a few years when he has a totally smashed-in mind, complete. And one of the reasons is, is his effort to remember gets painful, so he’d rather not remember. Now, when you’ve just been blown to pieces with a cannonball and you’re twenty-one years old, and twenty-one years ago you were blown to pieces with a cannonball, trying to coax anybody to remember any earlier than twenty years ago or, better still, eighteen, or more comfortably, sixteen years ago becomes very hard, unless a person knows what he’s up against.

He tries to handle this. He has methods of handling this bank. And one of his favorite methods of handling the bank is almost as nutty as making it in the first place. His method of handling it is to forget about it. How crazy can you get?

Of course, you have to be up in the vicinity of Clear before it really starts to look hilariously funny. Because you take a Grade V . . . Even as high as Grade V (certainly as high as Grade IV) you find people still trying to figure out how the—the bank, mind: interchangeable words—how this mind of his is valuable. Of course, this is an excuse not to confront it. You know, “I better not confront it and do anything about it because it’s so valuable.”
 
Well, of course, his effort to confront it is an effort to confront very, very painful experiences. And he doesn’t want to confront those painful experiences, and so he said, “There must be some virtue in it. I’d better leave it there”— another method he uses in fooling himself concerning it.

And there’s a whole cult that follows this—a real cult; not what they call Us, you see—called psychologists. And this cult actually follows and subscribes to the theory that you had better be glad you’re neurotic. But that is merely a school’s expression of something that beings kind of want to think anyhow, see? If you can’t cure neurosis and you don’t know what the mind is all about anyhow, then you could excuse all that by simply saying, “Well, you really don’t want anything done about your mind because, you see, it’s a good thing you’re neurotic. You see, all great artists are nuts. You see, that’s obvious. Look at them.” I don’t know, I also look at their artwork.

Now, therefore, the mind is a complex mechanism which influences the individual and which he’s better off without. And you really won’t believe all the way that you’d be better off without it until you finally get rid of it. And then you say, “I’ve sure had a lot of weird reasons while I was hanging on to all this coal tar.” You say to yourself, “I must have been nuts!” That’s right!

Now, every now and then, somebody has got a valence, some genius valence of some kind or another, and this genius valence is all rigged up to answer questions. And he’s got a computer, see? So he says, “How big should I build this building?” And he gets 5621/2 feet high. So he puts it down on the drawing. He wouldn’t know what to do without that thing. It never occurs to him that he himself has to go around here and work out the answer and then come back here and hear it.

And he will become sad about losing his mind. He will become very sad about losing his mind if he gets one of these things half desensitized. It’s half gone. It’s still there but it doesn’t work anymore, and he hasn’t taken back the ability. See, he hasn’t taken back and owned the ability to do it, and yet it is erased to a point where it doesn’t work. And at this point he will be rather regretful of having done something about it, because he says, “How big should the building be?” Dead silence.

Then he goes along a little further and he gets a little bit better and all of a sudden, “Of course,” he says, “the building ought to be 819 feet and a half. Any fool could see that.” He can see that now, you see? What he did was attribute the ability to a circuit, put it on an automatic-response basis, but he was in actual fact using a valence.

Now, every once in a while you’ll see a child come along and they can play a piano or a violin—oh, my God! They just sit down and brrroom-bang! you see? And they’re only six years old or something like this and, wow, they’re playing with symphony orchestras. And all of a sudden they get to be ten, twelve, and they one day look at a piano and they don’t know what it is. That same mechanism occurred, except they’ve been working on a circuitry of some kind or another, and in the circuitry they have somehow or another erased part of the circuitry or done something about it. They never get up to a point of realization.

Now, in one lifetime you can almost erase your own skills if you’ve put them all on picture form, which is quite remarkable. So a fellow starts out—boy, he just starts out great guns, and the next thing you know, why, he’s llaah.

Well, the best way to do that is to stick yourself in college. Get a nice valence of you the expert; nice valence, you know—nice circuit out here, valence, a beingness—which is the expert. And then always consult the expert; never think it out for yourself, see? And then one day, accidentally abandon this thing, mislay it or move on the time track so that you’re not near it anymore, and then be totally lost and not have the skill. But who has the skill in the first place? The individual himself. Do you follow?

Now a thetan, once having started this idiocy of mocking things up, and mocking up and holding on to all of his personal experiences, then began to find virtues for it. And he made little machines, and he did all kinds of things. Now, when you start reversing this procedure, he goes slightly mad because halfway through any action, why, he will have lost the benefit of it without having regained it himself. Do you follow?

This does not respond, however, on the IQ graphs. Any processing increases IQ. It’s almost impossible to lower IQ. So the individual is getting brighter, and that’s the final test of it.

A great many things have worked out, of course, about Dianetic auditing since we have begun to make Clears. And man is basically good, and the more mind you get rid of, the brighter you get (until you get rid of all of it—you’re very bright). All of these things, you see, have borne out and are perfectly true.

Now, when I talk to you about Dianetic auditing, when I talk to you about erasing the automobile accident you’ve been in or losing Aunt Mamie, your favorite ally when you were a little boy or something like this, you realize I’m talking to you about play. As far as auditing is concerned, this is play. The amount of benefit to be regained from running half a dozen engrams exceeds anything that man has ever been able to do for anybody in the history of the human race—and compares to Scientology processing, the straight way, at about one one-millionth of the potential gain. Do you understand?

So, I’m talking to you about play today. But you as an auditor had better know about it and you better look at it and you better get familiar with it, because that is the mind. You are studying the cage. Them’s the bars. That’s what’s got you under arrest. It’s these tricks and vagaries. And the technology which it requires to vanquish this thing was actually in excess of the simple erasure of pictures. You had to know an awful lot. Now, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t still a simple problem and that the definitions of the mind didn’t hold, but it meant that the mind was more complex and the experiences had been far more complex than anybody had ever imagined. Do you see? And it was much harder for somebody to confront.

Now, there’s a question of time. If picture by picture, you undertook to erase the mind, you would get into one of these binary digits I was talking to you about before. One of the things that made me come off of Dianetics entirely is I could make a Release, and very often the fellow would sail off and so on. We’d call them Clears in those days and quite validly; he had been temporarily cleared. But his reactions to the entirety of existence were really infinitely less than those of a Clear and, of course, infinitely, infinitely less from those for an OT. You see, after you’re Clear then you have to study up and regain what you can do. Anybody who is clever enough to mock up a mind and keep it in place and not even know about it for that long, he must be a very clever bunny, indeed; and so he is.

But an individual has as many engrams and secondaries as he has had experiences, as he is old.

Now, I don’t ask you to take my word for how old you are because it’s very impolite, particularly to ladies, to hang any vast age upon them. But if you will put yourself on a meter someday and start chalking it up as to how long you’ve had a mind or something like this, you would come up with something very interesting, indeed. You’ll feel better, too. Unless you get too serious about it, and then you’ll plummet yourself right down into the middle of the reactive bank, and then you’ll have an awful time. So lightly, lightly, you know? A-little-goes-along-ways sort of thing.

But if you ask the question bluntly, “How old am I?” you would probably get a variety of answers because, of course, you are the ones who invented time. And you aren’t old. You have been in a certain state for a certain period of time, and you can measure those states, but you cannot measure a total total with any degree of accuracy. You’re going to get variations all over the place.

Now, you start going back in time and you’ll find out that there have been—there’s been quite a long period. Now, in view of the fact that you’ve probably averaged a pain every—well, let’s be reasonable about it; let’s say you’ve averaged a pain out of every year. Every year you have done something. You’ve stubbed your toe or you’ve had something happen. Let’s say you’ve averaged a pain in a year and a major catastrophe one way or the other every five or ten years. Now, let’s be very gross about the whole thing and say at least every lifetime you’ve had a catastrophe. I think that would be reasonable to suppose.

Now, therefore, divide twenty-five into the length of time you have had a mind, which reads on the meter, and I’m afraid you will get too many trillion incidents for anybody in this lifetime to sit and erase.

So although theoretically it could all be erased, incident by incident, chain by chain, and so forth—theoretically—you haven’t got that much auditing time and nobody has got that much patience. It would take something on the order of many thousands of hours. Maybe binary digits of hours, you see? And this is impractical for a human being, because, I point out, the average age of the body at the time it decays totally is something around seventy, seventy-five today. See, you haven’t got enough time! Take more than seventy-five years to get in enough auditing to erase all of the engrams on the track.

So therefore, I had to short-circuit this. I had to bring this right to basics. And I had to bring it to basics of what actually did a thetan consist of rather than what was he mocking up. And then we addressed this and we addressed the mechanics of the thing, we have our current Gradation Chart. And then it is possible to clear somebody. And it’s very interesting now that anybody who came into Scientology untrained, unprocessed and so forth, would, if he pressed right along with it—not too frantically, but just kept going more or less the rate at which you’re traveling at the moment—he would be at least a minimum or a maximum (depending on how hard he pressed at it) of two years to Clear.

Now, you could do it much faster than that by becoming much more businesslike about it. But a reasonable assumption, a very reasonable assumption at the leisurely rate people move, and all that sort of thing, would be a couple of years to Clear. I don’t know what average time we have at the moment in the Clearing Course on the course itself. I can only make guesses and so forth, and I knew when the technology was available, and how many Clears we’ve got now. And from that sort of thing 1 would guess that it’s somewhere between eight months and a year’s auditing. I would just guess that. That’s very reasonable auditing, you know? That’s getting tired and lazy and stupid and forgetting about it and patching it up and going to Review and then being very businesslike for two whole weeks and, you know, that kind of thing.

The lower grades, however, these things are so perfected . . . And there is no shortcut for VI and VII. Anybody who comes along and tells you there’s any shortcut for VI and VII, he’s just trying to cut your throat, remember that. There’s no shortcut.

Somebody said to me, “I should have thought, Ron, that you would have blown the whole bank just by plotting it.” Ho, ho, ho! Even me, no. 1 got on engrams eventually so I could take a fantastic engram, you know, where you’re just blown all to pieces and betrayed at the same time and totally surprised and scattered all over the environment for a few minutes, and that sort of thing. and blow those things just by inspection. Say, “Oh yes, there it is uhoooch.”’ And gone, see? I got up to a point where I could do that. Huh. Confronting the basic reactive bank isn’t like that. I’m not trying to scare you; I’m just trying to keep you from making mistakes.

Now, your engrams are erasable, and in the process of erasing them you get into various phenomena which I have already told you about. But some of those now auditing them obviously didn’t listen. So, I will tell you again, nicely and politely and without—as Stan said the other day, he said, “What’s marvelous about you,” he says, “you don’t scream and beat the desk and so forth.” I accepted the compliment but actually some of your top executives will tell you I do scream and beat the desk every now and then, you know? Not really over stupidity, not over stupidity. That isn’t why I scream and beat the desk. Just to get compliance.

Now, what’s interesting about this is that the moment that you run a late engram on a chain . . . You’ve probably got your nomenclature a bit tangled up, and you probably should listen very carefully, and you probably should get your misunderstood words out of this stuff and so on, because this is very important.

Let’s take a picture of a ladder and we’re going down a ladder here. [See lecture chart in the Appendix of this volume.] Now, the bottom rung of this ladder is the basic on the chain. It is more important, therefore I’ve made it blacker. Actually, this—here we put another ladder here, and we put the top rung as very black and important—that’s the way it looks. And this bottom rung, it, important at the time, was very slight. And you say, therefore, the toughest incident would be the earliest incident. No! No, the toughest incident to try to do anything about is the most recent one. And the easiest one to do something about is the earliest one.

Now, a chain simply means a series of incidents of similar content. There’s the hit-by-a-car chain. Now, there may only be one engram on a chain, but that would be very rare indeed. There maybe are twenty hit-by-cars chains—see, twenty on the hit-by-car chain. Now, if we’re speaking of this lifetime, you may find one or two on the hit-by-car chain that won’t erase on account of— unfortunately, for the reality of some people who don’t like the truth and can’t face . . .

You know, people don’t like past lives because you’re pointing their attention back at a lot of agony. There’s a good reason for it, see?

This guy is forty-one years old. Forty-one years ago he died. He probably didn’t die pleasantly either, being the kind of fellow he is. So you tell him he’s lived before this life, you’re pointing his attention back at that horrible incident, and so forth, and he just bounces straight back to present time—shaking, actually. You think he’s mad because he’s talking about past life. No! He’s terrified! “Don’t . . . don’t talk to me about . . . bout . . . bout . . . bout . . . bout . . . p . . . p . . . p . . . past lives. Damn you Scientologists!” You see? “Oh, you dogs! Kill ‘em ! “

You say, “Sonny boy, why be so yellow?”

Now, the resolution of a problem requires that you handle the elements of the problem. The resolution of a problem requires that you handle the elements of a problem. You will never solve a problem by handling different elements than the problem has. You just never will. This is one of man’s favorite indoor sports, solving problems by using different elements than the problem contains.
 
So, therefore, if you insist on a person staying in this lifetime, you’re going to run into the hit-by-car chain with 2 incidents in this lifetime which are the last of 520 incidents. And you’re trying to erase the last 2 of 520 incidents. He was first hit by a car 1,765,000 years ago, 3 months, 1 day, 1 hour and 10 seconds ago. The mind! See? Back! And when you go through an incident once and it doesn’t desensitize, and you start the fellow through again and the incident now appears a little bit heavier and massy, you’d better hit the silk, man. You’re probably at 897 on that chain. And you start to put this fellow through it, you try to put this fellow through it too often, and it’s just going to get heavier and heavier and thicker and thicker. And one of the symptoms of this is his bouncing out of it.

Now, we’re not going to handle bouncers now and get guys repeated down into it and that sort of thing. There’s no point in doing that. There are easier ways to handle it; just erase the earlier incident. Now, it always requires the earliest incident that you can reach to totally desensitize a chain.

But here’s one of the symptoms: You start the PC through an engram, and when you bring him back through to go over it again, he says exactly what he says before without any change or variation. He is no longer in the time of that engram. He has bounced, and he’s now running out of the lock he put into PT. He’s now busy running the present-time lock. It was so heavy that it laid in a lock in present time, see? Do you follow? It hasn’t done him any harm.

So you were busy running an engram of ten or seven years ago, you see, and it’s the hit by-a-car, and it’s bokety-bokety-bokety-bokety-bokety-bokety-bokety-bokety-bok. And then you start him through it the second time, and he goes bokety-bokety-bok, and there’s no new material shows up of any kind whatsoever, he’s not seven or ten years ago. He’s not back where it was at all. He’s erasing what he just laid in in PT. He’s just going over it again.

Also, he’s learned better. He’s learned better than to go near it. And you have run into the same mechanism, exactly, of why a thetan keeps a mind: because he doesn’t want to confront it. It would erase if he confronted it, but it is too painful for him to do so. So you’ve actually got a PC a bit in over his head. You have been a bit too persuasive, and you have been locating engrams on a meter. You naughty fellow. “Oh,” you say, “of course. Well, you always locate engrams on a meter.” No, you run them on a meter.

You introduce a meter into the location of incidents, and you’re going to run a PC over his head the whole time, because the meter can see deeper than he can. Well, the funny part of it is, if you run what he can erase, you’ve got a level of confront he can confront. “Did you ever lose anything?”

And he thinks for a little while and he said, “Yeah, I lost a ring.”

All right. That’s the incident. No meter.

Now, as we run him through it with Dianetic auditing and so forth—it’s a secondary, of course, because it contains loss—as we run him through this thing, you’re going to get meter action. Great. And you’d better watch your meter, too, because it’s liable to go free needle or something on you, see? If it does, forget that chain. Get on to something else. You understand now?

A man can remember what he can confront. And that’s all he’s going to remember. If he had a fight at breakfast, he’s not going to want to remember breakfast. Well, if he got hit by a truck ten years ago, he don’t want to remember “hit by a truck ten years ago.” Now, if he talks about it at all, it’s because he’s talking about a lock which he’s moved up into PT which is comfortable. He’ll tell you all about having been hit by a truck, but he won’t give it to you in present time as though it’s just now, this minute, happening.

Now, you see, he can come to present time away from the incident and have a sort of synthetic history of this incident, and he can go through that. And if you locate incidents on meters, that’s the way he will run engrams: all sort of synthetic in PT and he doesn’t want to go back down . . .

The guy who is the most shivery, the guy who is at fear on the Tone Scale, will act like he’s on a powerful spring which is shooting him straight up the track to PT! And boy he’s stuck right here, you know? He is not going to go back anyplace. No, no, no, no place. No. “How about breakfast?”

“Oh, well, I don’t know anything about b How about breakfast?”

“Well, can you remember what you had for breakfast?”

“Oh, I don’t know. Is that necessary?”

This is not the chap who wins medals for courage. See what I’m talking about? He acts lice he’s being ejected on hydraulic thrust straight up to present time, boy, and he’s here hummmm-hummmm-hummmm!

Poor Freud. He was dealing with people of this type all the time, you see? They’re as crazy as they couldn’t confront, you see, and they were pretty nutty And he was asking them to go back and remember their childhood! Pithy, man, if he’d ever . . . It never occurred to him to ask, “Can you remember entering the office?” Because they would have said, probably, “I don’t know. How did I get here?” It’s a fact.

Amnesia is simply—is not a very mysterious mechanism. It’s just a guy who is so spooked that he doesn’t dare remember ten seconds ago! Now, he’s had some experience beyond which—earlier than which he is not going to remember, including the experience. So he’s only willing to remember some moment after that experience. Now, we call this amnesia. He’s just scared!

Now, you’ll run into this all the time in varying degrees in PCs. And the worst ones off are those that are just rigid in present time. They’re going along with each click of the clock and no further back than the last click. This person will tell you he has a bad memory . . . That is not the only source of bad memory. A bad memory is just accumulated occlusion of it all, but it’s nevertheless non confront, see? Trying to train somebody with beating would be the last way in the world that you could train anybody, because you’ve given him all of his education so that he can’t confront it.

This tells you why some instructors are very beloved by their students and turn out genius students. You know? For some reason or other, everything he gave the student, the student finds that’s the easiest thing in the world to confront, so that’s what he knows.

Now, where do you find relief to this situation of the PC stuck in present time? Now, you’re going to find some PC, you’re going to find an incident, you will actually get him back into the first part of that incident, you’ll get him to roll off that incident. Maybe he’ll even go through it once. He’ll all of a sudden hold back the pain that his hip hrrh. That’s it. He was already in it, so he said, uwump, “We don’t want that; we want this.” Pshroom! like a diver coming out of the bottom of the sea, he comes up to the surface, and he runs the next time straight along on present time where it’s nice and safe. He doesn’t want anything to do with that dirty old nasty pain that almost took his leg off. Do you see? Do you get it? So it’s all a bounce. It isn’t just a bouncer, “it’ll get out,” that pushes people up to present time or shoots them about.

Now, an individual actually will feel so imprisoned at some point of the track, he’s liable to feel so imprisoned that he knows he cannot progress any further than that point forever. And you’ll find somebody who’s totally stuck on the track. But this is somebody who’s terrified of the future. And people get in this frame of mind about when they’re to be executed. If you can recall the last time you were about to be executed, time must halt at that point. And you’ll find out that a PC seems to go back earlier very easily. So, he shoots back to the beginning of anything. You can’t hold him in an incident.

You say, “Come, come now, we’re going to run the automobile accident when you were five years old,” and so forth.

“Yeah, well I . . . oh . . . by the way, I got one now. I got one now two thousand years ago. I got one now uh . . . fifteen thousand. I got one a trillion years ago, got one two trillion years ago.”

And you say, “Well, whoa, whoa, whoa!”

Well, recognize what you’re dealing with. This is the guy who doesn’t dare move forward with the time track.

Now, you’d only get him misbehaving, and a Dianetic-audited PC only misbehaves, when put beyond his ability to confront. And then you run into all the problems of Dianetics. Now you have to know an infinite number of solutions. Now you have to be clever not ‘arf. You have to be a screaming genius with answers. You have to sit there and sweat! man, as an auditor. You’ve got to be right on the ball! So much more on the ball than you can be that you’ll flub. Why? You’re running the PC over his head. And one of the best ways in the world to run a PC over his head in early stages of auditing (later on you can start using a meter—I mean use a meter to locate), the way to really run a PC over his head is take him bright, brassy green, no familiarity with the mind, doesn’t even know about mental image pictures, discover the source of his lumbosis, plunge him into it straight away, and try to force him to go through it. You will have a very unwilling PC. You’ll have to practically sit on his head. He bounces all over the place. The second time you bring him through it, he runs it in PT. He can find no other part of the chain. He can’t erase it, you know? He’s in trouble all the way. You have to therefore be very clever as an auditor. Do I make my point?

It’s just you’re running him beyond his ability to confront. That is all. His ability to confront is one millionth of an attention unit. And what he’s confronting and you’re asking him to confront requires one thousandth of an attention unit. And he’s not about to stay there comfortably and do anything about it at all. Do you follow?

Therefore, if you will look in this bulletin of 3 April 1966, it carefully stresses gradient scales. Now, after you’ve been going a little while, yes, you can find it on a meter, but the guy’s ability to confront is up. You’re getting someplace. But the truth of the matter is if you want to make a Release this way, don’t ever locate anything on a meter, and he will come out the right end of it. He will be able to confront more and more and more, and you’ve improved his ability to confront his past experience. Now, you could almost bring about the same result with the repetitive processes: “What can you confront?” See, you could almost bring about the same result.

But as a matter of fact, an individual can then build up, build up, build up, but he himself is not getting an insight into his mind. With a repetitive command of this character, you’re going for broke. In other words, you’re going for result.

But with Dianetic auditing, we’re not going for result. We’re trying to give you auditing practice, and we’re trying to have some fun. If you get results, it’s your own fault. And if you do this right, boy, you will get results. And the test of it is, is does your PC feel any better afterwards?

Now, if he doesn’t feel any better, you’ve done one of two things: You’ve either let him go too light or you’ve let him go too strong. See, you’ve insisted that he run some tiny, light lock that he isn’t even vaguely interested in and could confront a dozen like it, or you’ve insisted he go in over his head.

Now, the mind knows what it can tolerate, so the best test is the PC, not the meter. The guy knows what he can tolerate. “So,” you say, “going to run a secondary now.” Well, you can ask him for “Now, have you ever lost anything?” And if you wanted to be very sure, you could sat, “Recently, have you lost anything?” See? Asking sneakily on the line.

And he says, “Yes, as a matter of fact I lost a ring.”
Run it. But now, when you’re asking for moments of loss, remember that you’re asking for the whole chain of all secondaries, because that is the definition which it has. So you could soften your question up even further: “Do you recall a period of sadness?” Let’s attach the emotion to it. Now, we could ask for times when he was sad, times when he was afraid, times when he was this, times when he was that.

You talk about throwing people in over their head. In the early days of running, there were so many techniques developed for throwing people into engrams that it was practically a snap of the fingers and over Niagara Falls the guy went. He didn’t have any choice. We were 80 skilled in those days of putting people into incidents, and so on, that the most remarkable dramatizations would occur—fantastic body convulsions; they’d practically fly all over the room.

And I remember one chap that I snapped into an incident—and I cured something with him; it’s true that you can do something with it—of straight, unadulterated terror. Terror so great that, as his body shook on the bed, he was lifting the legs of the bed off the floor and banging them down again in a chatter. Sounds impossible! I wouldn’t have believed it if I hadn’t seen it with me own eyes! That bed was chattering against the floor! This guy was scared! And there is a thing like an odor of fear, and that odor permeated the room to a point where I never thought I would smell anything like it in my life. It smelled like a terrified army in full rout.

And it was an incident. It was right there. He’d been sitting in it. It was in full restim; an incident he kept resisting, couldn’t confront any part of it. And I just tripped him into it, with some skill. But it was an incident where he and a fellow scout had gone—as a couple of savages—to scout the enemy position and had been caught, and his companion had been boiled and eaten before him and then, he, in an effort not to get eaten, had managed to get free and throw himself over a cliff. And it finally developed, however, that he couldn’t really determine whether he’d been thrown over the cliff because he had gone mad, or whether he had thrown himself over the cliff. And it finally resolved and so forth that he had thrown himself over the cliff. But he ran this out and the emotion discharged from it. I only had to go through it five or six times and it finished it. But he was not about to go anyplace else on the track. It completely changed his life, as a matter of fact.

But there we were auditing for result, and undoubtedly you could bring about a fast result. And the reason we wanted to bring about fast results is because there are so many engrams. There are just so fantastically many engrams that we were becoming choosy as to which ones we were supposed to run, and we were trying to speed up the process. Well, you’re not trying to do that. You’re just trying to learn about the mind.

The faster process was the first one I ever used, which is gradient scales. Find something the fellow can confront and run him through it. And, factually, I’ve made people a lot better by getting them to run the incident of walking into the room to keep their appointment with me. Managed to coax them back that far on the time track. And I had my best results with that type of an approach. So you say, “What would you consider your chronic emotion is?” And the fellow says—you know, you can be tricky about this. “What would you say your chronic emotion would be?”

Well, the fellow says, “I . . . I . . . I don’t know. I think I’m just bored most of the time.”

Well, that’s good enough. And “Can you remember a time when you were bored?”

“Oh, yes, yes.”

“Good. Now, let’s start in at the beginning of that period.” And you’ll find a secondary and you’ll find another secondary and you’ll find another secondary below this. And the next thing you know, there was real stuff here in being bored. You find this guy in actual fact was made to be in a place of no interest, but some danger, for a period of time that was very upsetting. Now, if you went and ran engrams to parallel this—you don’t have to call for engrams to parallel this— sooner or later you’re going to come up with an incident where he was executed or something in exactly the same type of surrounding as he was waiting for while in danger. And that would be the engram which gave this other thing. Yes, it is a chronic emotion, and you could ask for various types of emotions and this way you could sort the thing out. There are lots of tricky things you can do.

I’m not trying to put any slightest block on the tricky things that you can do. I don’t care how many commands you give him while he’s running it. “Oh, go on,” you know, and so forth. “Keep it up.” “Continue.” Anything you want to say. I’m just saying, get the guy through it. That’s what you’re supposed to do. That’s really what you’re supposed to do.

Well, what does it take to do that? And I’m telling you that you’ll get your best results by not throwing the fellow in over his head. Then you won’t run into all of these things whereby you need 8,765 solutions, you see, to 50,000 problems. See, you’re not going to run into any problems.

The guy will run what he almost can confront, and he’ll get quite a bang out of running something he almost can confront. He’ll get quite a relief out of this. But you would just be fascinated at how little some people can confront. But also, you could be fascinated at how much some people can confront. This fellow, he’ll run through it and somatics are tearing all over the place and so forth and—”So, the lion took another mouthful out of my left leg.” You know? Great.

It’s what the PC can do, not what you decide the PC can do. But the individual who just doesn’t run well and doesn’t seem to get anyplace, and that sort of thing, is of two varieties. He has two things wrong: He is either being asked to confront far, far too much, or far, far too little. And the number of them that will be confronting far, far too little are very few and far between.

So, it boils down to the commonest thing that you’ll run into is asking them to confront too much. How much is too much? Well, it is too much for the guy you are auditing. That same too much won’t be too much for the next guy you audit. Do you understand? it varies from being to being because experience varies. Not only does experience vary but different parts of the track are in restimulation. Some people are in a very tough basic incident of some kind or another, which makes all other incidents—the lightest of locks—the most painful things imaginable.

Now, you want to start running down a chain. Now, of course, if you call for a loss then you’re making a bid now to run out every single engram on the whole track. So, if you want to get a little more practice, why, extend it a little bit further and call for: what’s the guy’s chronic emotion now? Well, solve that chronic emotion. Work on it as a project and you’ll do a lot of secondaries. Secondaries will go right straight down the line.

Now, some people have an idea that there is an engram, and then a secondary occurs, and then the secondary accumulates locks. Now, it isn’t that simple. Just because I have given you simple answers is no reason the mind is simply built. You have all the jerry-rigged messes you ever wanted to run into.

Now, listen, there will be a chain—that is to say, the original and then the repeated incidents, plotted in time thereafter, of the same type of incident— there will be a chain of engrams, which is to say, incidents containing pain and unconsciousness. You know, the off-with-the head chain—the off-with-the-head chain, see? And here are 150 engrams, each one of which consists of having one’s head cut off.

Now, oddly enough, there will also be in parallel to that, the off-with-the-head motivator series. And there’ll be 49; or something like that, incidents whereby the individual cut somebody else’s head off. Now, in addition to all of that, each one of those will have accumulated locks, which are conscious-level experiences which sort of stick and the individual doesn’t quite know why. A shiny piece of metal would be enough to make a lock, see? So, each one of the 150 engrams has many locks. When I say many, I would say, oh, two or three hundred thousand—each one of the 150.

Now, what’s the secondaries? Well, the secondaries, if you had a rung of a ladder, as you were looking at a ladder, and the bottom side of that rung were natural-wood color and there was a stripe of black painted across the top of the rung, you would have the secondary. It’s actually lying right straight there with the engram. Now, each one of those 150 engrams has its own secondary. There’s a secondary probably for every single one of the 150 engrams. And each of those secondaries has a lock, and not only has a lock, it has maybe two or three thousand locks.

Now, worse than that, this chain cross-references and interconnects with “public gatherings, injuries during.” Now, that’s not a series of locks. That’ll be independent—an independent series of engrams containing pain and unconsciousness; each one of the incidents, you know? Why, there was the fellow in the crowd, and he was a little boy, and the crowd surged and they squashed him, and he died, you see? I mean this type of incident.

Now, those engrams, the off-with-the-head chain, will be the smashed-in-the-crowd chain, you see? The “public gatherings, incidents in,” they will be cross-referenced and their locks will intermingle, so that the locks of one of these chains will also cross over and become the locks of the off-with-the-head chain, also. Isn’t that great!

Now, let me show you where you would really get foxed if you tried to trace something like this down. And you would really have trouble. We want to know . . . And this is a typical, a typical Freudian problem—fetishism: the fellow has a fixation on hairbrushes. I can assure you the mind has enough incident in it! They just underestimated the amount of incident, you see, by about one ten-trillionth . . . is about all the incident they thought was there, see?

A hairbrush would be absolutely impossible to trace back to all of its engramic and secondary influences or associators. Be impossible. It would be impossible to take any single article and trace it back to why the individual is afraid of it. That would be impossible! You could desensitize it. You could find some reasons for it. But to get the basic reason for it? Oh, no! No! Nah! It occurs in engram-chain one, engram-chain two, engram-chain three, secondary-chain four, and eight billion locks. And it turns out not to be a hairbrush, anyhow. It turns out to be a small black animal. Hairbrush itself just restimulated.

But to set anybody a job of tracing something like that back would be pure idiocy. There’d be no point in it of any kind whatsoever. Wrong way to go about it. Wrong end to. Those are the cognition’s that the guy gets out of it: “Hey! A bridle!”

“Yes, yes,” you say, coaxing him, making him aware of your presence.

“I always wondered. I always wondered why. I always wondered why. Yes, it’s the disk on the bridle. That’s what it is!”

You say, “Well, what was that?” ~

“Well, Mother always used to wear a cameo, and it matches the disk on this bridle. And it’s when I was killed at the tournament. The fellow had a disk on the side of the bridle and that hit me and that was the last thing I saw. And I used to wonder why I got colic all the time, you see? And my mother wore this . . . Yeah, that’s great. I’m sure glad to get that straightened out.” Well, you be glad to get it straightened out, too. And you be glad when he moves off of it, because he’s going to find eight thousand more reasons before he’s through. Do you follow?

Men have experienced things. Women have experienced things. There’s hardly anything an individual has not been or done at one time or another of his career. And to say “This is a specialized thetan; he has always been a magistrate” —don’t make me laugh. At what period in his career did he get tired of being a criminal and become a magistrate? After having been a ditch digger, coal heaver, a counsel, an artisan, a pilot, a space-opera ranger, a writer . . . You know. But the individual’s experiential track is very important with regard to what he can do when he finally comes out, because we’re producing a new thing in a Clear. We’re producing a being without a bank who has experience. Never had anything like that before, see?

Now, one has had main points of experience on the track which have been more emphasized than other points, and he will tend to be better at these things than things he has not had so much experience with. But it’s a case of emphasis, not difference.

Now, where your individual is being run on engrams, he can easily get in too deep, but only if you push him in. And if he’s not running up new material, if he’s not running them properly, why, you figure out why, in view of what I’ve been telling you. Now, it’s either over or under confront, and my bet is on that it’s over confront. And you asked too generalized a question. You took too vague an answer on something. You didn’t get the thing established. You didn’t decide what you were going to run. You didn’t get it all mapped out before you began it.

You’re going to run some times when the guy was scared. All right, great. We’re going to run some times when the guy was scared. What was the last time he was scared? All right. And the individual all of a sudden trips into this new mechanism of “mustn’t have any future.” Back down the track he goes, starts winding up in bad incidents and so forth.

Well, it’s simply because you sort of lost control of the whole situation. You didn’t steady him on and make him run what you started to run. You got him all involved in whether he should go earlier and he’s trying to go totally Clear on engram running.

Well, if he wants to go totally Clear on engram running he undoubtedly could do so. Undoubtedly do so; it’d only take him three or four lifetimes. And I want to point out that the body goes to pieces in a fairly regular lineup at once every seventy years, or something like that, and so he hasn’t got time to do that. You understand any more about engrams?

Well, I’m talking to you about the woof and the warp and the exam thing which you’re auditing all the way to Clear. Now, l think that it’s a good time that people not only got some practice auditing but also made some bowing acquaintance with that thing which has got them in the cage. And it’s always a very good thing when you find yourself in a trap to find out what the trap consists of. I often say that to myself when I find myself in traps.

But don’t despair if you have not yet been able to run an engram on anybody. You haven’t been able to run an engram because you’ve disdained to run some faint lock. If all goes to pieces, if you haven’t been able to make any progress with your PC, and you haven’t been able to get him into anything, you haven’t been able to run anything, and so forth, run breakfast. You’ll find that usually works. If you can’t run breakfast, and so forth, run the time he came to the session as an incident.

People can be so bad off that present time and the march of time past him in this universe is itself a continuous running engram. He is living in a moment of pain and unconsciousness. And the tick, tick of the clock is an engram in itself.

Now, a person is pretty batty when they’re in that shape. They’re very batty indeed. As a matter of fact, you won’t find them around here. But that’s how bad it can get. And you have run into some vestige of that w hen you’re not able to run incidents on your PC. He just is not about to go anyplace. It’s nice and safe where he is.

And so, you can always run an incident on somebody. Don’t listen to orders that “I must run an engram.” No, run the incident your PC can confront and run, and you will win all the way. Don’t take incidents that you fish off the meter because you’ll throw him in over his head, and I think you’ll have a lot of fun.
This is a great sport. This is a great sport. I don’t regard it any more than that, but it’s a very worthwhile sport and it’s one that you should indulge in, because it’s going to make an awful good auditor out of you that knows a great deal about the mind.

Thank you.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 APRIL 1969
Remimeo
Dn Checksheet
Class VIIIs
Qual Secs
Tech Secs
Dianetics
BASIC DEFINITIONS

ERASURE is the action of erasing, rubbing out, locks, secondaries or engrams.

A LOCK is a mental image picture of an incident where one was knowingly or unknowingly reminded of a secondary or engram. It does not itself contain a blow or a burn or impact and is not any major cause of misemotion. It does not contain unconsciousness. It may contain a feeling of pain or illness, etc, but is not itself the source of it. Example: One sees a cake, feels sick. This is a lock on an engram of being made sick by eating cake. The picture of seeing a cake and feeling sick is a lock on (is locked to) the incident (unseen at the moment) of getting sick eating cake. When one finds a lock it can be run like any other mental image picture.

A SECONDARY is a mental image picture of a moment of severe and shocking loss or threat of loss which contains misemotion such as anger, fear, grief, apathy or “deathfulness”. It is a mental image recording of a time of severe mental stress. It may contain unconsciousness. When it is restimulated by a similar but lighter experience another mental image picture is recorded which becomes a lock on the secondary and serves to keep the secondary alive. A secondary is called a secondary because it itself depends upon an earlier engram with similar data but real pain, etc.

AN ENGRAM is a mental image picture which is a recording of a time of physical pain and unconsciousness. It must by definition have impact or injury as part of its content.

It is of the very greatest importance that a Dianetic auditor really grasp what these things are. Otherwise he won’t know what he is doing or to what.

Now because he isn’t seeing his preclear’s pictures an auditor can become very careless about them and not handle them correctly.

If an auditor doesn’t really know what these things are (erasure, locks, secondaries, engrams) he cannot of course hope to handle them for the preclear.

The basic Dianetic errors are just not knowing what these are and that they are there to be handled and that these and these alone cause psychosomatic ills.

Once one has a full grip on these definitions he can then and only then hope to do anything with them for the preclear.

If the auditor is going to handle the aches, pains, unwanted sensations and psychosomatic illnesses of the preclear, it requires that he fully grasp these basic definitions.

Literally millions of complications can stem from the simple fact that a preclear records experiences in mental image pictures and that these thereafter can affect HIS BODY adversely.

Once one really understands that mental image pictures are all there is in the preclear’s “mind” one has understood the total of aberration. There is NOT something else there. No “id”, no “ego”. There are only mental image pictures.

These, if you use the exact procedures of Dianetics, can be found and erased.

When the unwanted locks, secondaries and engrams are erased the preclear will be rid of the physical disabilities of which he complains and will be well physically.

SOMATIC—means essentially body sensation, illness or pain or discomfort. “Soma” means body. Hence PSYCHO SOMATIC or pains stemming from the mind.

MISEMOTION—Anything that is unpleasant emotion such as antagonism, anger, fear, grief, apathy or a death feeling.

This is the entire breadth of Dianetics today.

In Scientology we deal with the thetan, the being who is the individual and who handles and lives in the body. This is beyond the scope of today’s Dianetics.

If a preclear is well physically made so by Dianetics and any required physical medication or nutrition, he can then embark on Scientology, the increase of his abilities and spiritual freedom.

If a preclear who is being audited or has been audited on Scientology Grades becomes ill one DOES NOT TRY TO MAKE HIM WELL BY GIVING HIM NEW HIGHER GRADES. That has been an error of great magnitude. Instead ONE REVERTS TO DIANETIC AUDITING until the pc is well and only then continues with Scientology.

This is correct procedure because it works.

People “come into Scientology” to cure their headaches. Somebody starts them off on Grade auditing, several Grades later they still have their headache. It is a continual Present Time Problem to them and the auditor. It sometimes vanishes during Grade Processing. This gives an unfortunate win.

The right thing to have done was give the person DIANETIC AUDITING, until he or she no longer had headaches and then begin to audit the person on Grades so as to put them well above ever again getting headaches.

Continual headaches come from mental image pictures retained by the pc of having a head crushed or shot off or hit. That is an engram. It actually had to happen. It is NOT imaginary or delusion. The proof is that when the auditor finally erases the engram the recording of the injury is gone and the headaches will not again occur.

The preclear often is unable to confront the actual engram at once. He offers one a LOCK, a time when he had a headache. One “runs” this lock (one always runs whatever is offered, you don’t force the pc) and finds after putting the preclear through it a couple of times that IT IS GETTING MORE SOLID or it simply isn’t erasing. One finds an earlier recording. This possibly turns out to be a secondary. The pc had a moment of loss and cried and also had a headache.

This secondary may or may not erase. If it does one leaves it of course as finished. But if it does not erase and isn’t erasing after a couple of times through it, one then asks for an earlier one.

One probably would then get the actual engram, a recording of a time when the head was actually injured.
One runs this and after a couple of times through, finds it isn’t erasing and so goes earlier for another engram.

This one erases.

When it erases the whole chain of headaches ALSO erases.

And that is the end of the pc’s headaches period.

One then inquires after other somatics or sensations and handles them the same

It is all done by using the technique called R-3-R without variation.

Since these recordings contain mainly other-determinedness (pictures of others doing things) the auditor always has more control over the preclear’s mental image pictures than the preclear does. Thus the pictures do what the auditor says. This point too must be grasped by an auditor or he will be waiting on the preclear to act or move in time.

The TIME TRACK is the consecutive record of mental image pictures which accumulates through the preclear’s life or lives. It is very exactly dated.

PLEASURE MOMENTS are mental image pictures containing pleasure sensations. They respond to R-3-R. One seldom addresses them unless the preclear is fixated on some type of “pleasure” to a point where it has become highly aberrated.

BLACK FIELD is just some part of a mental image picture where the preclear is looking at blackness. It is part of some lock, secondary or engram. In Scientology it can occur (rarely) when the pc is exterior, looking at something black. It responds to R-3-R.

INVISIBLE FIELD is just a part of some lock, secondary or engram that is “invisible”. It like a black field responds to R-3-R.

PRESSURE SOMATIC is, in Dianetics, considered to be a symptom in a lock, secondary or engram, simply part of the content.

Whatever, the symptom pain sensation, whatever, it is from either the body directly (such as a broken bone, a gallstone or immediate physical cause) or is part of the content of a mental image picture—lock, secondary or engram.

The Dianetic auditor does not audit ideas or think. He is handling mental recordings. Ideas are in them. Ideas come out of them. But think is no longer part of Dianetics.

In Dianetics we handle locks, secondaries and engrams.

KEY IN is the action of recording a lock on a secondary or engram.

KEY OUT is an action of the engram or secondary dropping away without being erased.

FLOATING NEEDLES occur when a key-out occurs or when an engram is erased.

When one keys out (rather than erases) an engram, the preclear can always, in life, get a key-in of the engram again and so become ill as before. This does not mean one should overrun a floating needle. It does however point out that you can key out an engram without running it and at once key it back in again and run it.

An example is getting the date. One gets a floating needle. It is better to leave it at that. But also realize the incident that hasn’t been run is still there.
MULTIPLE ILLNESS—means the preclear is physically uncomfortable or ill from several engrams of different types all restimulated. One runs one somatic chain at a time, running each new symptom that is assessed or stated by the preclear.

CHAIN means a series of recordings of similar experiences. A chain has engrams, secondaries and locks. Example—Head injury chain in the sequence encountered by an auditor and run by R-3-R—sporting goods display window seeing it (lock), losing a bat (secondary), hit in the head with a bat (engram). The engram is the earliest date, the secondary a later date, the lock the most recent.

By using somatics to trace back (meaning discomforts, complaints, sensations, aches, pains) and by staying on the chain of only one somatic (i.e. headaches) you get back down the single chain without dispersing all over the place into different chains. Thus one runs the chain of one particular somatic or discomfort or complaint down to key-out or erasure before doing the next somatic or discomfort or complaint.

AUTOMATIC BANK—When a pc gets picture after picture after picture all out of control. This occurs when one isn’t following an assessed somatic or complaint or has chosen the wrong one or one which the pc is not ready to confront or by overwhelming the pc with rough TRs or going very non-standard. Some pcs turn up in their first session with automatic banks. The thing to do is carefully assess the physical complaint for longest or best read and gently handle that chain well.

BASIC—This is the FIRST experience recorded in mental image pictures of that TYPE of pain, sensation, discomfort, etc. Every chain has its basic. It is a PECULIARITY and a FACT that when one gets down to the basic on a chain (a) it erases and (b) the whole chain vanishes for good. Basic is simply earliest.

UNBURDENING—As a basic is not at once available on any chain one usually unburdens it by running later engrams, secondaries and locks. The act of unburdening would be digging off the top to get at the bottom as in moving sand. As you run off later incidents, the ability of the preclear to confront it also increases and basic is easy to run when finally contacted.

BASIC BASIC—This belongs in Scientology. It is wholly beyond the scope of Dianetics. It means the most basic basic of all basics and results in clearing. It is found on the Clearing Course. If contacted or run before the pc was brought up through the Scientology Grades, he wouldn’t be able to handle it anyway as experience has shown. So this is part of Scientology, not Dianetics.

VALENCE is the form and identity of the preclear or another, the beingness. We are not much concerned with this in Dianetics today. It is handled in Scientology.

ALLY—A person from whom one had sympathy and was dependent upon.

ASSESS in Dianetics means choose, from a list or statements, which item or thing has the longest read or the pc’s interest. The longest read will also have the pc’s interest oddly enough.

If you know these definitions COLD so you don’t have to mutter them or memorize them but just KNOW them, you will really get results with Dianetics.

The biggest failure in training auditors was their faulty grasp of what they were addressing and their additive think.

The discoveries of Dianetics were basic and vital and opened a wide new unexplored frontier.
These words were assigned to things arbitrarily. They had to be. Man had not had any notion of these things before so they had no names and had to be assigned names.

The names were chosen because they didn’t also mean something else in another field of science.

The terms are therefore IMPORTANT and what they mean and the things they name must be grasped before success can attend any auditing.

Any failures of Dianetic auditors were not the failures of Dianetics. The persons attempting to audit others didn’t KNOW what these things were, essentially the lock, the secondary, the engram, erasure and key-out.

So these are essential to any training or use of Dianetics.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 MAY AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise
THE TIME TRACK
AND
ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS
BULLETIN 1

It has been so many years since engram running was a familiar tool of the auditor that it is hard to know where to begin to teach this skill all over again. Actually, millions of words have been written or spoken on the subject of running engrams. However, oddly enough there was not one condensed, summary HCO Bulletin on the subject. Engram running, developed, was never then summated. I will therefore attempt to remedy the matter.

ENGRAM RUNNING SIMPLIFIED

No recapitulation or summation of materials was ever done on engram running. Therefore while all lectures and books on it are true, not one contains a final survey of engram running including everything vital to this skill and the laws which govern it. The material in books and tapes should be reviewed. But the material in these HCO Bulletins should be learned thoroughly as it takes precedence over all earlier material.

WHY PEOPLE HAVE TROUBLE RUNNING ENGRAMS

I have gotten very impatient with the constant plea for a rote set of commands to run engrams. The need for such commands is a testimony to the Auditor’s lack of knowledge of the mechanics of the Time Track and the pc’s behavior during an engram running session.

An auditor must know the basic laws and mechanics of the Time Track in order to run engrams. There is no rote procedure and never will be that will be successful on all cases in absence of a knowledge of what a Time Track is.

There is no substitute for knowing what engrams are and what they do. Knowing that, you can run engrams. Not knowing that, there is nothing that will take the place of such knowledge. You have to know the behavior of and data about engrams. There is no royal road that avoids such knowledge. If you know all about engrams you can run them. If you don’t, you’ll make a mess regardless of the commands given for use.

Therefore the essence of engram running is a knowledge of the character and behavior of engrams. This is not a vast subject.

However, these three things stand in the way of learning about engrams:

1. 	Engrams contain pain and unconsciousness; fear of pain or inflicting pain causes the auditor not to confront the pc’s engrams and unconsciousness is after all a not knowing condition; and

2. 	The auditor is so accustomed to projectionists reeling off movies and TV programs for him or her that the auditor tends to just sit while the action rolls forward, acting like a spectator, not the projectionist.
3. 	Failure to handle Time in Incidents.

On (1) you can remedy this just by knowing about it and realizing it and surmounting it, and on (2) you can remedy the attitude by realizing that the auditor, not the pc (or some installed movie projectionist), is operating the pc’s bank. (3) is covered later.

Take a pocket movie projector and any bit of a reel of film and wind it back and forth for a while and you’ll see you are moving it. Then give a command and move the film and you’ll have what you’re doing as an auditor. Many drills can be developed using such equipment and (2) will be overcome. (1) requires just understanding and the will to rise superior to it.

THE TIME TRACK

The endless record, called the TIME TRACK, complete with 52 perceptions, of the pc’s entire past, is available to the auditor and his or her auditing commands.

The rules are: THE TIME TRACK OBEYS THE AUDITOR; THE TIME TRACK DOES NOT OBEY A PRECLEAR (early in auditing).

The Time Track is a very accurate record of the pc’s past, very accurately timed, very obedient to the auditor. If motion picture film were 3D, had 52 perceptions and could fully react upon the observer, the Time Track could be called a motion picture film. It is at least 350,000,000,000,000 years long, probably much longer, with a scene about every 1/25 of a second.

DEFINITIONS

That part of the Time Track that is free of pain and misadventure is called simply the Free Track, in that the pc doesn’t freeze up on it.

Any mental picture that is unknowingly created and part of the Time Track is called a FACSIMILE, whether an engram, secondary, lock or pleasure moment.

Any knowingly created mental picture that is not part of a Time Track is called a MOCK-UP.

Any unknowingly created mental picture that appears to have been a record of the physical universe but is in fact only an altered copy of the Time Track is called a DUB-IN.

Those parts of the Time Track that contain moments of pain and unconsciousness are called ENGRAMS.

Those parts of the Time Track which contain misemotion based on earlier engramic experience are called SECONDARIES.

Those parts of the Time Track which contain the first moment an earlier engram is restimulated are called KEY-INS.

Those parts of the Time Track which contain moments the pc associates with Key-ins are called LOCKS.

A series of similar engrams, or of similar locks, are called CHAINS.

A BASIC is the first incident (engram, lock, overt act) on any chain.

BASIC BASIC is the first engram on the whole Time Track.

Incidents are not in piles or files. They are simply a part of the consecutive Time Track.

By INCIDENT is meant the recording of an experience, simple or complex, related by the same subject, location or people, understood to take place in a short and finite time period such as minutes or hours or days.

A CHAIN OF INCIDENTS makes up a whole adventure or activity related by the same subject, general location or people, understood to take place in a long time period, weeks, months, years or even billions or trillions of years.

An incident can be an engram, secondary, key-in or lock. A chain of incidents can therefore be a chain of experiences which are engrams, secondaries, key-ins and locks.

A chain of incidents has only one BASIC. Its BASIC is the earliest engram received from or overt act committed against the subject, location or beings which make it a chain.

THE INFLUENCE OF THE TIME TRACK

Shakespeare said all life was a play. He was right in so far as the Time Track is a 3D, 52 perception movie which is a whole series of plays concerning the preclear. But the influence of it upon the preclear removes it from the class of pretense and play. It is not only very real, it is what contains whatever it is that depresses the pc to what he is today. Its savageness relieved, the preclear can recover, and only then. There is no other valid workable road.

There are valences, circuits and machinery in the reactive mind, as well as Reliable Items and Goals. But these all have their place on the Time Track and are part of the Time Track.

The preclear, as a thetan, is the effect of all this recorded experience. Almost all of it is unknown to him.

There are no other influencing agencies for the preclear than the Time Track and Present Time. And Present Time, a moment later, is part of the Time Track.

THE CREATION OF THE TIME TRACK

The preclear makes the Time Track as time rolls forward. He does this as an obsessive create on a sub-awareness level. It is done by an INVOLUNTARY INTENTION, not under the pc’s awareness or control.

The road to clear by making the preclear take over the creating of the Time Track was long explored and proved completely valueless and chancy.

The road to clear by making the preclear leave the Time Track (exteriorization) lasts only for minutes, hours or days and has proven valueless.

The road to clear, proven over 13 years of intense research and vast numbers of auditing hours and cases, lies only in an auditor handling the Time Track and removing from it, by means governed by the Auditor’s Code, the material, both motivators and overts, which, recorded on it, is out of the control of the pc and holds the pc at effect. Listing for goals and reliable items, engram running, Prepchecking, Sec Checking, recall processes and assists all handle the Time Track successfully and are therefore the basis of all modern processing.

APPARENT FAULTS IN THE TIME TRACK

There are no faults in the recording of the Time Track. There are only snarls caused by groupers, and unavailability and lack of perception of the Time Track.

A Grouper is anything which pulls the Time Track into a bunch at one or more points. When the grouper is gone the Time Track is perceived to be straight.

Unavailability is caused by the pc’s inability to confront or BOUNCERS and DENYERS. A BOUNCER throws the pc backward, forward, up or down from the track and so makes it apparently unavailable. A DENYER obscures a part of track by implying it is not there or elsewhere (a mis-director) or should not be viewed.

Groupers, bouncers and denyers are material (matter, energy, space and time in the form of effort, force, mass, delusion, etc) or command phrases (statements that group, bounce or deny). When a grouper, bouncer or denyer are enforced by both material and command phrases they become most effective, making the Time Track unavailable to the pc.

Unless the Time Track is made available it cannot be as-ised by the pc and so remains aberrative.

The Time Track is actual in that it is made of matter, energy, space and time as well as thought. Those who cannot confront Mest think it is composed only of thought. A grouper can make a pc fat and a bouncer thin if the pc is chronically stuck in them or if the track is grouped or made unavailable through bad auditing.

THE ORIGIN OF THE TIME TRACK

Through a great deal of study, not entirely complete, the following surmises can be made about the Time Track, the physical universe and the pc.

The tendency of the physical universe is condensation and solidification. At least this is the effect produced on the thetan. Continued dwelling in it without rehabilitation causes the thetan to become less reaching (“smaller”) and more solid. A thetan, being a static, may become convinced he cannot duplicate matter, energy, space, or time or certain intentions and so succumbs to the influence of this universe. This influence in itself would be negligible unless recorded by the thetan, stored and made reactive upon the thetan as a Time Track, and then maliciously used to trap the thetan.

Recent researches I have done in the field of aesthetics tend to indicate that rhythm is the source of present time. The thetan is carried along both by his own desire to have, do or be and by having been overwhelmed in the distant past by a continuous minute rhythm. This is a possible explanation of a thetan’s continuous presence in Present Time. Present Time, then, can be defined as a response to the continuous rhythm of the physical universe, resulting in a hereness in nowness.

In response to this rhythm, undoubtedly assisted by overts and implants and convictions of the need of recording, the thetan began to respond to the physical universe in his creations and eventually obsessively created (by means of restimulatable involuntary intentions) the passing moments of the physical universe. But only when he began to consider these pictures important could they be used to aberrate him.

These are only partly permanently created. Other moments of the past become re-created only when the thetan’s intention is directed to them, on which these parts spontaneously appear, the thetan not voluntarily creating them.

This forms the Time Track. Some parts of it, then, are “permanently” in a state of creation and the majority of it becoming created when the thetan’s attention is directed to them.

The “permanently created” portions are those times of overwhelm and indecision which almost entirely submerged the thetan’s own will and awareness.

Such parts are found in implants and great stresses. These parts are in permanent restimulation.

The mechanism of permanent restimulation consists of opposing forces of comparable magnitude which cause a balance which does not respond to current time and remains “timeless” .

Such phenomena as the overt act-motivator sequence, the problem (postulate counter-postulate), tend to hold certain portions of the Time Track in “permanent creation” and cause them to continue to exist in present time as unresolved masses, energies, spaces, times and significances.

The intention of the physical universe (and those who have become degraded enough to further only its ends) is to make a thetan solid, immobile and decisionless.

The fight of the thetan is to remain unsolid, mobile or immobile at will, and capable of decision.

This in itself is the principal unresolved problem and it itself creates timeless mass which accomplishes the basic purpose of a trap.

The mechanism of the Time Track can then be said to be the primary action in making a thetan solid, immobile and decisionless. For without a record of the past accumulating and forming a gradient of solidification of the thetan, the entrapment potential of the physical universe would be negligible and the havingness which it offers might be quite therapeutic. It probably requires more than just living in the physical universe to become aberrated. The main method of causing aberration and entrapment is therefore found in actions which create or confuse the Time Track.

A thetan has things beyond Matter, Energy, Space and Time which can deteriorate. His power of choice, his ability to keep two locations separate, his belief in self and his ethical standards are independent of material things. But these can be recorded in the Time Track as well and one sees them recover when no longer influenced by the Time Track.

As the thetan himself makes his own Time Track, even if under compulsion, and commits his own overts, even on provocation, it can be said, then, that the thetan aberrates himself. But he is assisted by mammoth betrayals and his necessity to combat them. And he is guilty of aberrating his fellows.

It is doubtful if another type of being built the physical universe and still lurks within it to trap further. But older beings, already degraded, have continuously been about to help newer beings to go downhill.

Each Thetan had his own “Home Universe” and these colliding or made to collide, probably are the physical universe. But of this origin and these intentions we are not at this time certain.

It is enough for us to resolve the problem of the aberrative nature of this universe and provide a technology which assuages that aberration and keeps one abreast of it. This is practical and we can already do it. Further insight into the problem will be a further bonus. And further data is already in view.

LRH: dr.rd 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 JUNE AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise
THE TIME TRACK
AND
ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS
BULLETIN 2
HANDLING THE TIME TRACK

Although finding and curtailing the development of the Time Track at genus is not improbable, the ability of the preclear to attain it early on is questionable without reducing the charge on the existing track. Therefore, any system which reduces the charged condition of the Time Track without reducing but increasing the awareness and decisionability of the preclear is valid processing. Any system which seeks to handle the charge but reduces the preclear’s awareness and decisionability is not valid processing but is degrading.

According to early axioms, the single source of aberration is Time. Therefore any system which further confuses or overwhelms the preclear’s sense of time will not be beneficial.

Thus the first task of the student of engram running is to master the handling of Time on the preclear’s Time Track. It must be handled without question, uncertainty or confusion.

Failing to handle the Time in the pc’s Time Track with confidence, certainty and without error will result in grouping or denying the Time Track to the pc.

The prime source of ARC break in engram running sessions is by-passing charge by Time mishandling by the auditor. As a subhead under this, taking and trying to run incidents which are not basic on a chain constitute an error in Time and react on the pc like By-Passed RIs or GPMs.

An ARC break-less session requires gentle accurate time scouting, the selection of the earliest Timed incident available and the accurate Time handling of the incident as it is run.

There are only a few reasons why some cannot run engrams on pcs. These are:

1. 	Q and A with the pain and unconsciousness of incidents;

2. 	Failing to handle the Time Track of the pc for the pc;

3. 	Failure to understand and handle Time.

2 and 3 are much the same. However, there are three ways to move a Time Track about:

(a) 	By Significance (the moment something was considered);

(b) 	By Location (the moment the pc was located somewhere);

(c) 	By Time alone (the date or years before an event or years ago).

You will see all three have time in common. “The moment when you thought _____” “The moment you were on the cliff______” “Two years before you put your foot on the bottom step of the scaffold” are all dependent on Time. Each designates an instant on the Time Track of which there can be no mistake by either auditor or pc.

The whole handling of the Time Track can be done by any one of these three methods, Significance, Location, Time.

Therefore all projectionist work is done by the Time of Significance, the Time of Location or Time alone.

The track responds. Those auditors who have trouble cannot grasp the totality and accuracy and speed of that response. The idiotic and wonderful precision of the Time Track defeats the sloppy and careless. They wonder if it went. They question the pc’s being there. They fumble about until they destroy their command over the Time Track.

“Go to 47,983,678,283,736 years 2 months, 4 days 1 hour and six minutes ago.” Well, a clear statement of it, unfumbled, will cause just that to happen. The tiniest quiver of doubt, a fumble over the millions and nothing happens.

Fumbled dating gets no dates. One must date boldly with no throat catches or hesitations. “More than 40,000? Less than 40,000?” Get it the first read. Don’t go on peering myopically at the meter asking the same question the rest of the session. Accurate, Bold, Rapid. Those are the watchwords of dating and Time Track handling.

In moving a Time Track about, move only the track. Don’t mix it and also move the pc. You can say “Move to       .” You don’t have to say (but you can) “The somatic strip will move to        .” But never say “You will move to       .” And this also applies to Present Time. The pc won’t come to Present Time. He’s here. But the Time Track will move to the date of present time unless the pc is really stuck. In getting a pc to Present Time (unimportant in modern engram running) say “Move to (date month and year of PT).”

In scouting you always use To. “Move To_____.” In running an engram or whatever, you always use THROUGH. “Move through the incident_____.”

If an auditor hasn’t a ruddy clue about the Time Track and its composition, he or she won’t ever be able to run engrams. So, obviously, the first thing to teach and have passed in engram running is Time Track Composition. When the auditor learns that, he or she will be able to run engrams. If the auditor does not know the subject of the Time Track well, then he or she can’t be taught to run engrams, for no rote commands that cover all cases can exist. You couldn’t teach the handling of a motion picture projector by rote commands if the operator had never imagined the existence of film. An auditor sitting there thinking the pc is doing this or that and being in a general fuddle about it will soon have film all over the floor and wrapped about his ears. His plea for a rote command will just tangle up more film so long as he doesn’t know it is film and that he, not the preclear, is handling it.

If an auditor can learn this, he will then be able to learn to run those small parts of the Time Track called engrams. If an auditor can’t run a pc through some pleasant Time Track flawlessly, he or she sure can’t run a pc through the living lightning parts of that Track called Engrams.

An auditor who cannot handle the Time Track smoothly can scarcely call himself an auditor as that’s all there is to audit besides postulates, no matter what process you are using, no matter what process you invent and even if you tried what is laughingly called a “biochemical approach” to the mind. There’s only a Time Track for the bios to affect.

There’s a thetan, there’s a Time Track. The thetan gets caught in the Time Track. The job of the auditor is to free the thetan by digging him out of his Time Track. So if you can’t handle what you’re digging a thetan out of, you’re going to have an awful lot of landslides and a lot of auditing loses for both you and preclears.

Invent games, devices, charts and training aids galore and teach with them and you’ll have auditors who can handle the Time Track and run engrams.

CHARGE AND THE TIME TRACK

Charge, the stored quantities of energy in the Time Track, is the sole thing that is being relieved or removed by the auditor from the Time Track.

When this charge is present in huge amounts the Time Track overwhelms the pc and the pc is thrust below observation of the actual Track.

This is the State of Case Scale. (All levels given are major levels. Minor levels exist between them.)
	Level ( 1 )	NO TRACK	—	No Charge.

	Level (2)	FULL VISIBLE TIME TRACK	—	Some Charge.

	Level (3)	SPORADIC VISIBILITY OF
		TRACK	—	Some heavily charged areas.

	Level (4)	INVISIBLE TRACK	—	Very heavily charged areas
		(Black or Invisible Field)		exist.

	Level (5)	DUB-IN	—	Some areas of Track so
				heavily charged pc is
				below consciousness
				in them.

	Level (6)	DUB-IN OF DUB-IN	—	Many areas of Track
				so heavily charged, the
				Dub-in is submerged.

	Level (7)	ONLY AWARE OF OWN	—	Track too heavily charged
		EVALUATIONS		to be viewed at all.

	Level (8)	UNAWARE	—	Pc dull, often in a coma.

On this new scale the very good, easy to run cases are at Level (3). Skilled engram running can handle down to Level (4). Engram running is useless from Level (4) down. Level (4) is questionable.

Level (1) is of course an OT. Level (2) is the clearest clear anybody ever heard of. Level (3) can run engrams. Level (4) can run early track engrams if the running is skilled. (Level (4) includes the Black V case.) Level (5) has to be run on general ARC processes. Level (6) has to be run carefully on special ARC processes with lots of havingness. Level (7) responds to the CCHs. Level (8) responds only to reach and withdraw CCHs.

Pre-Dianetic and Pre-Scientology mental studies were observations from Level (7) which considered Levels (5) and (6) and (8) the only states of case and oddly enough overlooked Level (7) entirely, all states of case were considered either neurotic or insane, with sanity either slightly glimpsed or decried.

In actuality on some portion of every Time Track in every case you will find each of the Levels except (l ) momentarily expressed. The above scale is devoted to chronic case level and is useful in Programming a case. But any case for brief moments or longer will hit these levels in being processed. This is the Temporary Case Level found only in sessions on chronically higher level cases when they go through a tough bit.

Thus engram running can be seen to be limited to higher level cases. Other processing, notably modern ARC processes, moves the case up to engram running.
Now what makes these levels of case?

It is entirely charge. The more heavily charged the case, the lower it falls on the above scale. It is charge that prevents the pc from confronting the Time Track and submerges the Time Track from view.

Charge is stored energy or stored or recreatable potentials of energy.

The E-Meter registers charge. A very high or low tone arm, a sticky or dirty needle, all are registrations of this charge. The “chronic meter of a case” is an index of chronic charge. The fluctuations of a meter during a session are registering relative charge in different portions of the pc’s Time Track.

More valuably the meter registers released charge. You can see it blowing on the meter. The disintegrating RR, the blowing down of the TA, the heavy falls, the loosening needle all show charge being released.
The meter registers charge found and then charge released. It registers charge found but not yet released by the needle getting tight, by DN, by a climbing TA or a TA going far below the clear read. Then as this cleans up, the charge is seen to “blow”.

Charge that is restimulated but not released causes the case to “charge up”, in that charge already on the Time Track is triggered but is not yet viewed by the pc. The whole cycle of restimulated charge that is then blown gives us the action of auditing. When prior charge is restimulated but not located so that it can be blown, we get “ARC Breaks”.

The State of Case, the Chronic Level, as given on the above scale, is the totality of charge on the case. Level (I) has no charge on it. Level (8) is total charge. The day to day condition of a case, its temper, reaction to things, brightness, depends upon two factors, (a) the totality of charge on the case and (b) the amount of charge in restimulation. Thus a case being processed varies in tone by (a) the totality of charge remaining on the case (b) the amount of charge in restimulation and (c) the amount of charge blown by processing.

Charge is held in place by the basic on a chain. When only later than basic incidents are run charge can be restimulated and then bottled up again with a very small amount blown. This is known as “grinding out” an incident. An engram is getting run, but as it is not basic on a chain, no adequate amount of charge is being released.

Later than basic incidents are run either (a) to uncover more basic (earlier) incidents or (b) to clean up the chain after basic has been found and erased.

No full erasure of incidents later than basic is possible, but charge can be removed from them providing they are not ground out but only run lightly a time or two and then an earlier incident on the chain found and similarly run. When the basic is found it is erased by many passes over it. Basic is the only one which can be run many times. The later the incident is (the further from basic) the more lightly it is run.

There is no difference in the technology required to run a basic or a later incident. It is only the number of times THROUGH that differs. Basic is run through many times. A somewhat later engram is run through a couple of times. An engram very late on the chain is gone through once. Otherwise all engrams whether basic or not are run exactly the same.

Engrams are run to release Charge from a case. Charge is not released to cure the body or to cure anything physical and the meter cures nothing. Charge is released entirely to return to a thetan his causation over the Time Track, to restore his power of choice, and to free him of his most intimate trap, his own Time Track. You cannot have decent, honest or capable beings as long as they are trapped and overwhelmed. While this philosophy may be contrary to the intentions of a slavemaster or a degrader it is nevertheless demonstrably true. The universe is not itself a trap capable only of degradation. But beings exist who, beaten and overwhelmed themselves, can utilize this universe to degrade others.

The mission of engram running is to free the charge which has accumulated in a being and so restore that being to appreciated life.

All cases, sooner or later, have to be run on engrams, no matter what else has to be done. For it is in engrams that the bulk of the charge on the Time Track lies. And it is therefore those parts of the Time Track called engrams which overwhelm the thetan. These contain pain and unconsciousness and are therefore the record of moments when a thetan was most at effect and least at cause. In these moments then the thetan is least able to confront or to be causative.

The engram also contains moments when it was necessary to have moved and most degrading to have held a position in space.

And the engram contains the heaviest ARC Break with a thetan’s environment and other beings.

And all these things add up to charge, an impulse to withdraw from that which can’t be withdrawn from or to approach that which can’t be approached, and this, like a two pole battery, generates current. This constantly generated current is chronic charge. The principal actions are:

(a) 	When the attention of the thetan is directed broadly in the direction of such a track record the current increases.

(b) 	When the attention is more closely (but not forcefully) and accurately directed, the current is discharged.

(c) 	When the basic on the chain is found and erased, that which composes the poles themselves is erased and later incidents eased, for no further generation is possible by that chain and it becomes incapable of producing further charge to be restimulated. The above are the actions which occur during auditing. If these actions do not occur despite auditing, then there is no case betterment, so it is the auditor’s responsibility to make sure they do occur.

As the Time Track is created by an involuntary response of the thetan, it is and exists as a real thing, composed of space, matter, energy, time and significance. On a Level (8) Case the Time Track is completely submerged by charge even down to a total unawareness of thought itself. At Level (7) awareness of the track is confined by extant charge to opinions about it. At Level (6) charge on the track is such that pictures of pictures of the track are gratuitously furnished, causing delusive copies of inaccurate copies of the track. At Level (5) charge is sufficient to cause only inaccurate copies of the track to be viewable. At Level (4) charge is sufficient to obscure the track. At Level (3) charge is sufficient to wipe out portions of the track. At Level (2) there is only enough charge to maintain the existence of the track. At Level (1) there is no charge and no track to create it. All charge from Level (1) and up into higher states that is generated is knowingly generated by the thetan, whose ability to hold locations in space and poles apart results in charge as needful. This would degenerate again as he put such matters on automatic or began once more to make a Time Track, but these actions alone are not capable of aberrating a thetan until he encounters further violent degradation and entrapment in the form of implants. Aberration itself must be calculated to occur. The existence of a Time Track only makes it possible for it to occur and be retained. Thus a thetan’s first real mistake is to consider his own pictures and their recorded events important, and his second mistake is in not obliterating entrapment activities in such a way as not to become entrapped or aberrated in doing so, all of which can be done and should be.

Engram running is a step necessary to get at the more fundamental causes of a Time Track and handle them.

So it is a skill which must be done and done well.

LRH: dr jh							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard	
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 JANUARY 1967
Dianetic Course
Students
(Star Rated)
Qual Execs	MANIFESTATIONS OF ENGRAMS AND
Tech Execs
	SECONDARIES FURTHER DEFINED

In order to provide a more accurate differentiation between the manifestations of an engram and a secondary, below are listed detailed definitions of Pain and Sensation.

Pain (in its various forms) is the indication of an Engram.

Sensation (in its various forms) is the indication of a Secondary, which precedes the actual Engram.

DEFINITIONS

SOMATICS = This is a general word for uncomfortable physical perceptions coming from the reactive mind. Its genus is early Dianetics and it is a general, common package word, used by Scientologists to denote “pain” or “sensation” with no difference made between them. To understand the source of these feelings, one should have a knowledge of engrams, ridges and other parts of the reactive bank. To the Scientologist anything is a SOMATIC if it emanates from the various parts of the reactive mind and produces an awareness of reactivity. Symbol SOM.

PAIN = PAIN is composed of heat, cold, electrical, and the combined effect of sharp hurting. If one stuck a fork in his arm, he would experience pain. When one uses PAIN in connection with clearing one means awareness of heat, cold, electrical or hurting stemming from the reactive mind. According to experiments done at Harvard, if one were to make a grid with heated tubes going vertically and chilled tubes going horizontally and were to place a small current of electricity through the lot, the device, touched to a body, would produce the feeling of PAIN. It need not be composed of anything very hot or cold or of any high voltage to produce a very intense feeling of pain. Therefore what we call PAIN is itself heat, cold and electrical. If a pc experiences one or more of these from his reactive mind, we say he is experiencing PAIN.

“Electrical” is the bridge between sensation and PAIN and is difficult to classify as either PAIN or sensation when it exists alone. Symbol PN.

SENSATION = All other uncomfortable perceptions stemming from the reactive mind are called SENSATION. These are basically “pressure”, “motion”, “dizziness”, “sexual sensation”, and “emotion and misemotion”. There are others, definite in themselves but definable in these five general categories. If one took the fork in the pain definition above and pressed it against the arm, that would be “pressure”. “Motion” is just that, a feeling of being in motion when one is not. “Motion” includes the “winds of space”, a feeling of being blown upon especially from in front of the face. “Dizziness” is a feeling of disorientation and includes a spinniness, as well as an out-of-balance feeling. “Sexual sensation” means any feeling, pleasant or unpleasant, commonly experienced during sexual restimulation or action. “Emotion and Misemotion” include all levels of the complete tone scale except “pain”; emotion and misemotion are closely allied to “motion”, being only a finer particle action. A bank solidity is a form of “pressure”, and when the sensation of increasing solidity of masses in the mind occurs, we say “the bank is beefing up”. All these are classified as
SENSATION. Symbol SEN.

LRH:jp.rd							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright o 1967						Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 APRIL 1969
Issue III
Remimeo
Dn Checksheet
Class VIIIs
Qual Secs
Tech Secs
PAST LIVES

The reason the first Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation had trouble was that its board of directors attempted to stop past lives from being run.

When a group seeks to forward only what is currently acceptable it of course stalls all progress.

Further it is dishonest to suppress or fail to reveal scientific discoveries.

Disagreeing with the Law of Gravity could give one some very bad falls.

Pre-Dianetic mental studies customarily threw out anything that did not agree with their pet theories or would be “unpopular” with authorities.

Such was the dishonesty practised in the humanities that the whole field had fallen into brutal hands. Dianetics had to encounter the Dark Age atmosphere which then prevailed, complete with torture and murder of the insane.

The facts are that what the auditor believes has little to do with the preclear’s reality. If a practitioner challenges or demands proof of a patient’s data the patient becomes ill—that is the bald fact of it. It’s part of the Auditor’s Code.

As far as past lives are concerned, if you don’t run mental image pictures from past lives when they come up on a chain, the preclear will not recover.

A pathetic case of this occurred in early research. A girl crippled by polio was able to throw away her crutches after my first session. And would have become entirely well except that she recalled seeing and hearing Lincoln give his Gettysburg address. Her mother condemned her for such nonsense. The girl’s lameness was confirmed and perpetuated by this and by a psychotic father who raved at me for daring to suggest such things. I didn’t suggest anything. In auditing the girl she suddenly came up with being at Gettysburg listening to Lincoln.

Seems a bit cruel to condemn a young girl to a lifetime of lameness just to satisfy a fixed idea.

The weird idea is that one only lives but once.

We have several times traced the graves of pcs in a special project and they usually came up correct. One pc was very upset to find his friend has failed to erect the fitting paid for tombstone, substituting a common slab, possibly to pocket the difference.

Some pcs have been so overwhelmed in the past by some great figure that they go into his valence in that life. This often throws discredit on past lives.

I recall one girl who had been every famous figure in history who when we got her in valence turned up to have been only a victim to them. The great generals and politicians of history, it must be sadly remarked, aren’t easily distinguished from mass murderers.

But even famous figures are somewhere.

Past lives as a subject is made distasteful, possibly purposely, by some who, by fearing to have been a nobody and seeking status, talk loudly to others about having been Napoleon, Julius Caesar and Brutus all at the same time.

In a society which tries to hide in the current identity or seeks to mortalize everyone and make people only animals the subject of past lives can be a difficult one socially.

The truth in auditing is, IF YOU DON’T RUN THE INCIDENTS GIVEN BY THE PC HE DOESN’T GET WELL.

One spectacular recovery of an insane woman occurred when she ran an incident as a lion who ate her keeper. Freudian work hadn’t been able to crack the case. The alienist at the sanitarium kept her in with trying to explain how it was all delusion (the current technique pre-Dianetics). A Dianetic Auditor found and ran it and she became sane at once and stayed so.

It is NOT the auditor’s role to handle the philosophic or social aspects of incidents. To chide a pc for having an anti-social engram or a record of a crime or to challenge his data or refuse him his past life will bar his road to recovery and is itself a crime.

It will be found that Man is basically good. Only his aberrations are bad. When you run out his engrams he becomes social and reverts to being good.

Auditing is auditing. Audit what the pc has to audit. Leave the social aspects of the case to others. It’s not the auditor’s job.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder
LRH:jc.ldm.aap 
Copyright © 1969 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JANUARY 1977RA
REVISED AND REISSUED 7 JUNE 1978
Remimeo
All Levels	
All Auditors	(Revisions in this type style)
All Tech
Checksheets	
FALSE TA CHECKLIST

	Ref:	HCOB 24 Oct 71R	FALSE TA
		HCOB 12 Nov 71RA	FALSE TA ADDITION
		HCOB 15 Feb 72R	FALSE TA ADDITION 2
		HCOB 18 Feb 72R	FALSE TA ADDITION 3
		BTB    24 Jan 73R 1I	EXAMINER & FALSE TA
		HCOB 24 Nov 73RC	C/S 53RK
		HCOB 23 Nov 73RA	DRY AND WET HANDS MAKE FALSE TA
		HCOB 13 Jan 77RA	HANDLING A FALSE TA

“This Bulletin cancels HCOB 29 February 1972RA Revised 23 April 1975 as it is misleading and has caused some auditors to assess the pc on the meter to find the cause of false TA instead of checking directly with the pc.”

This Bulletin reinstates the False TA Checklist with specific handlings that are directly from the issues that I wrote on false TA.

“The following are the items to be checked by an auditor on any pc. It need only be done once unless the check itself is suspected false, or if conditions of the pc’s hands, etc. change.

“The checklist is kept in the pc folder and is entered on the Folder Summary as an action done.

“The value of operating with correct can size should not be underestimated, the reference HCOBs state why.”

The auditor signs and answers the following points on the checklist. The auditor must obtain information by checking the pc’s hands himself or herself to see if the hands are dry or wet. The cause of false TA is in the physical universe and that is where the check is done. It is not done by asking the pc or checking the questions on the pc for meter reads. So the auditor would feel the hands of the pc to establish if they are dry or wet, would feel the pc’s hands with cream on them to see if the cream has dried up, would see if the pc’s hands cup so as to form an area that does not touch the cans and so forth. False TA is not think or mental mass. It is in the physical universe and that is where it has to be handled for it to be remedied. The handling sheet follows the items mentioned below.

“R-Factor to pc: ‘I am going to check the cans, your hands and various other things to adjust everything for best accuracy.”’

(See numbered list at back for handlings. Each number in the checklist is exactly represented in the handling by the same number to make it easy to switch to the handling section when doing this checklist.)

1. 	Is the meter charged fully?	________

2. 	Is the meter trimmed correctly?	________
3. 	Are the leads connected to the meter and cans?	________

4. 	Are the cans rusty?	________

5. 	Are pc’s hands excessively dry requiring hand cream?	________
6. 	Are the pc’s hands excessively wet requiring powder?	________

7. 	The pc is NOT being told continually to wipe his hands?	________

8. 	The pc’s grip on the cans is NOT being continually checked 
	by the auditor in a way that interrupts the pc?	________

9. 	TA position on large cans? Size approx 4 1/2 inches by 3 inches
	 or 11 cm by 8 cm	________

10. 	TA position on medium cans? Size approx 4 7/8 inches by 2 5/8 
	inches  or 12 1/2 cm by 7 cm	________

11. 	TA position on small cans? Size approx 3 3/4 inches by 2 1/8 
	inches  or 9 cm by 5 cm	________

11A. Can size for a child is incorrect? Size can go down to photographic 
	aluminum 35 mm film cans for a child. Size approx 2 inches by 
	1 3/16 inches  or 5 cm by 3 cm Note down TA position.	________

11B. If the above mentioned can sizes aren’t correct for the pc’s hands 
	other sizes can be tried. 1 1/4” tubing 1 3/4” tubing as well as 
	other can size checked to see which fits the pc’s hand. Note down 
	TA position.	________

12. 	Are the cans too large for the pc?	________

13. 	Are the cans too small for the pc?	________

14. 	Are the cans just right in size?	________

15. 	Are the cans cold?	________

16. 	Are the pc’s hands dry or calloused?	________

17. 	Does the pc have arthritic hands?	________

18. 	Does the pc loosen his grip on the cans?	________

19. 	Check the pc’s grip, does he hold the cans correctly? 
	(See E-Meter Drill 5.)	________

20. 	Is the pc hot?	________

21. 	Has the pc slept well?	________

22. 	Is the pc cold?	________

23. 	Is the pc hungry?	________

24. 	Is it too late at night?	________

25. 	Is the auditing being done not in the pc’s normal regular 
	awake hours?	________

26. 	Are there rings on the pc’s hands? (Remove any rings.)	________

27. 	Is the pc wearing tight shoes?	________

28. 	Is the pc wearing tight clothes?	________

29. 	Is the pc using the wrong hand cream?	________

30. 	Is the application of the hand cream correct and does it cover 
	the entire hand?	________

31. 	Is the chair the pc is sitting in comfortable?	________
	
32. 	Is it actually chronic high or low TA case condition?	________

33. 	Has the pc gone into despair over his TA?	________

The handling of these points is stated in the reference HCOBs.

The handling of high or low TA after checking these points is by C/S 53RK, Short Hi-Lo TA Assessment C/S.

The way to be sure of a C/S 53RK or Hi-Lo TA list is by continued assessment and handling of these lists until an F/N on assessment is gotten.

So standard tech handles the high and low TA. The C/S Series gives more data on the subject.

FALSE TA CHECKLIST HANDLING SHEET

1. 	IS THE METER FULLY CHARGED?

	Handling: “Keep a meter charged at least one hour for every 10 of auditing for 240 AC volt charging current, or 2 hrs for every 10 of auditing on a 110 AC volt charging current.

	“Before each session snap the knob over to TEST. The needle should hit hard on the right side of the face. It can even bounce. If the needle doesn’t snap to the right hard or if it doesn’t quite get there on TEST, then that meter will go flat in mid-session and give false TA and no reads or TA on hot subjects.” LRH (HCOB 24 Oct 1971R False TA.)

2. 	IS THE METER TRIMMED CORRECTLY?

	Handling: “A meter can be improperly trimmed (not set at 2.0 with the trim knob) and can give a false TA position. When a meter is not left on a minute or two before trimming, it can drift in the session and give a slightly false TA.

	“The trim can quietly be checked in mid-session by snapping out the jack where the cord goes into the box and putting the TA on 2, seeing if the needle is now on SET. If not, the trim knob can be moved to adjust it. The jack is quietly slipped back in. All without distracting the pc.” LRH (HCOB 24 Oct 1971R False TA.)

3. 	ARE THE LEADS CONNECTED TO THE METER AND CANS?

	Handling: “A properly set up meter with cans (electrodes) fitted to a pc who is holding them properly IS ALWAYS CORRECT.” LRH (HCOB 24 Oct 1971R.) Reference for setting up a meter is covered in E-Meter Drills book EM 4.

4. 	ARE THE CANS RUSTY?

	Handling: “Corroded cans can falsify TA. Get new ones now and then.” LRH (HCOB 24 Oct 71R.)

5. 	ARE PC’S HANDS EXCESSIVELY DRY REQUIRING HAND CREAM?

	Handling: “A quick test is have the pc put the cans under his armpits and you’ll see if it’s his calloused or chemically dried out hands. The excessively dry hand is seen as shiny or polished looking. It feels very dry. The correct treatment is to use a hand cream such as Vaseline Intensive Care Lotion (obtainable from any cosmetics store) not a greasy hand cream or vanishing cream. A good hand cream rubs all the way into the hand and leaves no excess grease. Hand cream is usually smeared on, rubbed in and can then be thoroughly wiped off. The hands will usually produce, then, a normal TA and meter response.” LRH (HCOB 23 Nov 73RA Revised 23 April 75 Revised 26 Jan 77 Dry and Wet Hands Make False TA.)

6. 	ARE THE PC’S HANDS EXCESSIVELY WET REQUIRING POWDER?

	Handling: “If the TA is low, check if the pc’s hands are wet. If so have him wipe them and get a new read. It is usually found that the 1.6 was really 2.0 . . . Have the pc wipe hands. LRH (HCOB 24 Oct 71R.)
	“Anti-perspirants can be applied to too wet hands. There are many brands of these, often a powder or spray. It can be wiped off after application & should work for two to three hours.” LRH (HCOB 23 Apr 73RA.)

7. 	THE PC IS NOT BEING TOLD CONTINUALLY TO WIPE HIS HANDS?

	Handling: Above per wet hands.

8. 	THE PC’S GRIP ON THE CANS IS NOT BEING CONTINUALLY CHECKED BY THE AUDITOR IN A WAY THAT INTERRUPTS THE PC?

	Handling: “Keep the pc’s hands in sight. Check the pc’s grip. Get smaller cans.” LRH (HCOB 24 Oct 71R.)

9. 	TA POSITION FOR LARGE CANS?

	Handling: “For a normal or large handed pc the can size is about 4 7/8ths inches by 2 5/8ths inches or 12 1/2 cm by 7 cm. This can be altered as big as 4 1/2 inches by 3 inches diameter or 11 cm by 8 cm. This is standard.” LRH (HCOB 24 Oct 71R.)

10. 	TA POSITION ON MEDIUM CANS?

	Handling: Covered above.

11. 	TA POSITION ON SMALL CANS?

	Handling: “This can should be 3 3/4 inches by 2 1/8th inches or 9 cm by 5 cm diameter or thereabouts. A small child would be lost even with that can.  So a small 35 mm film can could be used. This is 2 inches long by  1 3/16ths diameter or 5 cm by 3 cm. This works but watch it as these  cans are aluminum. They do work but test for true read with a slightly  larger can and then trim to adjust for the aluminum if any different.  “Cans of course should be steel with a thin tin plating. Regular soup  cans. Can size to match the pc avoids slack can grip or tiring the hands  into going slack, giving the auditor 3.2 F/Ns and trouble.” LRH (HCOB  24 Oct 71R.) 

11A. CAN SIZE FOR A CHILD IS INCORRECT?

	Handling: Size can go down to photographic aluminum 35 mm film cans for a child. Note down TA position.

11B. IF THE ABOVE MENTIONED CAN SIZES AREN’T CORRECT FOR THE PC’S HANDS OTHER SIZES CAN BE TRIED.

	Handling: 1 1/4” tubing or 1 3/4” tubing as well as other can size checked to see which fits the pc’s hand. Note TA position.

12. 	ARE THE CANS TOO LARGE FOR THE PC?

	Handling: “Can size to match the pc avoids slack can grip or tiring the hands into going slack.” LRH (HCOB 24 Oct 71R.)

	Check the pc’s grip and see if the hand is touching all of the can and if the size is comfortable. (Ref: HCOB 13 Jan 77RA 	Handling a False TA.)

13. 	ARE THE CANS TOO SMALL FOR THE PC?
	Handling: Per above. Check how the pc is holding the cans and if the entire hand is on the cans and if they are comfortable and adjust accordingly per above.

14. 	ARE THE CANS JUST RIGHT FOR THE PC?

	Handling: Check the grip and see if the can size is correct for the pc. Do the cans comfortably fit the pc’s hands with the hand touching the cans so it gets an accurate reading on the meter? If the can size is correct then you must ensure that the grip is also correct on the cans.

15. 	ARE THE CANS COLD?

	Handling: “Regardless of can size, cold E-Meter electrodes tend to give a much higher tone arm reading particularly on some pcs.

	“Until the cans warm up, the reading is generally false and is false in the direction of high. Some pcs are ‘cool blooded’ and the shock of ice cold cans can drive the TA up and it takes awhile to drift down.

	“A practice which gets around this is for the auditor or Examiner to hold the cans briefly until they are warm and then give them to the pc. A variation is for the auditor or Examiner to put the cans under his armpits while setting up. This warms them. There are probably many other ways to warm up cans to body temperature.” LRH (HCOB 12 Nov 71RA Revised 26 Jan 77.)

16. 	ARE THE PC’S HANDS DRY OR CALLOUSED?

	Handling: Covered above under pc’s hands excessively dry requiring hand cream.

	There are ways to apply the hand cream so that it is correct for that individual pc and does handle the false TA. You can spread it on extensively then wipe it off and then rub a bit more in ensuring the thumbs are included is one way. (Ref: HCOB 13 Jan 77RA.)

	The point is to feel the hands with the cream on them to see if it has handled the excessively dry hand that is seen as shiny or polished looking.

	And it now should no longer feel dry. (HCOB 23 Nov 73RA Revised 23 Apr 75, Revised 26 Jan 77.) The correct treatment is to use a hand cream such as Vaseline Intensive Care Lotion (obtainable from any cosmetics store) not greasy hand cream or vanishing cream.

	A good hand cream rubs all the way into the skin and leaves no excess grease. This restores normal electrical contact. Such a hand cream would only have to be applied once per session—at session start—as it lasts for a long while.

	If a cream leaves smears on a can, it is too heavily applied or too little absorbed. (HCOB 23 Apr 75R, Revised 26 Jan 77.)

17. 	DOES THE PC HAVE ARTHRITIC HANDS?

	Handling: “A rare pc is so crippled with arthritis that he doesn’t make contact fully with the cans. This gives high TA. Use wide wrist straps and you’ll get a right read.” LRH (HCOB 24 Oct 71R.)

18. 	DOES THE PC LOOSEN HIS GRIP ON THE CANS?

	Handling: Check the grip. Does the angle of the cans go across the palms of the pc? Is the natural curl of the fingers sufficient to hold the cans in place, and is the placement of the cans at an angle ensuring that the maximum skin area is touching the cans? (Ref: Book of E-Meter Drills. ) See if the palm is touching the can and not elevated off. (Ref: HCOB 13 Jan 77RA.)

19. 	CHECK THE PC’S GRIP, DOES HE HOLD THE CANS CORRECTLY?

	Handling: Covered in above section. Also check to see if the pc is holding the cans so tight that it is causing the hands to sweat and read falsely low. (Ref: HCOB 13 Jan 77RA.)

20. 	IS THE PC HOT?

	Handling: Get a fan in the room or handle the room so that it is cooler and the pc comfortable.

21. 	HAS THE PC SLEPT WELL?

	Handling: Don’t audit a pc who has not had sufficient rest or is physically tired. (Ref: HCO PL 14 Oct 68R The Auditor’s Code.)

22. 	IS THE PC COLD?

	Handling: “A pc who is too cold sometimes has a falsely high TA. Wrap him in a blanket or get a warmer auditing room. The auditing environment is the responsibility of the auditor.” LRH (HCOB 24 Oct 71R.)

23. 	IS THE PC HUNGRY?

	Handling: Get the pc something to eat and don’t audit a pc who has not had enough to eat or is hungry. (Ref: HCO PL 14 Oct 68R The Auditor’s Code.)

24. 	IS IT TOO LATE AT NIGHT?

	Handling: “Between 2 and 3 AM or late at night a pc’s TA may be very high. The time depends on when he sleeps usually. This TA will be found normal in regular hours.” LRH (HCOB 24 Oct 71R.)

25. 	IS THE AUDITING BEING DONE NOT IN THE PC’S NORMAL REGULAR AWAKE HOURS?

	Handling: Covered above.

26. 	ARE THERE RINGS ON THE PC’S HANDS?

	Handling: “Rings on the pc’s hands must always be removed. They don’t influence TA but they give a false rock slam.” LRH (HCOB 24 Oct 71R.)

	If the ring can’t come off use a small strip of paper around them to shield the ring touching the can.

27. 	IS THE PC WEARING TIGHT SHOES?

	Handling: Remove them. (Ref: HCOB 24 Oct 71R, HCOB 13 Jan 77RA.)

28. 	IS THE PC WEARING TIGHT CLOTHES?

	Handling: If it turns out that tight clothing is affecting the TA ensure that the pc doesn’t wear tight clothes in future sessions. If possible have the pc remove the tight clothing and see what the effect was that it had on the TA and make sure no more tight clothes are worn in future sessions.

29. 	IS THE PC USING THE WRONG HAND CREAM?

	Handling: Using the reference materials find the right hand cream and test it on the pc. Note TA position.

30. 	IS THE APPLICATION OF THE HAND CREAM CORRECT AND DOES IT COVER THE ENTIRE HAND?

	Handling: Watch how the pc puts on hand cream and see if it covers the entire hand, thumb included. If not then have the pc put on hand cream covering the entire hand and pick up the cans and note TA position. Some pcs may have to put cream on and wipe it off and then re-apply it. (Ref: HCOB 13 Jan 77RA.)

31. 	IS THE CHAIR THE PC IS SITTING IN COMFORTABLE?

	Handling: Get a new chair that is comfortable for the pc.

32. 	IS IT ACTUALLY A CHRONIC HIGH OR LOW TA CASE CONDITION?

	Handling: C/S Series 53RK or Hi-Lo TA Assessment. Done to F/Ning assessment.

33. 	HAS THE PC GONE INTO DESPAIR OVER HIS TA?

	Handling: Handle the false TA with using this list as a guideline so that the cause of false TA is found and fully handled with the pc by the various 	Handlings covered above. When false TA is handled check TA worries, TA hassles and L1C best read.

This Handling sheet is used in conjunction with the items that are checked. This gives you the way to handle them.

Refer to reference material in reference section above for further data on Handling a false TA.

	L. RON HUBBARD
	Founder
	Assisted by
	Paulette Ausley
LRH:PA:RS:dr	Revisions assisted by
Copyright © 1977,1978	Paulette Ausley
by L. Ron Hubbard	and
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	Rick Sheehy

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JULY 1978

Remimeo
All Auditors
All C/Ses
All W/Cers
All Tech Checksheets

WHAT IS A FLOATING NEEDLE?

A floating needle is a rhythmic sweep of the dial at a slow, even pace of the needle.

That’s what an F/N is. No other definition is correct.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

for the

BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
of the 
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

BDCS:LRH:pb.lfg 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 10 DECEMBER 1976RA
Remimeo	REVISED 7 JULY 1978
All Auditors	RE-REVISED 18 SEPTEMBER 1978
All Interne
Supervisors	(Revisions in this type style)
All C/Ses	
URGENT—IMPORTANT

C/S Series 99RA

SCIENTOLOGY F/N AND TA POSITION

Through verbal tech just located, it has been found that some auditors have been ordered to disregard all F/Ns that were above 3.0 or below 2.0 on the meter.

Auditors have also called F/Ns which were ARC break needles, thus falsely indicating to the pc.

These two actions—disregarding actual F/Ns because the TA was not between 2.0 and 3.0 and calling “F/Ns” that were actually ARC break needles—have upset many preclears.

The outnesses here are: A. not considering pc indicators as senior and B. not noting pc indicators when calling an F/N and C. ignoring and giving junior importance to the technology covered in false TAs. (See list of references at end of this HCOB or the Subject Index of the HCOB Volumes.)

Auditors have even been led to falsify worksheets (giving TA as in range when it actually was not when calling an F/N) because they might “get in trouble” for calling an F/N in the wrong range, such as 1.8 or 3.2.

The CORRECT procedure for out of range F/Ns is:

1. 	Look at the pc’s indicators.

2. 	Call the F/N regardless of its range.

3. 	Mark down the ACTUAL TA position.

4. 	Handle the false TA at the earliest opportunity when it will not intrude into the current cycle on which the pc is being audited. (You don’t interrupt a Quad R3RA, for instance, to handle false TA; you complete it and then, when directed by the C/S, you handle the false TA.)

5. 	On any pc you suspect has had his F/Ns disregarded because of false TA, you C/S for and get run a repair and rehab of this error.

E-Meter cans can monitor or change TA position when the palms are too dry or too wet or when the cans are too big or too small or when the wrong hand cream is used. The E-Meter does not read on hand moisture alone as was long believed by people in electronics. But TA depends upon resistance to electrical current in the palms, leads, and meter as well as its main resistance which happens to be mental masses or lack of them.

To simply tell some interne “Always disregard an F/N not in correct range” is to set him up for loses and set the pc up for crashes. The correct information is that an F/N which isn’t in range is accompanied by pc indicators that indicate whether it is an F/N or not. AND indicates you better get the false TA handled fast as soon as it won’t interrupt the current cycle. AND you always note where it F/Ned so the C/S can C/S for false TA handling.

Where an ARC break needle (which looks like an F/N) is observed, whether it is in range or out of range (2.0 to 3.0 or below 2.0 or above 3.0) you LOOK at the pc and establish the pc’s indicators before falsely calling an F/N. A pc who is about to cry is NOT an F/Ning pc and if you indicate an F/N to that pc you will further the ARC break and suppress the emotional charge that is about to come off.

REPAIR

Where the above matters have not been fully understood and errors have occurred on pcs, it must be assumed that:

1. 	Auditors have falsified their worksheets as to TA position and thus built up withholds and made themselves blowy.

2. 	That every pc who has ever had high or low TA trouble has had F/Ns disregarded and ARC break F/Ns falsely indicated.

3. 	That a briefing and drilling of all internes and auditors must occur on this HCOB.

4. 	That a brief program of clean-up of disregarded F/Ns and falsely called ARC break F/Ns be done on every pc.

5. 	That every such pc be considered as having false TA troubles and these must be C/Sed for and corrected.

6. 	That all auditors and internes be drilled on all HCOBs relating to pc indicators.

SAMPLE CLEAN-UP C/S

Disregard TA position, use only F/Ns and pc indicators in doing this C/S.

1. 	It has been found that some of your F/Ns (release points) may have been disregarded by past or present auditors.

2. 	Have you ever felt an F/N (release point or end of an action) had been bypassed on your case? . . .

3. 	Find and rehab the . . . overrun of the release point to F/N. Check for any other bypassed F/Ns and rehab them.

4. 	Have you ever felt an F/N should not have been indicated by the auditor when it was? . . .

5. 	Find the . . . point and get in Suppress on it and complete the action. Check “Are there any other F/Ns which should not have been indicated by the auditor when they were?” and handle as above.

6. 	Find and run the ARC breaks bypassed, with ARC break handling.

7. 	Find and handle the false TA in totality.

DIANETIC F/Ns

An F/N seen by the auditor in running R3RA is not called until the full Dianetic
EP is reached.

An auditor running R3RA is NOT looking for F/Ns. He is looking for the postulate which is sitting at the bottom of the chain he is running.

The EP of a Dianetic chain is always always always the postulate coming off.

The postulate is what holds the chain in its place. Release the postulate and the chain blows. That’s it.

The auditor must recognize the postulate when the pc gives it, note the VGIs, call the F/N and end off auditing that chain.

An F/N seen as the incident is erasing is not called.

The pc does not have to state that the incident has erased. Once he has given up the postulate, the erasure has occurred. The auditor will see an F/N and VGIs. NOW the F/N is called. F/Ns are not indicated until the EP of postulate off, F/N and VGIs is reached.

It’s the postulate—not the F/N that we are going for in New Era Dianetics.

POWER F/Ns

F/Ns are disregarded in Power.

Each Power Process has its own end phenomena and is ended only when that is obtained.

REFERENCE HCOBs FOR FALSE TA

	1.	HCOB 24 Oct 71R	FALSE TA
	2.	HCOB 15 Feb 72R	FALSE TA ADDITION 2
	3.	HCOB 12 Nov 71RA	FALSE TA ADDITION
	4.	HCOB 18 Feb 72R I	FALSE TA ADDITION 3
	5.	HCOB 21 Jan 77RA	FALSE TA CHECKLIST
	6.	HCOB 23 Nov 73RA	DRY AND WET HANDS MAKE FALSE TA
	7.	HCOB 23 Apr 75R	VANISHING CREAM AND FALSE TA

PC INDICATORS HCOBs

	1.	HCOB 29 Jul 64	GOOD INDICATORS AT LOWER LEVELS
	2.	HCOB 28 Dec 63	INDICATORS PART ONE, GOOD 
			INDICATORS
	3.	HCOB 23 May 71R	RECOGNITION OF RIGHTNESS OF THE 
			BEING
		Issue VIII Rev. 4.12.74
	4.	HCOB 22 Sep 71	THE THREE GOLDEN RULES OF THE C/S
			HANDLING AUDITORS
	5.	HCOB 21 Oct 68R	FLOATING NEEDLE

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.rb.dr
Copyright © 1976, 1978
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 24 MAY 1968

Remimeo

COACHING

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

1. 	Coach with a purpose.

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

2. 	Coach with reality.

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

3. 	Coach with an intention.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 APRIL 1971
Remimeo	Issue I
Dn Checksheet
Scn Grades Checksheet
Qual Cramming
HGC Auditors
TRs AND COGNITIONS

In the presence of rough TRs cognitions do not occur.

Cognitions are the milestones of case gain.

Rough TRs, rough metering, Out Code and a distractive auditor then make no case gain.

When an auditor has smooth, usual TRs, does his metering expertly and without attracting the pc’s attention, when he follows the Auditor’s Code (particularly regarding Evaluation and Invalidation) and when he is interested, not interesting as an auditor, the pc cognites and makes case gains.

Further, according to the axioms, a bank straightens out by AS-ISING its content. If the pc’s attention is distracted to the auditor and meter his attention is not on his bank so AS-ISING cannot occur.

The definition of In Session is INTERESTED IN OWN CASE AND WILLING TO TALK TO THE AUDITOR. When this definition describes the session in progress, then of course the pc will be able to AS-IS and will cognite.

By The Original Thesis, the auditor plus the pc is greater than the pc’s bank. When the auditor plus the bank are both overwhelming the pc then the bank seems greater than the pc. It is this situation which gives a pc a low Tone Arm.

An auditor who can’t be heard, doesn’t ack, doesn’t give the pc the next command, fails to handle origins, simply has OUT-TRs.

The auditor who is trying to be interesting to the pc, who over-acks, who laughs loudly, is putting the pc’s attention onto himself. So the pc’s attention, not being on his bank, doesn’t as-is or cognite.

The auditor whose metering by-passes F/Ns or calls F/Ns at wrong points, or who tells the pc “That reads” “That blew down” etc, or who any other way uses the meter distractingly (the pc knows when he is being under- or over-run and knows when he is being mismetered), is of course violating the definition of IN SESSION. The pc’s attention goes to the meter, not his bank, so he doesn’t AS-IS or cognite.

Auditor Invalidation and Evaluation is just plain villainy. It interferes with pc cognitions. Other Code breaks are similarly distractive.

A PERFECT SESSION

If you understand the exact definition of IN SESSION, if you understand the pc’s necessity to have his attention on his bank so as to AS-IS it and work out what is really going on in a session that brings about a cognition (as-ising aberration with a realization about life), you will then be able to spot all the things in TRs, metering and the Code that would prevent case gain.

Once you see that out-TRs, mismetering and Code breaks would PREVENT the IN SESSION definition you will see what would impede a pc from AS-ISing and Cogniting.

When you have this figured out you will then be able to see clearly what are IN-TRs, CORRECT METERING and CORRECT CODE APPLICATION.

There can be an infinity of wrongnesses. There are only a few rightnesses.

Recognition of right TRs, right Metering and right Code use depend only on:

(a) 	Understanding the principles in this HCO B, and

(b) 	Their practice so as to establish habit.

This mastered, one’s pcs will get cognitions and case gain and swear by “their auditor” !

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 MARCH 1978
Remimeo
Snr HSDC
QUICKIE OBJECTIVES

Ref: 	HCOB 12 Apr 62, 	CCHs PURPOSE
	HCOB 11 Jun 57, 	TRAINING & CCH PROCESSES
	HCOB 3 Feb 59, 	FLATTENING A PROCESS
	CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY
	CONTROL AND THE MECHANICS OF SCS
	HCOB 14 Aug 63, 	LECTURE GRAPHS (No. 5 on
		pg 342 of Tech Vol V)

Recent investigations into the effectiveness of Drug RDs including their rate of repair and re-repair revealed a marked tendency to quickie Objectives.

Failure to run Objectives fully and completely, especially on a case with an extensive drug history can set up the pc for less than optimum gain on Dianetics. A Drug RD without full and complete Objectives is not a Drug RD.

TWO-WAY COMM

The easiest and very out tech way to quickie Objectives is to run some commands and then put the pc on the meter and 2WC to F/N or do some fast “rehab.” But did the Objective process ever get run? What actually F/Ned, the Objective or the 2WC? Any Objectives run this way are invalid.

The tech of Objectives is extensive and still very much in force. They have their own EPs and with these they are fully run to actual change for the pc. Only this is valid handling of Objectives.

CURE

The way to handle auditors who quickie Objectives is a full W/Cing of the subject and a big clay demo of the purpose of Objectives and a big clay demo of what effect Objectives have on running a Drug RD and R3R. Then get the auditor’s own Objectives flattened.

Any Drug RD that needs to be repaired or redone must include a careful study of the Objectives to see if they were honestly run and if the valid Objective EPs on the processes themselves were obtained. Where the Objective was obviously quickied just R-Factor the pc you are going to flatten it and do so. If the EP of an Objective was questionable you can ask the pc what happened and if he F/Ns on a real Objective EP fine, otherwise flatten the process.

A fully completed Drug RD with Objectives sets the stage for the pc to fly up the Grade Chart so do it right the first time.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
As assisted by CS-5
LRH:JE:nc 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 MAY 1968

Remimeo
UPPER INDOC TRS

Following are the Upper Indoc TRs 6 to 9 inclusive.

Number: TR 6

Name: 8—C (Body Control)

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

The commands to be used for 8—C are:

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

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

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

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

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

Number: TR 7

Name: High School Indoc.

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

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

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

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

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

Number: TR 8

Name: Tone 40 on an Object.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number: TR 9

Name: Tone 40 on a Person.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 JUNE 1978

Remimeo
New Era Dianetics Series 3

OBJECTIVE ARC

I have recently added a new process to be done before the full battery of Objective Processes. It is called Objective ARC.

Objective ARC is the first Objective Process to be done on a pc. It is followed by CCHs 1-10, Op Pro by Dup. SCS on an object, SCS, and SOP 8C as covered in HCOB 11 June 57 Reissued 12 May 77 Training and CCH Processes, PAB 80, PAB 97, PAB 34, and HCOB 4 Feb 59 Op Pro by Dup.

The commands of Objective ARC are run 1-2-3, 1-2-3, three commands given repetitively.

The commands are:

“Look around here and find something that is really real to you.”

“Look around here and find something you wouldn’t mind communicating with.”

“Look around here and find something you wouldn’t mind being around.” (An alteration of the original command because the original command was too steep.)

The pc and auditor are ambulant.

This process will bite suddenly and bring a person up to present time. It has been known to crack cases.

Of all Objectives, this process tends to be the shortest. It often ends with a very bright cog after only a few commands.

The end phenomena of this process would be person in present time, cognition, and very good indicators, accompanied by an F/N.

The above will accomplish a great deal for the pc if done correctly and with flawless TRs.

L. RON HUBBARD 
Founder

LRH:rb 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 DECEMBER 1965

Remimeo 
All Students 
St Hill Courses 
All staff

CCHs

(Replaces HCO Bulletin of July 5th, 1963, “CCHs Rewritten”)

As per HCO Pol Ltr May 17th, 65, the CCHs are processes. They are not drills. The following revised rundown on the CCHs is to be used by all Auditors.

CONTROL—COMMUNICATION—HAVINGNESS PROCESSES

The following rundown of CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4 has been slightly amended. CCHs are run as follows:

CCH l to a flat point then CCH 2 to a flat point then CCH 3 to a flat point then CCH 4 to a flat point then CCH I to a flat point, etc.

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

No: CCH 1.

NAME:  GIVE ME THAT HAND. Tone 40.

AUDITING COMMANDS:  GIVE ME THAT HAND.

Physical action of taking hand when not given and then replacing it in the PC’s lap. Making physical contact with the PC’s hand if PC resists. THANK YOU ending each cycle.

All Tone 40 with clear intention, one command in one unit of time. Take up each new physical change manifested as though it were an origin by the PC, when it happens, and querying it by asking “What’s happening?” This two-way comm is not Tone 40. Run only on the right hand.

AUDITING POSITION: Auditor and PC seated in chairs without arms. Auditor’s knees on outside of both PC’s knees.

PROCESS PURPOSE:  To demonstrate to PC that control of PC’s body is possible, despite revolt of circuits, and inviting PC to directly control it. Absolute control by auditor then passes over towards absolute control of his own body by PC.

Never stop process until a flat place is reached. Freezes may be introduced at end of cycle, this being after the THANK YOU and before the next command, maintaining a solid comm line, to ascertain information from the PC or to bridge from the process. This is done between two commands, holding the PC’s hand after acknowledgement. PC’s hand should be clasped with exactly correct pressure. Make every command and cycle separate. Maintain Tone 40, stress on intention from Auditor to PC with each command. To leave an instant for PC to do it by own will before Auditor decides to take hand or make contact with it. Auditor indicates hand by nod of head.

Tone 40 Command = Intention without reservation. Change is any physical, observed manifestation.

No: CCH 2.

NAME:  TONE 40 8c

AUDITING COMMANDS: 	YOU LOOK AT THAT WALL. THANK YOU.
	YOU WALK OVER TO THAT WALL. THANK YOU.
	YOU TOUCH THAT WALL. THANK YOU.
	TURN AROUND. THANK YOU.

Take up each new physical change manifested as though it were an origin by the PC, when it happens, and querying it by asking “What’s happening?” This two-way comm is not Tone 40. Commands smoothly enforced physically when necessary. Tone 40, full intention.

AUDITING POSITION:  Auditor and PC ambulant, Auditor in physical contact with PC as needed.

PROCESS PURPOSE:   To demonstrate to PC that his body can be controlled and thus inviting him to control it. To orient him in his present time Environment. To increase his ability to duplicate and thusly increase his Havingness.

Absolute Auditor precision. No drops from Tone 40. No flubs. Total present time. Auditor on PC’s right side. Auditor body acts as block to forward motion when PC turns. Auditor gives command, gives PC a moment to obey, then enforces command with physical contact of exactly correct force to get command executed. Auditor does not block PC from executing commands. Method of introduction as in CCH l. Freezes may be introduced at the end of cycle, this being after the THANK YOU and before the next command, maintaining a solid comm line, to ascertain information from the PC or to bridge from the process, this being the acknowledgement “THANK YOU” after the command “TURN AROUND”.

CCH 1 and CCH 2 were developed by L. RON HUBBARD in Washington, D.C., in 1957 for the 19th ACC.

No: CCH 3.

NAME:  HAND SPACE MIMICRY

AUDITING COMMANDS: 	Auditor raises 2 hands palms facing PC’s about an equal distance between the Auditor and PC and says “PUT YOUR HANDS AGAINST MINE, FOLLOW THEM AND CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION”. He then makes a simple motion with right hand then left. “DID YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION?” Acknowledge answer. Auditor allows PC to break solid comm line. When this is flat, the Auditor does this same with a half inch of space between his and the PC’s palms. The command being “PUT YOUR HANDS FACING MINE ABOUT 1/2 INCH AWAY, FOLLOW THEM AND CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION”. “DID YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION?” Acknowledge. When this is flat, Auditor does it with a wider space and so on until PC is able to follow motions a yard away.

AUDITING POSITION:  Auditor and PC seated, close together facing each other, PC’s knees between Auditor’s knees.

PROCESS PURPOSE:   To develop reality on the auditor using the reality scale (solid communication line). To get PC into communication by control and duplication. To find Auditor.

Auditor should be gentle and accurate in his motions, all motions being Tone 40, giving PC wins. To be free in 2-way communication. Process is introduced and run as a formal process. If PC dopes off in this process Auditor may take PC’s wrist and help him execute the command one hand at a time. If PC does not answer during anaten to question “DID YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION?” Auditor may wait for normal comm lag of that PC, acknowledge and continue process.

TONE 40 Motion = Intention without Reservation. Two-Way Communication = One Question—The Right One.

HISTORY. Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, D.C., 1956 as a therapeutic version of Dummy Hand Mimicry. Something was needed to supplant “Look at me. Who am I?” and “Find the auditor” part of rudiments.

No: CCH 4.

NAME:  BOOK MIMICRY

AUDITING COMMANDS:  THERE ARE NO SET VERBAL COMMANDS.

Auditor makes simple motions with a book. Hands book to the PC. PC makes motion, duplicating Auditor’s mirror-image-wise. Auditor asks PC if he is satisfied that the PC duplicated the motion. If PC is and Auditor is also fully satisfied, Auditor takes back the book and goes to next command. If PC is not sure that he duplicated any command, Auditor repeats it for him and gives him back the book. If PC is sure he did and Auditor can see duplication is pretty wrong, Auditor accepts PC’s answer and continues on a gradient scale of motion either with the left or right hand till PC can do original command correctly. This ensures no invalidation of the PC. Tone 40, only in motions, verbal 2-way quite free.

AUDITING POSITION: Auditor and PC seated facing each other, a comfortable distance apart.

PROCESS PURPOSE:  To bring up PC’s communication with control and duplication (control and duplication = communication).

Give PC wins. It is necessary for Auditor to duplicate his own commands. Circular motions are more complex than straight lines. Tolerance of plus or minus randomity is apparent here and the Auditor should probably begin on the PC with motions that begin in the same place each time and are neither very fast nor very slow, nor very complex. Introduced by the Auditor seeing that PC understands what is to be done, as there is no verbal command, formal process.

HISTORY.  Developed by LRH for the 16th ACC in Washington, D.C., 1957. Based on duplication. Developed by LRH in London, 1952.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

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: ( I ) 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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 AUGUST 1962

CenOCon

CCH ANSWERS

The following queries and my reply are useful in the CCHs.

Ron from Ray = 1/8 = 335L

Thanks for Telexes 233L2 and 334L2. That’s fine.

Some queries have come up about CCHs. Could we have the latest stable data on

1. 	When is a physical origination picked up—after command is executed and before acknowledgement, or after acknowledgement?

2. 	Does one pick up by saying—”How are you doing?” “What happened then?” or “I noticed—so and so—happened. What’s going on?”—or is there any other method that we don’t have and which is better than any of these?

Love
Ray

Ray from Ron = 15.30 = 2/8 = 335L2

1. 	When it happens.

2. 	Only by a two way comm query like “What’s happening?”

Never designate the origin.

Don’t make a system out of queries. Three commands nicely done is flat.

Don’t take spoken data from PC about somatics as a reason to keep on.

Also the process that turns something on turns it off.

Love 
Ron.

								L. RON HUBBARD 
LRH:dr.cden 
Copyright © 1962 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 APRIL 1962
Franchise

CCHs
AUDITING ATTITUDE

This is an important bulletin. If you understand it you will get results on hitherto unmoving cases and faster results (1 hour as effective as a former 25) with the CCHs.

Here is what happened to the CCHs and which will continue to happen to them to damage their value:

The CCHs in their most workable form were finalized in London by me in April 1957. That was their high tide of workability for the next five years. After that date, difficulties discovered in teaching them to auditors added extraordinary solutions to the CCHs (not by me) which cut them to about one twenty-fifth of their original auditing value. Pcs thereafter had increasing difficulty in doing them and the gain lessened.

How far were the CCHs removed from original CCH auditing? Well, the other night on TV I gave a demonstration of the proper original CCHs which produce the gains on pcs. And more than twelve old-time auditors (the lowest graded ones out of 36) thought they were watching a demonstration of entirely foreign processes.

Although these auditors had been “well trained” on the CCHs (but not by me) they did not see any similarity between how they did them and how they saw me do them. Two or three students and two instructors thought they were being done wrong. Even the higher ranking students were startled. They had never seen CCHs like this.

Yet, the pc was very happy, came way up tone, lost a bad before-session somatic and within 48 hours had a complete change in a chronic physical problem, all in 11/2 hours of proper original CCHs.

The students and instructors “knew they weren’t watching the correct CCHs” because there was no antagonism to the pc, because the Tone 40 was not shouted, because there was no endurance marathon in progress. There was just quiet, positive auditing with the pc in good, happy 2-way communication with the auditor and the auditor letting the pc win.

In the student auditing of the next two days, some shadow of the demonstration’s attitude was used and the cases audited gained much faster than before. Yet at least two or three still feel that this is far too easy to be the CCHs.

In five years, the CCHs, not closely supervised by me, but altered in training, had become completely unrecognizable (and almost resultless).

Why?

Because the CCHs were confused with Op Pro by Dup which was for auditors. Because the CCHs became an arduous ritual, not a way to audit the pc in front of you. The CCHs became a method of auditing without communicating, of running off strings of drills without being there. And the CCHs are so good that even when done wrong or even viciously they produced some slight gain. The CCHs shade from bright white to dark grey in results, never to black.
Having been perverted in training to a system to make auditors audit them, they became something that had nothing to do with the pc.

What these students saw demonstrated (and which upset them terribly) was this:

The auditor sat down, chatted a bit about the coming session with the pc, explained in general what he was about to do. The session was started. The auditor explained the CCH 1 drill in particular and then began on it. The pc had a bit of embarrassment come off. The auditor took the physical reaction as an origination by the pc and queried it. The routine CCH 1 drill went on and was shortly proved flat by three equal responses. The auditor went to CCH 2. He explained the drill and started it. This proved to be flat. The pc did the drill three times without comm change. The auditor explained and went to CCH 3. This also proved flat and after a three times test, the auditor came off it, explained CCH 4, and went to CCH 4. This proved unflat and was gradually flattened to three equally timed correct responses by the pc on a motion the pc could not at first do. About 50 minutes had elapsed so the auditor gave a ten minute break. After the break the auditor went back to CCH 1, found it flat, went to CCH 2 and found the pc jumping the command and, by putting short waits of different lengths before giving commands, knocked out the automaticity. The auditor went on to CCH 3, found it flat, and then to CCH 4 which was found unflat and was accordingly flattened. The auditor then discussed end ruds in a general way, got a summary of gains and ended the session.

All commands and actions were Tone 40 (which is not “antagonism” or “challenge”). But the pc was kept in two-way comm between full cycles of the drill by the auditor. Taking up each new physical change manifested as though it were an origin by the pc and querying it and getting the pc to give the pc’s reaction to it, this two-way comm was not Tone 40. Auditor and pc were serious about the drills. There was no relaxation of precision. But both auditor and pc were relaxed and happy about the whole thing. And the pc wound up walking on air.

These were the CCHs properly done. With high gain results.

The viewers saw no watchdog snarling, no grim, grim PURPOSE, no antagonistic suspicion, no pc going out of session, no mauling, no drill-sergeant bawling and KNEW these couldn’t be the CCHs. There was good auditor-pc relationship (better than in formal sessions) and good two-way comm throughout, so the viewers KNEW these weren’t proper CCHs.

Well, I don’t know what these gruelling blood baths are they’re calling “the CCHs”. I did them the way they were done in April 1957 and got April 1957 fast results. And the processes aren’t even recognized !

So somewhere in each year from April 1957 to April 1962 and somewhere in each place they’re done, additives and injunctions and “now I’m supposed to’s” have grown up around these precise but easy, pleasant processes that have created an unworkable monster that is called “the CCHs” but which definitely isn’t.

Not seeing the weird perversions but seeing the slow graph responses, the vast hours being burned up, I began to abandon recommending the CCHs after 1959 as too long in others’ hands. I didn’t realize how complicated and how grim it had all become.

Well, the real CCHs done right, done the way they’re described here, are a fast gain route, easy on auditor and pc, that goes all the way south.

Take a reread of the June and November bulletins of last year (forget the 20 minute test, 3 times equally done are enough to see a CCH is flat) and, not forgetting your Tone 40 and precision, laying aside the grim withdrawn militant auditor attitude, try to do them as pleasantly as you find them described in the above outlined session, and be amazed at the progress the pc will make.

The CCHs easy on auditor and pc? Ah, they’d observed a lot of CCHs and never any that were easy on auditor or pc. Everybody came to know it was a bullying, smashing, arduous mess, a fight in fact. The only trouble was, the gains vanished when the ARC ran out.

Today, put any pc on the original CCHs done as above until they’re flat, then go to 3D Criss Cross and the pc will fly.

Surely you don’t have to look and sound so hungry, disinterested and mean when you audit the CCHs. You want to clear this pc, not make him or her into a shaking wreck. The CCHs are easily done (when they’re done right).

They’ll get lost again, too, unless you remember they can get lost.

I believe Upper Indoc should be canceled in Academies and extra time put on just the CCHs as it is the Upper Indoc attitude carried over that makes the CCHs grim.

SUMMARY

The PURPOSE of the CCHs is to bring the pc through incidents and into present time. It is the reverse of “mental” auditing in that it gets the pc’s attention exterior from the bank and on present time. By using Communication, Control and Havingness this is done. If you make present time a snarling hostility to the pc, he of course does not want to come into present time and it takes just that much longer to make the CCHs work.

You do the CCHs with the Auditor’s Code firmly in mind. Don’t run a process that is not producing change. Run a process as long as it produces change. Don’t go out of 2-way comm with the pc.

Complete every cycle of the process. Don’t interject 2-way comm into the middle of a cycle, use it only after a cycle is acknowledged and complete.

Don’t end a process before it is flat. Don’t continue a process after it is flat.

Use Tone 40 Commands. Don’t confuse antagonistic screaming at the pc with Tone 40. If you have to manhandle a pc, do so, but only to help him get the process flat. If you have to manhandle the pc you’ve already accumulated ARC breaks and given him loses and driven him out of session.

Improve the ability of a pc by gradient scale, give the pc lots of wins on CCH 3 and CCH 4 and amongst them flatten off what he hasn’t been able to do.

The CCH drills must be done precisely by the auditor. But the criteria is whether the pc gets gains, not whether the auditor is a perfect ritualist.

Exact Ritual is something in which you should take pride. But it exists only to accomplish auditing. When it exists for itself alone, watch out.

Audit the pc in front of you. Not some other pc or a generalized object.

Use the CCHs to coax the pc out of the bank and into present time.

Take up the pc’s physical changes as though they were originations. Each time a new one occurs, take it up with 2-way comm as though the pc had spoken. If the same “origination” happens again and again only take it up again occasionally, not every time it happens.

Know what’s going on. Keep the pc at it. Keep the pc informed. Keep the pc winning. Keep the pc exteriorizing from the past and coming into present time.

Understand the CCHs and what you’re doing. If it all deteriorates to mere ritual you’ll take 25 to 50 times the time necessary to produce the same result as I would.

The auditing is for the pc. The CCHs are for the pc. In auditing you win in the
CCHs only when the pc wins.

	L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 FEBRUARY 1959

FLATTENING A PROCESS

A process is flat when:

1. 	There is the same lag from the moment the command is given until the time the preclear answers the command at least  3 times in a row.

2. 	A cognition occurs.

3. 	An ability is regained.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:-.rd

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 FEBRUARY 1959
Originally issued from London

OP. PRO. BY DUP.

Use two objects—a book and a bottle.

Have the pc look them over and handle them to his satisfaction. Then have him place them at some walking distance apart in the room, on a couple of tables or similar locations.

The commands:

“Look at that book.” 
“Walk over to it.” 
“Pick it up.” 
“What is its colour?” 
“What is its temperature?” 
“What is its weight?” 
“Put it down in exactly the same place.”

Repeat with the bottle.

Do not vary the commands in any way. Use Tone 40. “Thank you” acknowledgment. The basic commands should never be departed from, and never, never trick the preclear by using the book again when you knew he was just about to start toward the bottle. The purpose of the process is duplication. Good control should be used.

Accept the pc’s answers whether they are logical, silly, imaginative, dull or unlawful. In starting the process you can discuss with him what you are about to do and make sure you have got the rudiments established. Run the process until the comm lags are flat.

This process is an HPA/HCA requisite.

								L. RON HUBBARD 
LRH:mc.rd 
Copyright © 1959 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

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

24 OCTOBER 1971R
ISSUE I
REVISED 2 JANUARY 1975
CANCELS HCOB OF 24 OCTOBER 1971
SAME TITLE 
Remimeo 	MODIFIES BTB 9 OCTOBER 1971R 
Tech & Qual 	LEVEL I DRILLS 
Level 1 Cksheet 
HQS Course 
OP PRO BY DUP - END PHENOHENA

Exteriorization is an EP for the process Opening Procedure by Duplication, but is not the only EP. The reason Op Pro by Dup had an EP of exterior was because we didn’t have Int-Ext then, and had to end it off on the first exteriorization.

The EPs for OP PRO by DUP include:

A. 	Flattened Comm lags and no m.ore change on the process (per PAB 48).

B. 	A real big win with F/N, Cog, VGIs and ability regained (per HCOB 20 Feb 70 F/N and End Phenomena).

C. 	Exterior with an F/N, Cog, VGIs.

In the presence of heavy overts, it is possible that a pc won’t exteriorize on Op Pro by Dup.

Overts are handled on Exp Grade 2. Op Pro by Dup could grind on and on for as long as hours with no change in an attempt to run it to Ext, when it’s an out Grade II.

Nothing in this BTB should be used to quickie Op Pro by Dup.

Taken from an LRH C/S

Reissued by Flag Tech Compilations
For CS-4, W/O Ron Shafran

Approved by

L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER

for the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
of the 
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:LRH:RS:LG:rs 
Copyright © 1971, 1975 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

P.A.B. No. 97
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology

From L. RON HUBBARD

Via Hubbard Communications Office
20 Buckingham Street, Strand, London W.C.2

_____________________________________________________________________

1 October 1956

START- CHANGE- STOP

Edited from L. Ron Hubbard’s August 1956 HPA/HPC tape lectures

This is the entrance to rough cases nowadays. The lowest entrance to a case which we have today is the same for a low case as it is for a high case. This process does not criticize the preclear’s case.

It is below the establishing of the rudiments, but should still be audited in the modern manner of Communication Bridges, Acknowledgments, etc.

Only one procedure that would be lower than this process would be a highly specialized procedure having to do with an individual who has lost the use of his voice, sight, hearing or his capability of moving his hands.

It becomes necessary for the auditor to become inventive in order to establish communication, but he should stick as nearly as possible to these procedures. The lowest processes which would be addressed to any case would simply be the first process of SLP 8, which is not, as we were saying before, “Find the auditor,” “Find the preclear” etc., but the process which leads up to that. This is an interesting process since it is in itself capable of producing a full result and is an extremely simple one.

Start, change, and stop is the anatomy of control. This is a cycle of action. There is continue (persist) on the middle of the curve and other cycles within cycles of action, but the important factors are Start, Change, and Stop.

These three parts of control are run flat individually. Then pick up the other part of the cycle and run that flat in this order: We run Change flat, and then run Start very flat and then we run STOP flat.

It would be a mistake at this point to say this process is finished, for the excellent reason that if you ran Change again you would find further considerations shifting in the preclear, and then if you ran Start you would find it unflattened, so you would run it again and then run and flatten Stop.

It would not be possible to say how long you would have to run the process altogether. On somebody who was total machinery and who never had been in session, this would be a rough process. On a case that is in good condition, this would run easier. The preclear would consider it interesting and would exteriorize much better.

The end result of this process is exteriorization. For someone who is compulsively exteriorized this would be excellent, as he would slide into his head and eventually come out of it again, but not on a compulsive level this time.
One meets with three conditions in auditing: the preclear who is compulsively interiorized, the preclear who is compulsively exteriorized, and the preclear who is buttered all over the universe. This case run on S-C-S would greatly accumulate the ability to collect himself—this might not occur until you have run him for five or more hours on it.

If this process is continued long enough the preclear will be moving his body by postulate—i.e. from the outside—not by beams, stimulus-response, etc.

This process does not go all the way up because of the preclear’s attention span. Most preclears can’t stay on a process for more than a few moments, so you would vary the process a little to keep him interested. His actual response, however, is not important as long as he does it.

There is no such thing as bad control, only non-positive control. Good control is positive control and positive control is not bad control. We get a lower level there than moving the body. This is S-C-S on objects. It is always safest to run this on someone you are trying out. Somebody to whom a body is not real should be run using an object instead of his body.

To run this process the auditor and preclear should both stand up. This gives reality, and the auditor duplicating (mimicry) the preclear will bring about greater ARC. The session always fails when the auditor sits down while running S-C-S.

It runs this way:

The auditor points out a spot on the floor to the preclear and says, “Do you see that spot? Good, well, we’ll call that Spot A. Now you stand there. Okay.” The auditor now indicates another spot and says, “Now do you see that other spot? Good, we’ll call that Spot B. All right, now when I tell you to change the body’s position I want you to move it from Spot A to Spot B. All right? Good. Change the body’s position. Fine.” Then you say, “Do you see that spot? Well, we’ll call that Spot C (we use three spots so that we don’t run a duplication process on him). Now when I tell you to change the body’s position I want you to move the body from Spot B to Spot C. Do you understand that? All right, change the body’s position.”

You can ask him “Did you change the body’s position?” if his case isn’t too low, but it’s not advisable on a low case at first.

Then go back to Spot A. It does not have to be the same Spot A each time, as it makes the process too much like duplication, brings the preclear to predict the process too easily and do it machinewise.

Each time you make a contract with the preclear. You don’t depend on any former understanding with this process. Each moment in time is new. We make each move in time a new move. He doesn’t have to depend on his memory so you repeat again each time as above—the whole wording as given.

On Start we emphasize START. You say, “Do you see that wall over there? Good. Now when I give you this command I want you to move the body in that direction. When I say START I want you to start the body. All right. Start. Fine.” He may protest that he had to stop the body and change it as well—what is happening is that the word “control” is starting to ungroup and as you get start, change and stop apart and distinct from each other, the individual’s ability to control the body increases and he gains more confidence in being able to control it from a greater and greater distance.

The next command would be: “All right, when I tell you to start the body you start the body. Okay. Start the body.”

The third command is for STOP. “I am going to ask you to get the body moving over there toward that wall and somewhere along the line I am going to tell you to stop and I want you to stop the body. Is that all right?” He agrees and you say, “Get the body moving.” You don’t say start. He does, and you say “Stop” and “Did you stop the body?”

Stop is the most important part of S-C-S. The preclear has been told all along the line to stop. He was made effect all the time. Now you bring him to do just this under his own control and self-determinism and he takes over the automaticity.

Eventually the preclear will flatten each one of these in turn. You may have to do Stop one more time than the others.

You should walk around with him so that he can feel the mimicry context of this. If you sit down he will soon go out of ARC and leave the session.

                                       					L. RON HUBBARD

P.A.B. No. 34
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN

From L. RON HUBBARD

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

_____________________________________________________________________

4 September 1954

With this issue of the Professional Auditor’s Bulletin begins a new series by L. Ron Hubbard entitled A BASIC COURSE IN SCIENTOLOGY. The bulletins in this series are planned to cover the period of at least one year. This Basic Course consists of numerous articles by Ron on the theory and techniques of present day Scientology. The experienced professional auditor will find this an excellent source of review; the newcomer will have available a wealth of new data in easily used and highly understandable form.

OPENING PROCEDURE, SOP-8-C

A Basic Course in Scientology—Part 1

Because many people write to me requesting information on how to run a particular technique, and because the greater portion of such inquiries are on how to get a case running, this process is here outlined for your use as the first part of the Basic Course. Having once run this Opening Procedure, SOP-8-C on a so-called “tough case,” you will not require any further reassurance or sales talk about it. And having it run thoroughly on yourself by an auditor skilled in its use will adequately demonstrate its workability.

IMPORTANT: IN PROCESSING PSYCHOTICS AND NEUROTICS OF WHATEVER DEGREE OR THOSE HAVING PSYCHOSOMATIC AILMENTS OF ANY TYPE, USE ONLY OPENING PROCEDURE, 8-C, EACH PART, UNTIL THE PERSON IS SURE WHO IS DOING IT. USE ONLY OPENING PROCEDURE, SOP-8-C UNTIL THE CASE IS FULLY SANE. USE NO OTHER PROCESS OF ANY KIND.

The entire modus operandi of Opening Procedure 8-C consists in having the preclear move his body around the room under the auditor’s direction until (a) he finds he is in actual communication with many spots on the surface of things in the room, (b) until he can select spots in the room and know that he is selecting them and can communicate with them, and (c) select spots and move to them, decide when to touch them and when to let go. Each one of these steps is done until the auditor is well assured that the preclear has no communication lag.

The auditing commands for part (a) are as follows: “Do you see that chair?” “Go over to it and put your hand on it.” “Now look at that lamp.” “Now walk over to it and put your hand on it.” This is done with various objects, without specifically designating spots of a more precise nature than an object, until the preclear is very certain that he is in good communication with these objects and walls and other parts of the room.

The above is run until the following manifestations of communication lag (and any others you may encounter) are well erased: the preclear just brushing the object he is told to touch, looking away from it very quickly, not looking at it at all, looking at the auditor instead of the object he was told to touch, carrying out the command before it is given such as going over to touch the lamp when all the auditor has said is “Do you see that lamp?”, complaining about the process in any way, objecting to being ordered to do the actions, unwillingness to touch the items designated, putting all his attention on creating an effect on the auditor, and apathy, grief, anger, fear and boredom turned on by this process.

When the above has been accomplished the auditor can say anything he pleases, or seemingly introduce any significance he wishes to so long as he hews very closely to the actual thing in this method which makes it work—which is to say perceiving the physical universe and making contact with it. At this time the auditor can become very specific about the selection of spots for the preclear to touch. “Do you see that black mark on the left arm of that chair?” “Go over and touch it with your right index finger.” “Now take your finger off it.” “Do you see the lower bolt on the light switch plate?” “Now go over to it and touch it with your left ring finger.” “Now take your finger off it,” and so forth until the preclear has a uniform perception of any and all objects in the room including the walls, the floor and the ceiling. This step can be kept up for a long time. It has an infinity of variations. But it is not the variations which work, it is the making and breaking of communication with the actual designated spots. You can do the following at this point: make certain the preclear is doing the process by asking questions such as, “Are you touching the door knob?” “Where is the door knob?” “What is its shape?” “What is its color?” “What sort of texture does it have?” “Are you sure you are touching it?” “Can you feel it?” “Look at it.” “Who is touching it?” “Whose hand is on that door knob?” “Who is holding your hand there?” “Where is that door knob?” “When is it there?” You can badger the preclear in the above fashion until his actions show that he is in communication with the object and until he is not angered by your questioning and direction.

IF AT ANY TIME THERE IS ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE PRECLEAR’S CASE DO THIS STEP [PART (a)] UNTIL SATISFIED THAT COMMUNICATION IS GOOD. A CASE WHICH WILL NOT OBEY 8-C (a) ORDERS WILL ALWAYS PERVERT OR ALTER COMMANDS TO BE PERFORMED WITH LESS SUPERVISION THAN PERCEPTION OF HIS BODY.

Part (b) has these auditing commands: “Find a spot in this room.” No further designation is necessary for this spot. Spotting procedure gives the preclear determinism of selection. When the preclear has done this the auditor says, “Go over to it and put your finger on it.” When the preclear has done this the auditor says, “Now let go of it.” It must be emphasized that the preclear is not to act upon a command until the command is given and must not let go until told to let go. The preclear is permitted to select spots until such time as all communication lag is flat and until he is freely selecting spots on the walls, objects, chairs, etc., with no specialization whatsoever— which means that his perception of the room has become uniform. Many things turn up in running this procedure such as the fact that the preclear cannot look at walls, etc.

Part (c) of this procedure is run with these auditing commands: “Find a spot in the room.” “Make up your mind when you are going to touch it and then touch it.” “Make up your mind when you are going to let go of it, and let go.” A variation of this process is to have the preclear make up his mind about a spot and then have him change his mind and select another spot.

The trouble with most cases, and the trouble with any case which is hung up and is not progressing, is that an insufficient quantity of Opening Procedure 8-C has been used by the auditor. This has been found to be an invariable rule. Preclears will pretend to run commands of a subjective nature but not run them at all. In other words, the auditor is saying do one thing and the preclear is doing quite another. Thus the process is not actually being used on the preclear. The difficulty in this case is a specific difficulty in communication where the preclear cannot duplicate. But more important than that, any preclear whose case is hanging up is out of touch with reality and the environment to such an extent that he has begun to do processes on mock-ups rather than on the actual physical universe. It will be discovered that doing processes on mock-ups such as finding spots in them, finding distances to them, and so forth is productive of no gain, and even negative gain. Only processes which directly address the physical universe are found to raise the tone of the preclear. He has to come to full tolerance of it before he can get out of it. Thus any case bogging down somewhere in more intricate procedures can be relieved and brought into present time by Opening Procedure 8-C. The only caution on the part of the auditor is that he must be very precise about giving his orders and must insist on the preclear being very certain that he is actually seeing spots and touching them and inhibiting the preclear from executing the commands before they are given.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 22 JUNE 1978R
REVISED 16 SEPTEMBER 1978
Remimeo	
(Revisions in this type sty/e)
(Ellipses indicate deletions)

This bulletin has been revised to give the rearranged steps and a new final step for the New Era Dianetics Drug Rundown.

New Era Dianetics Series 2R

NEW ERA DIANETICS FULL PC PROGRAM OUTLINE

As a person goes through life and lifetimes he collides with secondaries, losses, deaths of those he is closely connected with, injuries, accidents, illnesses, operations and emotional stresses. These of course are not all, but cover the main complaints and symptoms of pcs.

Dianetics lends itself to handle the current, past and occasional complaints and symptoms as above.

It achieves its results by addressing and handling the spirit and is in no way to be confused with medical or other practices.

The end phenomena of Dianetic auditing is a well and happy pc. These steps as laid out below if ALL DONE and with precision will give just that.

NEW ERA DIANETICS FULL PROGRAM OUTLINE:

THE ACTIONS OF THE NEW ERA DIANETICS FULL PROGRAM ARE TO BE RUN IN THE ORDER THEY ARE GIVEN. THE PRODUCT IS A WELL AND HAPPY PC AND THIS IS THE DIRECTION YOU GO, STEP BY STEP TO ACHIEVE THAT PRODUCT.

ACTION ONE: ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT SHEET

This sheet is thoroughly filled out with the pc on the meter. It gives you the pc’s history, what drugs and alcohol he has taken in this lifetime, illnesses, operations, present physical conditions, mental treatment, medicines and perception difficulties. (Ref: HCOB 24 June 1978R New Era Dianetics Series 5R, ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT SHEET).

At this point the data is taken only. Do not attempt to handle any of the items on this step. (Ref: HCOB 24 June 1978R NED Series 5R).

ACTION TWO: HANDLE ANY PTSNESS

It must be noted that you have to handle any PTSness before you can begin any auditing. Pcs who are PTS will not hold their gain. Therefore any PTSness must be handled before auditing is begun. (Ref: HCOB 10 Aug 73 PTS HANDLING, HCOB 20 Apr 72 SUPPRESSED PCs AND PTS TECH, HCOB 9 Dec 71RC PTS RD).

ACTION THREE: OBJECTIVE ARC

I have added a new process to be done before the full battery of Objective Processes. It is called Objective ARC. This is the first process to be done on a pc and will bring a person up to present time. (Ref: Objective ARC is covered in HCOB 19 Jun 1978, New Era Dianetics Series 3, OBJECTIVE ARC).

ACTION FOUR: SWEAT PROGRAM

A Sweat Program will be necessary if the person has taken LSD or Angel Dust. It may also be indicated when a person has been subjected to exposure to toxic substances which have lodged in the tissue and fat of the body. In future times psychiatrists or others of ill repute may develop other compounds such as LSD which lodge in the systems; a Sweat Program may be indicated in these. (Ref: HCOB 15 July 71RA III Rev 27 Jun 78, Re-Rev 19 Sep 78, New Era Dianetics Series 9R, DRUG HANDLING).

ACTION FIVE: OBJECTIVES

A . . . battery of Objectives is done on this step. This consists of the following Objective Processes properly and fully done to their complete EP for each process: ... CCH 1-10, ... SCS on an Object and SCS.... (Note: SOP 8C and Op Pro By Dup are run on a later step.) (Ref: HCOB 15 July 71RA III Rev 27 Jun 78, Re-Rev 19 Sep 78, New Era Dianetics Series 9R, DRUG HANDLING).

ACTION SIX: HARD TR COURSE

On this course, the preclear will thoroughly do TRs 0-9. (Ref: HCOB 15 July 71RA III Rev 27 Jun 78, Re-Rev 19 Sep 78, New Era Dianetics Series 9R, DRUG HANDLING, HCOB 16 Aug 71R, TRAINING DRILLS REMODERNIZED, HCOB 7 May 68, UPPER INDOC TRs, BPL 18 Sep 78 New Era Dianetics Hard TRs Course).

ACTION SEVEN: CS-1

Before we can even begin a pc on Dianetics we have to indoctrinate him into what Dianetics is and what is expected of him as a pc.

This is standardly and effectively accomplished by using the Standard Dianetics CS-1, HCOB 9 Jul 78R, DIANETIC CS-1.

ACTION EIGHT: DRUG RUNDOWN QUAD

It has been proven time and time again that until you audit out, each by name, the drugs, alcohol and medicine a person has taken, he does not make good case gain.

A person who has been on drugs, alcohol or medicine seldom runs any other type of engram, seldom goes backtrack well, and is subject to somatic, emotional and perceptic shut-offs, making any other type of Dianetic or Scientology auditing a difficult activity.

Therefore if drugs, medicine or alcohol, or individual names of them read on the meter on the Original Assessment Sheet, they are handled FIRST AND FOREMOST .

(Note: You do not ask the pc for whole track drugs. You want only drugs, medicine or alcohol he has taken in this lifetime.)

In New Era Dianetics the Drug Rundown has five parts: 1) The Original Assessment in which the names of drugs, medicines or alcohol the pc has taken in this lifetime are obtained, 2) The running of each reading drug, medicine or alcohol Narrative R3RA Quad, 3) The preassessment of each of these and the running by R3RA Quad of the items, 4) The prior assessment to drugs or alcohol for each, 5) The final step of bringing the pc fully into PT and stabilizing him by the running of further Objectives, SOP 8C and Op Pro By Dup.
1. 	The Original Assessment

This has already been done as Action One. It may be necessary to get the preclear to add to the list and it is highly possible that he has taken more types of drugs in this lifetime than he remembered at the time the Original Assessment was done. You have to have all drugs, medicines and alcohol by their actual names as known to the pc. It is not enough to use an item like “drugs,” “alcohol” or “medicine” as you will get nowhere. They have to be “heroin,” or “penicillin” or “bourbon.”

2. 	Narrative Handling of Drugs

Before any other handling, the pc runs out EACH of the reading drugs, medicines or alcohols Narrative R3RA Quad. This is done FIRST.

3. 	The Preassessment

New Era Dianetics handling for drugs includes the use of the Preassessment List. This is a new procedure on the handling and running of Dianetics. Previous to this you would ask the pc for attitudes, emotions, sensations and pains connected with an item. Instead the preassessment is done. It ensures that every somatic is gotten off in connection with whatever you are handling. (Ref: HCOB 18 Jun 78R New Era Dianetics Series 4R, ASSESSMENT AND HOW TO GET THE ITEM).

Each item found by preassessment is run by R3RA Quad as soon as the running item is found in every case. Then one continues with further preassessment until all possible drugs, medicines and alcohols are fully handled R3RA Quad.

4. 	The Prior Assessment

After all reading drugs, medicines and alcohols have been preassessed and run out R3RA Quad, the prior assessment to drugs or alcohol is done. This step locates and runs out all the feelings, attitudes, misemotions, pains, etc. the pc had prior to first taking each drug, medicine or alcohol. (Ref: HCOB 15 Jul 71RA III, Rev 27 Jun 78 New Era Dianetics Series 9R, C/S Series 48RB, DRUG HANDLING).

ACTION EIGHT-A:

5. 	The Final Step—More Objectives

As a final step, the pc is brought fully into present time with further Objectives: SOP 8C and then Op Pro By Dup. each run to its complete EP.

This completes the Dianetic Drug Rundown.

ACTION NINE: RELIEF RUNDOWN

Where the Original Assessment Sheet has shown losses by death or other severe changes in a person’s life such as losses of position or pets or objects it will be found that the person’s life changed for the worse at that point.

The auditor spots these points of change either on the Original Assessment Sheet or by asking the preclear. These points are then handled with New Era Dianetics procedure.
.
It will be found that when all such great changes in a person’s life have been handled the person will experience a considerable relief about life. (Ref: HCOB 3 July 1978R, NED Series 10R).

ACTION TEN: DIANETIC REMEDIES—OPTIONAL
The Picture and Masses Remedy and the Past Life Remedy are optional and are only done when you run into trouble. They are run after the Drug Rundown because unhandled drugs are the cause of most of that trouble.

The Picture and Masses Remedy 
(Ref: 	HCOB 22 Jul 69 HIGH TA ASSESSMENT
	HCOB 24 Jul 78  DIANETIC REMEDIES)

Past Life Remedy 
(Ref: 	HCOB 16 Jan 75 PAST LIFE REMEDY
	HCOB 24 Jul 78  DIANETIC REMEDIES)

ACTION ELEVEN: COMPLETE HANDLING ON THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT SHEET

You have handled all drugs, alcohol and medicine and all losses the pc has had fully and completely. The pc is now set up to go ahead with handling the rest of his complaints and symptoms.

The full procedure of handling the remainder of this Original Assessment Sheet is laid out in full in HCOB 28 July 71RA Rev 25 June 78 New Era Dianetics Series 8R DIANETICS, BEGINNING A PC ON and HCOB 18 June 78R New Era Dianetics Series 4R ASSESSMENT AND HOW TO GET THE ITEM. Follow these issues exactly.

ACTION TWELVE: REASSESSMENT OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT SHEET

When all Original Assessment Sheet items are handled as above, the Original Assessment Sheet is reassessed. The pc’s memory will have improved if you’ve done a good job of auditing so far and his targets in processing will have changed.

So we reassess the Original Assessment Sheet and handle any now reading area.

(Ref: HCOB 4 Jul 78R New Era Dianetics Series 12R, SECOND ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT) .

ACTION THIRTEEN: DIANETIC STUDENT RESCUE INTENSIVE

This is an optional step to be taken if your pc is having any trouble with study. It takes up and handles any and all somatics connected with the subject of study.

A Student Rescue Intensive is not run until the pc has been completed up to ACTION ELEVEN as it would interrupt his program because drugs, if he has taken any, are a probable contributory cause to being unable to study. Also the Dianetic Student Rescue Intensive is not a substitute for proper Word Clearing of Dianetic, Scientology and earlier courses and training. It does however make the latter much more effective.

(Ref: HCOB 2 Jul 78 New Era Dianetics Series 11, DIANETIC STUDENT RESCUE INTENSIVE).

ACTION FOURTEEN: PREPARED ASSESSMENT FORM

This is an early step I developed in Dianetics which fell into disuse and abandonment. However it can produce some amazing results and so is being put back as a standard step in the running of Dianetics. It is done by assessing a prepared list of types of somatics and fully handling each one using New Era Dianetics.

When you have an F/Ning list and the pc is VGIs it is the end of this step.

The procedure and list is covered on HCOB 1 Jul 78 New Era Dianetics Series 13, DIANETICS PREPARED ASSESSMENT RUNDOWN.

ACTION FIFTEEN: DISABILITY RUNDOWN

This rundown handles anything the pc considers a disability; mental, physical or otherwise. It handles everything from being too short to not being able to speak Arabic or not wanting to go to parties. It takes each disability and handles it with R3RA.

(Ref: HCOB 29 June 78 New Era Dianetics Series 14, DISABILITY RUNDOWN).

ACTION SIXTEEN: IDENTITY RUNDOWN

We have never before had a Dianetic process specifically directed to getting a pc into valence. The Identity Rundown now handles that. It specifically takes up and handles valences the pc may be in by using the New Era Dianetics tech.

(Ref: HCOB 20 Jun 78 New Era Dianetics Series 15, IDENTITY RUNDOWN).

ACTION SEVENTEEN: AUDITING OUT SESSIONS—OPTIONAL

Now and then it is necessary to audit out an auditing session or all auditing. One does this by R3RA, running the incident narrative to erasure and only going earlier similar if it starts to grind very badly or, if all auditing, handling it session by session as a chain.

(Ref: 	HCOB 23 May 69 	AUDITING OUT SESSIONS 
	HCOB 26 Jun 78RA 	New Era Dianetics Series 6RA
	Issue II 	ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS
	HCOB 18 Jun 78R 	New Era Dianetics Series 4R
		ASSESSMENT AND HOW TO GET THE ITEM).

IF YOU GET INTO TROUBLE

If you run into any trouble on these Dianetic steps, use the L3RF and handle all reading items to EP. Or go to Cramming on Dianetics. (Ref: HCOB 11 April 71RC L3RF).

SUMMARY

Completing all the above steps thoroughly and completely ensuring that all chains are run to full end phenomena is the only way you will have a well and happy pc.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:lfg.dr 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 JUNE 1978R
REVISED 22 SEPTEMBER 1978
(Cancels BTB 24 Apr 69RA,
Remimeo	Preclear Assessment Sheet)
BPI	
HGC	(Revisions in this type style)
All Auditors	

New Era Dianetics Series 5R

ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT SHEET

WHEN IS THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT SHEET DONE

This Original Assessment Sheet is done as the beginning action of Dianetics. It is done in a formal Dianetic auditing session in an auditing room with the pc duly signed up, and in session.

WHO DOES THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT SHEET

The auditor assigned to audit the preclear does the assessment. It is included as part of the preclear’s auditing time as it is valuable data collection on the preclear’s case, done with the preclear on the meter.

PURPOSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT SHEET

The purpose of this form is to provide essential data regarding the preclear to the C/S, the D of P and the auditor, and to better acquaint the auditor with the preclear at the onset of auditing.

HOW IS THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT SHEET DONE

The assessment is done with the preclear on the meter.

The preclear is given the R-Factor that you will simply be asking him for essential data about himself for the purpose given above.

The auditor notes down the data as the pc gives it. He does not take up the pc’s answers to the questions, except, when necessary, to make sure the question is answered and the auditor has the facts straight. TA at start and end of the assessment is noted, along with any TA action during the assessment. Needle reactions to the questions are noted when the question is given plus any needle reaction that occurs during the pc’s reply.

NEATNESS OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT SHEET

The data should be written plainly and neatly on the assessment sheet so that it is readable, as the information is wanted. Auditor does not delay or hold up the pc giving answers, however, while he completes admin.

WHERE DOES THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT SHEET GO WHEN COMPLETED

When completed, the Original Assessment Sheet is kept in the preclear’s folder. A note is made on the Summary Sheet of pc’s folder that the Original Assessment Sheet has been done.
	DATE:_______________

ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT SHEET

Name of pc:	Age of pc:____________
Auditor:	Org:_________________

TA Position at Start of Assessment:_________________________________________

A. FAMILY:

1.	Is mother living? 	E-Meter Reaction___________________

2.	Date of Death: 	E-Meter Reaction___________________

3. 	Pc’s statement of relationship with mother:_______________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

			E-Meter Reaction	

4. 	Is father living? 	E-Meter Reaction___________________

5. 	Date of Death: 	E-Meter Reaction___________________

6. 	Pc’s statement of relationship with father:________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

			E-Meter Reaction	

7. 	List brothers, sisters, and other relatives of the pc, date of death of any and E-Meter reaction:

Relation 	Date of Death 	E-Meter Reaction
____________________	_____________________	_____________________

____________________	_____________________	_____________________

____________________	_____________________	_____________________

____________________	_____________________	_____________________

8. 	Where and with whom do you live?____________________________________

			E-Meter Reaction	

9. 	Are you currently associated with anyone who is antagonistic to mental or spiritual treatment or Scientology? 

(If yes, who?):	E-Meter Reaction___________________

			_________________________________

			_________________________________

			_________________________________
			_________________________________

On questions 10 through 17 if the answer is “yes” find out who and E-Meter reaction.

10. 	Is anyone actively objecting to your getting treatment?	

		

11. 	Has anyone insisted you get treatment?	

		

12. 	Has anyone ever objected to your getting treatment?	

		

13. 	Has anyone encouraged you to get treatment?	

		

14. 	Has anyone ever objected to you getting better?	

		

15. 	Has anyone ever assisted you in self-betterment?	

		

16. 	Does anyone not like you the way you are?	

		

17. 	Has anyone tried to make you change or be different?	

		

B. MARITAL STATUS:

1. 	Married_______ Single_______ No. of times Divorced	

2. 	Pc’s statement of relationship with spouse:	

			E-Meter Reaction	

3. 	List any marital difficulties pc presently has:	

			E-Meter Reaction	

4. 	If divorced, list reasons for divorce and pc’s emotional feeling about divorce:	

			E-Meter Reaction	

5. 	List children, date of death of any child and E-Meter reaction:	

Children 	Date of Death 	E-Meter Reaction
____________________	_____________________	_____________________

____________________	_____________________	_____________________

____________________	_____________________	_____________________

____________________	_____________________	_____________________

C. 	EDUCATION LEVEL:

State the level of schooling pc has had, university education, or professional training:

			E-Meter Reaction	

D. 	PROFESSIONAL LIFE:

	State main jobs pc has held:

Job		E-Meter Reaction

				

				

E. 	DRUGS: (NOTE: LIST DRUGS, MEDICINE OR ALCOHOL TAKEN THIS LIFETIME ONLY.)

1. 	Are you taking any drugs currently?

What Drug	Date (How Long)	E-Meter Reaction

						

						

						

Have you ever taken drugs?

What Drug	Date (How Long)	E-Meter Reaction

						

						

						

2. 	Are you taking any alcohol or alcoholic drink currently?

What Alcohol/
Alcoholic Drink 	Date (How Long)	E-Meter Reaction

						

						

	Have you ever taken alcohol or alcoholic drinks?

What Alcohol/
Alcoholic Drink 	Date (How Long)	E-Meter Reaction

						

						

3. 	List any medicine currently or previously taken.

What	When 	E-Meter Reaction

						

F. 	LOSSES:

	What severe losses have you had in life that influenced it?
		
Loss 	Date 	Description	E-Meter
		Reaction

								

								

G. 	DEATHS:

	What deaths have severely affected your life?

Loss 	Date 	Description	E-Meter
		Reaction

								

								

H. UPSETS:

	Are you upset with or cross about anything or anyone at this particular time?

Upset 	Date 	Description	E-Meter
		Reaction

								

								

I. 	DANGERS:

1. 	Are you in any particular danger at this time?

Description	E-Meter Reaction

				

				

2. 	Are there engrams that match this in the past?

	(Note meter read.)		

J. 	ACCIDENTS:

	List any serious accidents pc has had, the date of such, any permanent physical
damage, and E-Meter reaction.

Accident 	Date 	Physical Damage	E-Meter
		Reaction

								

								

K. 	ILLNESSES:

	List any serious illness pc has had giving date of each, any permanent-physical damage, and E-Meter reaction.
		
Illness	Date 	Physical Damage	E-Meter
		Reaction

								

								

L. 	OPERATIONS:

	List any operation, the date of each and E-Meter reaction.

Operation	Date 	E-Meter Reaction

						

M. 	PRESENT PHYSICAL CONDITION:

	List any bad physical condition pc presently has and E-Meter reaction to such.

Physical Condition	E-Meter Reaction

				

				

N. 	PT ILLNESSES:

1. 	List any illnesses the pc currently has.

Illness	Date 	E-Meter Reaction

						

2. 	Do you have any recurring physical ailment?	

			E-Meter Reaction	

O. 	DISABILITY PAYMENT OR PENSION:

	List any disability payment or pension received by the pc, what it is for, how much and for how long it has been received.

			How				E-Meter
What For 		Much 		Duration		Reaction

								

								

P. 	ANY FAMILY HISTORY OF INSANITY:

							E-Meter
Who		What		When		Reaction

								

								

Q. EYES:	E-Meter Reaction

Any tint in eye white				

Eye Color				

Color Blindness				

Glasses				

R. 	BODY WEIGHT:	E-Meter Reaction

Overweight?				

Underweight?				

S. 	ANY PERCEPTION DIFFICULTIES:

What	E-Meter Reaction

	

				

T. 	ANY PERCEPTION TROUBLE IN
	FAMILY:	E-Meter Reaction

	

	

U. 	SICK OR DISABLED FAMILY:	E-Meter Reaction

	

				

V. 	EARLIER ALLIES OR CLOSE
	FRIENDS:	E-Meter Reaction

	

				

W. 	HUSBAND OR WIFE PHYSICAL
	TROUBLES:

What	E-Meter Reaction

	

				

X. 	ATTITUDE TOWARDS ILLNESS:	E-Meter Reaction

	

Y. 	ATTITUDE TOWARDS TREATMENT: 	E-Meter Reaction

	

Z. 	ANY CURRENT TREATMENT IN
	PROGRESS: 	E-Meter Reaction

	

AA.	COMPULSIONS, REPRESSIONS AND FEARS:

	List any compulsions (things pc feels compelled to do), repressions (things pc must prevent himself from doing) and any fears of pc.

Compulsions: 	E-Meter Reaction

				

Repressions: 	E-Meter Reaction

	

Fears: 	E-Meter Reaction

	

	Are you trying to change something someone else doesn’t like?

What and Who 	E-Meter Reaction

	

BB. 	CRIMINAL RECORD:

	List any crime committed by pc, prison sentence, if any, and E-Meter reactions:

Crime	Sentence	E-Meter Reaction

						

CC. 	INTERESTS AND HOBBIES:

	List any interests and hobbies of pc.

Interests and Hobbies 	E-Meter Reaction

	

DD.	ARE YOU HERE ON YOUR OWN SELF-DETERMINISM?	

			E-Meter Reaction	

EE. 	PREVIOUS DIANETIC OR SCIENTOLOGY PROCESSING:

1. 	List auditors, hours, and E-Meter reaction to any processing done.

Auditor 	Hours 	E-Meter Reaction

						

						

2. 	List briefly processes run:	

3. 	List goals attained from such processing:

			E-Meter Reaction

	

				

4. 	List goals not attained from such processing:

			E-Meter Reaction

	

				

FF.	1. Do you look on yourself as somebody else?

			E-Meter Reaction

	

				

	2. When you see pictures of the past do you see yourself from a distance?

			E-Meter Reaction

	

				

GG.	FORMER PRACTICES:

1. 	What practices or treatments have you engaged upon in the past?
Practice or Therapy 	Date 	E-Meter Reaction

						

						

2. 	Are you continuing any of the above in the present?

						

						

HH.	What problems are you trying to solve by processing?

			E-Meter Reaction

	

				

II. 	Have you ever done anything harmful to Dianetics, Dianeticists, Scientology, Scientologists or organizations? (Note any meter read.)

	

	

JJ. 	REALITY FACTOR:

	You know of course that people sometimes get cross at the auditor or run away when they are withholding information from them and we don’t want you to do that.

	Anything you tell me is confidential and is protected under ministerial confidence.

	Is there anything we have missed or omitted while doing this assessment? (Carefully note any meter reads.)

	Ask: “Is there anything you would care to tell me about this?”

	

	

State of needle at the end of the above	

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:ldv.dr 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 JULY 1971RA
REVISED 25 JUNE 1978
RE-REVISED 22 SEPTEMBER 1978
(Revisions in this type style)
Remimeo
C/S Series 54RA
New Era Dianetics Series 8R
DIANETICS, BEGINNING A PC ON

Make Dianetics work fully in our modern culture.

DO NOT BEGIN DIANETICS WITH A HEALTH FORM ANY LONGER.

BEGIN DIANETICS WITH THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT SHEET HCOB 24 JUNE 1978R. THIS IS VITAL.

DRUGS OR ALCOHOL

IF YOU GET ANY TA ACTION OR READS ON DRUGS OR ALCOHOL EVEN IF THE PC SAYS “NO” IT IS THE FIRST DIANETIC ACTION TO HANDLE THESE AS COVERED ON HCOB 15 JULY BRA, III, NEW ERA DIANETICS SERIES 9R, DRUG HANDLING.

If the pc is currently on drugs, it may be necessary to put him through Objective Processes and a Hard TRs Course to get him off drugs. Doing this will avoid the painful withdrawal symptoms particularly present in coming off heroin or psychiatric drugs. The usual sequence of Drug Rundown steps is given in HCOB 22 Jun 78R New Era Dianetics Series 2R Full Pa Program Outline and HCOB 15 Jul BRA, Issue III, New Era Dianetics Series 9R Drug Handling.

The pc in many cases won’t be able to run any engrams at all unless you run out drugs, alcohol or medicines first. They will run these and these alone until the engrams are gone.

People who “can’t run engrams” are usually drug cases.

MEDICINE

If Medicine Part E of the Original Assessment Sheet reads then handle it per C/S Series 48RB, as it reacts like any other drug, but pcs sometimes don’t think of medicine as drugs. They are.
LOSSES AND DEATHS

If Losses (of position, possessions, pets, etc.) reads or if Deaths of relatives, etc. read on Parts F and G check for interest and run them out Narrative Secondaries R3RA Quad.

UPSETS

If Upsets read and the pc is interested in running it out, handle it with R3RA Narrative Quad. They can also be handled with regular preassessment, etc., as in New Era Dianetics Series 4R.
DANGERS

If Part I reads and the pc is interested run the Danger out R3RA Narrative Quad. They can also be handled with regular preassessment, etc., as in New Era Dianetics Series 4R.

ILLNESSES, ACCIDENTS, OPERATIONS

Parts J. K, L, M, N are handled if reading by checking interest with the pc and running out the illness, operation, accident or undesired physical condition R3RA Quad Narrative.

Preassess these items if needed to take to a full and complete handling with R3RA Quad.

FAMILY INSANITY

If Section P reads, run the loss out R3RA Secondaries Quad. This can be preassessed if needed.
PERCEPTION DIFFICULTIES

Lack of perception (sight, hearing, etc.) comes from overts and improves when Flow 2 is done on any R3RA chain.

Having found the complaint regarding perception (which can include lack of feeling, lack of emotion) you would treat it as an original item and would preassess the condition and then handle it with R3RA Quad, like any other original item. See New Era Dianetics Series 4R on handling original items.

COMPULSIONS, REPRESSIONS, FEARS

If any compulsions, repressions or fears read in Part AA treat them as original items just as given in New Era Dianetics Series 4R.

PREVIOUS DIANETIC OR SCIENTOLOGY PROCESSING

If the pc has charge on his previous processing, the auditing can be run out R3RA Narrative Quad, first checking interest with the pc. Earlier beginning and earlier similar are used.
LOOK ON YOURSELF AS SOMEONE ELSE

If Section FF reads, the pc should be given the Identity Rundown when he reaches the correct step on his New Era Dianetics program.

FORMER PRACTICE

If Section GG reads, Former Practices, treat any former practice as an original item and handle per New Era Dianetics Series 4R.

PROBLEMS YOU’RE TRYING TO SOLVE WITH PROCESSING

If this section reads and the pc is interested, treat the problem as an original item per New Era Dianetics Series 4R.

DONE SOMETHING HARMFUL TO DIANETICS, DIANETICISTS,
SCIENTOLOGY, SCIENTOLOGISTS, ORGANIZATIONS
If this reads, check interest and treat it as an original item per New Era Dianetics Series 4R.
REPAIR

REPAIR BY L3RF ANY FLUBBED DIANETIC SESSION OR CHAIN WITHIN 24 HOURS. Do not let it go unrepaired.

	L. RON HUBBARD
	Founder

LRH Ifg.kjm
Copyright © 1971,1978
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 JUNE 1978R
REVISED 20 SEPTEMBER 1978
(Revisions in this type sty/e)
Remimeo
New Era Dianetics Series 4R

ASSESSMENT AND HOW TO GET THE ITEM

A great deal of material has existed about assessment of the preclear. In New Era Dianetics Dianetic assessment has been summarized and simplified and added to. These New Era Dianetics assessment steps are precise. And they will detect and isolate the things that have to be handled to make a pc a well and happy being.

It is important to understand what assessment is and what you are attempting to accomplish when doing an assessment.

If you simply understand that you are trying to find an item that reads well, brings in the pc’s indicators, in which the pc is interested, an item which was usefully worded and would run, you would have it.

In New Era Dianetics, several different kinds of assessment are used to get items to run out R3RA on the pc.

The New Era Dianetics Original Assessment Items

This is the first assessment done in New Era Dianetics. It has been known by various names, “Health Form,” “Preclear Assessment Sheet” and is now reissued with only minor changes as HCOB 24 June 78R New Era Dianetics Series 5R, ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT SHEET.

It contains the pc’s physical history and background, and gives the auditor and C/S a picture of the case. It is an assessment as it is done on the meter and enables the auditor and C/S to see what needs to be handled.

Original Item

The original item is a condition, illness, accident, drug, alcohol or medicine, etc. that has been given by the pc to the auditor. This will come from the Original Assessment Sheet, from another New Era Dianetics rundown or may simply be offered by the pc.

Original items tend to be general in character, such as “lame” or a medical condition, and are either lacking things you will find on the Preassessment List or are too broad to be audited. Pcs normally give items this way when asked for them on the New Era Dianetics Original Assessment Sheet, NED Series 5R.

Preassessment

Preassessment is a new procedure in New Era Dianetics. It is done with a prepared Preassessment List and determines what categories of somatics are connected to the original item, and which of these is the most highly charged.

It is called the preassessment because it comes before the assessment of the actual item to run out R3RA. (The item to be run out is now called the running item.)

Preassessment is done on the original item with the Preassessment List.

Preassessment List

This is found in New Era Dianetics Series 4-1.

A prepared list of categories of somatics which is assessed in connection with the original item. (The list includes pains, sensations, feelings, emotions, attitudes, misemotions, unconsciousnesses, sorenesses, compulsions, fears, aches, tirednesses, pressures, discomforts, dislikes, numbnesses.)

Preassessment Item

The largest reading item obtained on an assessment of the Preassessment List. This item is used to get running items.

LISTING FOR RUNNING ITEMS

The auditor now takes the preassessment item and makes a list on a separate sheet of paper and asks the pc, “What (preassessment item found) are/is connected with (original item found)?”

The auditor writes down exactly what the pc says in a column and notes the meter reads at the exact moment the pc ends the statement of the running item.

The result is a list called the “running item list.”

If the pc gives you an exact feeling (“feeling scared,” “a burning feeling in my ear,” “a sharp pain in my toe”) the feeling is simply run out R3RA Quad if it reads and the pc is interested.

An item which states a somatic and is runnable is called a running item. Running items are exactly stated pains, sensations, feelings, emotions, attitudes, misemotions, unconsciousnesses, sorenesses, compulsions, fears, aches, tirednesses, pressures, discomforts, dislikes, numbnesses.

If the pc gives you a general type item like “stomach problems,” a drug, alcohol, medicine, medical term or narrative, which does not state a feeling (etc.), the feelings (etc.) for the item must be found so they can be run. The preassessment is done to get running items.

Running Item

The auditor takes the best reading item on the running item list (possibly an LF or an LFBD or an instant F/N) and checks with the pc, “Are you interested in this item?” and if so it becomes the running item which you will run by R3RA Quad.

Running items are sometimes abruptly volunteered by the pc and if they are within the categories of the assessment list they can be run, but be careful of: 1) jumping onto some other subject than the original item you are trying to handle or 2) upsetting the pc because you refuse to audit it. Warning: If you go off New Era Dianetics assessment procedure you will be pot shooting all over a case and never finish it.

All this New Era Dianetics procedure is leading up to finding running items that will run and resolve the case. So the thing you are after in assessment is the running item and it is most accurately obtained as above.

This is done by taking the original item, say “stomach problems,” doing a preassessment on it, and with the preassessment item, finding a running item.

(Example: Stomach problems is the original item. A preassessment is done and “sorenesses” is the largest reading item on the Preassessment List. The auditor then lists for running items, using sorenesses, and gets “A dull soreness on my left side.” This is the running item, which will be handled with R3RA Quad.)

PREASSESSMENT

Previous to New Era Dianetics you would have taken a Dianetic item such as a drug or a chronic condition or an accident and you would have asked the pc to give you the attitudes, emotions, sensations and pains connected to the item.

I have just developed a new procedure on the handling and running of Dianetics. It is called the preassessment. This is how it works.

1. 	The auditor obtains an original item from the pc. This will be from a drug list, the Original Assessment Sheet or other New Era Dianetics rundown. (It will be a drug, a condition, an illness, an accident, etc.)

2. 	He then preassesses the feelings on the Preassessment List to find out which preassessment item is the most highly charged in connection with the original item.

3. 	From the preassessment item (the largest reading Preassessment List item) the auditor can get specific somatics called running items from the pc. These running items will be the ones the pc is most interested in.

4. 	The running item found in Step 3 is run R3RA Quad.

Example: The original item is “bronchitis.” The auditor assesses the Preassessment List below by asking the pc:

	“Are__________connected with bronchitis?”
	pains	compulsions
	sensations	fears
	feelings	aches
	emotions	tirednesses
	attitudes	pressures
	misemotions	discomforts
	unconsciousnesses	dislikes
	sorenesses	numbnesses

He gets an LF on misemotions. This is the largest read.

“What misemotions are connected with bronchitis?”

As the pc tells him, the auditor takes them down, noting meter reads while the pc is giving the items. (And that’s all there is to the preassessment.)

PREASSESSMENT ITEM

This is in turn the largest reading item on the Preassessment List above and then subsequently lesser reading items from the same list are taken up.

With the preassessment item gotten, the auditor can list to find the running items.
(Example: The preassessment item is “misemotion.” The auditor asks, “What misemotions are connected with bronchitis?”)

He writes down all the answers the pc gives him, with their reads.

Feeling like I want to give up X
Worried about my lungs LFBD
Feeling angry about not breathing F
Scared to death sF

The auditor would first run “worried about my lungs” R3RA Quad and then would return to the next best reading item, in this case, “Feeling angry about not breathing. “

RUNNING ITEM

The auditor chooses the largest reading item the pc has given and checks interest for the next chain. This is the running item.

ACTUAL AUDITING

Having found the running item the auditor then runs it out R3RA Quad.
FINDING THE NEXT RUNNING ITEM

The auditor has a choice of taking a lesser reading item from the Preassessment List or the running item list or (safer) do a new preassessment on the same original item. (You don’t stop working on the original item until it is gone completely and forever. )

Having done a preassessment on the same original item you do a new running item list, take the best read (fall, LF, instant F/N) and use it as your new running item.

ASSESSMENT COMMANDS

Commands for the Original Assessment Sheet of the New Era Dianetics Rundown:

1) 	Ask the question on the Original Assessment Sheet. Write answer and note meter read.

2) 	“Are (preassessment item being called) connected with (original item being preassessed)?”

3) 	“What (largest reading preassessment item) are connected with (original item)?”

4) 	“Are you interested in running (largest reading or instantly F/Ning running item found in 3 above)?”

5) 	Go straight into R3RA Quad, using the item in 4 if the pc is interested.

HANDLING SOMATICS

The Preassessment List is designed to locate somatics which the auditor can then handle with R3RA.

By somatic is meant a pain or ache, sensation, misemotion, or even unconsciousness. There are a thousand different descriptive words that could add up to a feeling Pain, aches, dizziness, sadness, they are all feelings.
All chains are held together by the general various awarenesses which are named on the Preassessment List.

One generally identified difficulty given by the pc on the original assessment is, in actual fact, in almost all cases composed of pains, sensations, feelings, emotions, attitudes, misemotions, unconsciousnesses, sorenesses, compulsions, fears, aches, tirednesses, pressures, discomforts, dislikes and numbnesses as well as one or more postulates. It is very possible that any major Original Assessment item contains 3 or 4 full chains for each one of these.

Hence an auditor really hasn’t got a prayer of eradicating a major Original Assessment unless he runs 64 or more complete chains thoroughly and accurately. Some might give up with less and some might require many more.

If you follow the New Era Dianetics assessment procedure perfectly and flawlessly, well you have every chance of achieving a well and happy human being.

HANDLING NARRATIVES

A narrative is a story, an account, a tale.

For many years narratives were held in disrepute and auditors were sometimes warned against running them. The reason for this is that when you try to solve a case on narratives alone it takes several thousand hours of auditing.

However to abandon narratives totally is to abandon some of the most dramatic case changes you can get.

Occasionally the pc will come into a session after a physically or emotionally painful experience, an accident, illness, loss or great emotional stress. Running these incidents out narrative erases the psychic trauma the person has undergone and speeds recovery.

You sometimes find that a person’s whole life changed around the death of a relative or child or a divorce or an auto accident or some other similar catastrophe. This is usually found and handled in ACTION NINE in the HCOB 22 June 1978R New Era Dianetics Series 2R, NEW ERA DIANETICS FULL PC PROGRAM OUTLINE.

When running a narrative, one is running out the narrative incident. A narrative needs to be run and run and run on that one incident. You are running that incident to erasure and you only go earlier similar if it starts to grind very badly.

The trick in running narratives is to find the earlier beginning each time the person is moved through it. (See ACTION NINE, New Era Dianetics Series 2.)

A condition or circumstance without an incident is NOT narrative. An example of this would be “obstruction of justice.” It would not run as there is not an exact incident. “Hitting a cop” is a narrative. “Feeling sick about cops” is not a narrative as there is no story connected with it, but there is a somatic.

RUNNING NARRATIVES

To run a narrative item, the auditor must first find out exactly what happened with the pc, then, by asking the pc “What shall we call this incident?” he will have the preclear’s wording and can run it narrative using the New Era Dianetics narrative commands. One would run a narrative item ONLY if it reads well and the pc is interested in running it out.

Narrative handling to its full EP can give miraculous results, but it can take a long time to get the pc through it. A full Dianetic EP of postulate off (which IS the erasure), F/N and VGIs must be reached. If the pc gives a cognition which is not the actual postulate from the incident or doesn’t sound like it to the auditor, the postulate is asked for.

NARRATIVE ASSESSMENT COMMANDS

1) 	Ask the questions called for on the Original Assessment Sheet.

2) 	Note any original items that contain recent losses, illnesses, accidents, upsets or deaths and ask:

	“Are you interested in handling (description of item on the Original Assessment Sheet)?”

3) 	If the pc signifies that he is, go immediately into R3RA Narrative.

ASSESSING TONE OF VOICE

The auditor does the assessing by asking the question as a question, not as a statement of fact. To assess the question as a statement tends to evaluate and can even invalidate the preclear.

You can go around asking questions with a tape recorder going. Play it back and you will notice the voice tone rises on a question and goes down on a statement. So the right way to assess the questions would be to have a slight upcurve at the end, and actually assess it as a question.

ASSESSMENT IS DONE BY THE AUDITOR BETWEEN THE PC’S BANK AND THE METER. THERE IS NO PARTICULAR NEED IN DIANETIC ASSESSING TO LOOK AT THE PC. JUST NOTE WHICH ITEM HAS THE LONGEST FALL OR BD. THE AUDITOR LOOKS AT THE METER WHILE DOING AN ASSESSMENT.

Rote procedure gets heavily in the road of a Dianetic assessment. The pc gives a list, the auditor doesn’t watch the reads and note them, then the auditor commonly goes back to assess the list. By that time the surface charge is off. He should have watched the meter in the first place and taken reads while the pc was originating the item. Why all this assessing of the finished list? Of course when you already have a list done by another with no reads marked on it, you have to read it off and mark what reads. And using a list a second time you have to read it off to the pc to see what reads.

In Dianetics one always handles an instant F/N first, then any LFBD, LF, F or sF, in that order. The largest reading items are the ones the pc can most easily confront. When the largest reading item is handled go on to the next biggest reading item (and so on) until all reading items have been handled. This same principle applies to all New Era Dianetics auditing. Take up the biggest reading areas and handle those first.

You may find there is something plainly visible that is wrong with the preclear, like a broken leg, yet it may not read at all. Instead the meter is reading on the pain in his arm. You do the standard action of handling the items that the meter reads on.

In assessing a prepared list such as the Preassessment List always take up the item which got an instant F/N first followed by the next largest read.

In a list like the running items list you continue listing until the pc says that’s all or you’ve got an F/N item. If you get in trouble right after listing a running item list on a pc and the pc seems upset and you are not a Scientology auditor, go get a Scientology auditor Class IV fast and have him repair the list for you as it may have become a Scientology list either through auditor error or inability to read a meter or missing a read or whatever.

The laws of listing and nulling always apply to Scientology lists and sometimes on rare occasions apply to a Dianetic list and can on these cases cause trouble.

Listing for a running item on the running item list usually doesn’t cause trouble as it is already taken from the Preassessment List and is not a very broad question.

This and a failure to follow New Era Dianetics assessment and R3RA procedure exactly or failure to actually erase the basic on a chain is about all the trouble you’d run into.

Review New Era Dianetics Series 1 on what is expected of a student.

LRH:lfg.dr 	L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright © 1978 	Founder 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 JULY 1978
REISSUED 11 OCTOBER 1978
Remimeo
New Era Dianetics Series 4-1

THE PREASSESSMENT LIST

This Preassessment List will get you running items, if the pc has given you a general somatic item, a drug item, alcohol item, etc.

To be used as described in HCOB 18 June 1978, New Era Dianetics Series 4 ASSESSMENT AND HOW TO GET THE ITEM.

Pc Name________________________	Date_________________
Auditor Name____________________
Name of New Era Dianetics Rundown being done_____________________________
Original item being preassessed____________________________________________
Assess the list below, using each preassessment item.
	“Are_______ connected with (original item)?”

Take the largest reading preassessment item and ask pc: “What (largest reading preassessment item) are connected with (original item)?”

Do the preassessment on this sheet.

List the question and the pays answers on a separate sheet and note reads of each including F/Ns.

(See BTB 7 Nov 72R Issue IV Auditor Admin Series 19R, DIANETIC ASSESSMENT LISTS.)

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:ldv.dr 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 15 JULY 1971RC
Remimeo	Issue III
Dianetics	RE-REVISED 31 JANUARY 1979
Checksheet
All Dn	(Revisions in this type style)
Auditors	(Ellipsis indicates deletion)

(This bulletin has been revised only to delete THE END OF ENDLESS DRUG RUNDOWNS from its title. The New Era Dianetic Drug RD given in this bulletin is its own rundown and a completely separate action from The End of Endless Drug Rundowns Repair List, which is a repair rundown for pcs who were run endlessly on old style drug handling. Ref: HCOB 19 Sep 78R, Iss I, Rev. 31.1. 79, THE END OF ENDLESS DRUG RDs, and HCOB 19 Sep 78R, Iss II, Rev. 31.1.79, THE END OF ENDLESS DRUG RUNDOWNS REPAIR LIST.)

IMPORTANT

URGENT

C/S Series 48RD

New Era Dianetics Series 9RB

DRUG HANDLING

See: 	HCOB 28 Aug 68 II 	DRUGS
	HCOB 29 Aug 68 	DRUG DATA
	HCOB 23 Sep 68 	DRUGS & TRIPPERS
Refer: HCOB 19 May 69RB 	DRUG AND ALCOHOL CASES
		PRIOR ASSESSING
	BTB 12 Aug 69R 	(HCOB 10 Dec 68 Updated).
		CONFIDENTIAL—CASE SUPERVISOR
		ACTIONS (Page 24 Resistive Case 220D)
	HCOB 2 Nov 57RA 	AN OBJECTIVE RUNDOWN
	Rev. 10.5.74,
	Rev . 22.2.75
	HCOB 3 Jul 59	GENERAL INFORMATION
	HCOB 11 Jun 57	TRAINING AND CCH PROCESSES
	Reiss 12 May 72
	HCO Training
	Bulletin of 6 Feb 57,
	Pg 5, Tech Vol III
	HCOB 19 Sep 78R	THE END OF ENDLESS DRUG
	Issue I	RUNDOWNS
	Rev. 31.1.79

A person who has been on drugs is one of the “seven types of resistive cases.” (These types are found on the Scientology Green Form No. 40.)

A person who has been on drugs, alcohol or medicines seldom runs on any other type of engram, seldom goes backtrack well, and is subject to somatic, emotional and perceptic shut-offs making any other type of Dianetic running a vain activity.

Drugs since 1962 have been in very widespread use. Before then they were rare. A worldwide spread of drugs occurred. A large percentage of people became and are drug takers.

By drugs (to mention a few) are meant—tranquilizers, opium, cocaine, marijuana, peyote, amphetamine and the psychiatrist’s gifts to Man, LSD and Angel Dust, which are the worst. Any medical drugs are included. Drugs are drugs. There are thousands of trade names and slang terms for these drugs.

ALCOHOL is included as a drug and receives the same treatment in auditing.

By alcohol (to mention a few) is meant whiskey beer, wine, vodka, rum, gin, etc. —in other words any fermented or distilled liquor or drink of any kind or fumes of such with some percentage of alcohol content.

Drugs are supposed to do wonderful things but all they really do is ruin the person.

Even someone off drugs for years still has “blank periods.” The abilities to concentrate or to balance are injured.

The moral part of it has nothing to do with auditing. The facts are that:

(a) 	People who have been on drugs can be a liability until the condition is handled in auditing.

(b) 	A former drug user is a resistive case that does not make stable gains until the condition is handled.

(c) 	Auditing is the only successful means ever developed for handling drug damage.

DRUG ENGRAMS

People who have been on drugs are sometimes afraid of running engrams.

In fact, it is almost a way to detect a “druggie.”

The drugs, particularly LSD and even sometimes antibiotics or other medicines to which the person has an allergy, can turn on whole track pictures violently.

These tend to overwhelm the person and make him feel crazy. Some of these people are afraid to confront the bank again.

If a person “doesn’t like Dianetics” and doesn’t want to be run on engrams, it is necessary to put him through the Hard TRs Course and Objectives. If Dianetics has been run but poorly, it should of course be repaired fully with an L3RF (list used to correct Dianetic errors). But if the person still flinches. the Hard TRs Course and Objectives successfully completed will handle.

THOSE ON DRUGS

Objective Processes are numerous. It may be necessary to run these on a person still on drugs and even put the person through a Hard TRs Course to get the person off drugs. Doing this usually avoids the painful “withdrawal symptoms,” particularly present in coming off heroin or psychiatric “treatment” drugs. (Note, some persons have been put on some therapeutic drug by an M.D.—such as insulin and possibly should remain on it until well advanced into auditing. But these are not the usual drug. It is up to the pc, the auditor and the doctor what should be done in such cases. Tranquilizers are not acceptable, however.)

DONE FIRST

Drugs are done first.

Why? Because drugs make a resistive case! Other Dianetic actions and Scientology as well will get loses if drugs are not handled first.

Any current Dianetic case failures are from flubby Dianetic auditing or the person has been on drugs or alcohol which were not handled by Dianetics.

It hasn’t harmed anyone to omit drug handling. But it made it hard or impossible to get stable case gain.

THUS ANY DIANETIC PC WHO HAS HAD DRUG HANDLING OMITTED MUST BE RUN ON DRUGS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BEFORE MORE AUDITING IS GIVEN.

I repeat, drugs or alcohol in most instances make a resistive case so the point must be handled before the case will attain and hold case gain.

ANY PC WHO IS NOT MAKING IT IN AUDITING SHOULD BE CHECKED FOR A DRUG OR ALCOHOL HISTORY.

DISCOVERY

In investigating a series of cases who were not making it. I found in each one that the person had been on drugs or alcohol and that drugs or the alcohol had not been run out.

Drug data was not covered fully enough in the Dianetics pack. Only Prior Assessment to Drugs was given.

Thus I have found several Dianetic pcs were only run on the Prior Assessment to Drugs. This is not good enough as it is only a partial handling.

FULL DRUG RUNDOWN

Here is the full New Era Dianetics Drug Rundown.

0. 	The Original Assessment Sheet. Ask the pc each question on the Original Assessment Sheet. Mark all reads. Make sure you get specific and complete answers to your questions.

	NOTE: On Item E, do not ask the pc for whole track drugs. You want only drugs medicine or alcohol he has taken this lifetime.

1. 	Objective ARC.
 
	(Ref: 	HCOB 19 Jun 78 	New Era Dianetics Series 3, OBJECTIVE ARC.)

2. 	Sweat Out Program if LSD or Angel Dust has been taken. This step can be done concurrently with other drug handling.

	(Ref: 	HCOB 30 Apr 78 	SWEAT PROGRAM FURTHER DATA 
		HCOB 6 Feb 78R 	LSD AND THE SWEAT PROGRAM 
		HCOB 6 Feb 78R-1 LSD AND THE SWEAT PROGRAM ADDITION )

3. 	A battery of Objective Processes. This includes CCHs 1-10, SCS on an Object and SCS.

	(SOP 8C and Op Pro by Dup are included in later steps of the Drug Rundown.)

4. 	Hard TRs Course for ex-drug users or alcoholics. A Hard TRs Course consists
	of TRs 0-9.

Ref: 	HCOB 16 Aug 71R 	TRAINING DRILLS REMODERNIZED 
	HCOB 7 May 68 	UPPER INDOC TRs 
	BPL 18 Sep 78 	NEW ERA DIANETICS HARD TRs COURSE)

5. 	Full Dianetic C/S-1 to educate the pc so he fully understands Dianetic procedure and is able and willing to be audited successfully.

	(Ref: 	HCOB 9 Jul 78 	DIANETIC C/S-1 )

6. 	Narrative Handling on Drugs—First.

	All drugs, medicine and alcohol which the pc has taken in this lifetime have been listed on the Original Assessment Sheet.

At this point, choose the best reading drug, alcohol or medicine from the Original Assessment Sheet and run it out R3RA Quad Narrative. (For example: “Return to the time you took whiskey and tell me when you are there.”)

YOU DO NOT CHECK INTEREST ON DRUG ITEMS.

RUN OUT EACH READING DRUG, ALCOHOL OR MEDICINE ON THE DRUG LIST (IN ORDER OF READ) BY R3RA QUAD NARRATIVE FIRST. Otherwise, you can end up spinning the pc way down the track.

In running narrative on this lifetime drug. medicine or alcohol individual items you will find that it is easier to do if you run earlier beginning and earlier incident rather than attempt to limit him to the first this lifetime incident he comes up with, as there will usually be more than one incident when he took whiskey, for example. So you always ask earlier beginning but if it is necessary you ask earlier incident with the question, “Is there an earlier incident when you took whiskey?”

Pcs commonly tend to wind up way back down the whole track at this stage of their auditing and that is not what you’re aiming for here either. What you’re interested in is this lifetime, this body. But this doesn’t mean you don’t run track on the Drug Rundown; just don’t push it. And never insist the pc run any type of chain when he says there’s nothing there.

When all reading drugs, medicines, alcohols on the list have been run to EP by R3RA Narrative Quad, go on to the next step.

7. 	Preassessment on Each Reading Drug, Medicine or Alcohol Taken in This Lifetime.

A) 	Choose the best reading drug, alcohol or medicine from the Original Assessment Sheet and do a preassessment on it.

	“Are (preassessment item) connected with taking (the drug, medicine or alcohol)? “

	is the preassessment question.

B) 	Take the best reading preassessment item off the preassessment and ask the pc:

	“What (best reading preassessment item) are connected with taking (the drug, medicine, or alcohol)?”
	This is the running item list question for that particular drug. You write this question at the top of the page and write down exactly what the pc said, noting any read that occurred when he said it.

C) 	Take up the best reading running item (make sure you noted reads as the pc gave you the items) and run it R3RA Quad.

	DO NOT CHECK INTEREST ON DRUG ITEMS.

D) 	Handle all reading running items found in Step B in order of read with R3RA Quad.

E) 	Using that same original drug item repeat Step A.

F) 	Repeat Steps B to E.

Fa) 	Using the first original item continue Steps A. B. C, D, E until the Preassessment List simply F/Ns.

Fb) 	Take the next individual drug, medicine, or alcohol item that read on the original list and repeat Steps A to Fa on it until you have handled every item that read on the Original Assessment Sheet.

G) 	When there are no more items unhandled on the original list that read and no further items reading, but there are some unrun original items on the list, null with Suppress and Invalidate buttons.

H) 	Run any now reading items with Steps A to Fb.

I) 	Use up the whole list of drugs in this way, doing the preassessment and Steps B to H on all reading drugs. Reassess the drug list. Handle per above instructions any drug which now reads. This is done until the entire drug list F/Ns when called. (Note: If, during the rundown the pc thinks of other drugs he has taken in this lifetime, add them to the original list with their reads noted, and handle them in turn according to size of read, ensuring you run them R3RA Quad Narrative first. )

8. 	The Prior Assessment.

A) 	Using the drug list obtained on the Original Assessment, take up the largest reading drug, medicine or alcohol, ask the pc the following preassessment question:

	“Prior to taking (the best reading drug, medicine or alcohol), were there (preassessment item)?”

B) 	Take the best reading preassessment item and ask:

	“What (preassessment item) did you have prior to taking (the drug, medicine or alcohol)?”

C) 	Use full preassessment steps and run out all reading running items R3RA Quad.

D) 	Reassess any remaining unrun items found in Step B to see if they now read. If they do, run them. Also check for any more items the pc has to add to the list, and mark down their reads as the pc gives them.

E) 	Repeat above steps on any items that now read.

F) 	When there are no more items to add and no more items reading, but there are some unrun items on the list, null with Suppress and Invalidate buttons.
G) 	Run any now reading items R3RA Quad.

H) 	Reassess the Preassessment List, using the drug, medicine or alcohol in Step A. Follow remaining steps until all reading items are taken to EP and there are no further reads on reassessment of the Preassessment List.

I) 	Take up the next best reading drug, medicine or alcohol from Step A. Repeat Steps B to I.

	The above prior assessment steps are done on each drug, medicine or alcohol that has read. They are handled in order of largest read.

9. 	More Objectives.

	The final step of the Drug Rundown, when all above steps are fully complete. is to run another set of Objectives on the pc.

	These are:

	A) SOP 8C

	B) OP PRO BY DUP

	run in that order, each to its complete EP.

	This is done to bring the pc fully into present time. and it will be a present time which he is now far better able to confront.

_______

This completes the Drug Rundown.

The Sweat Out Program, if not yet complete by this time, is carried through to completion .

L. RON HUBBARD 
Founder

LRH:lfg.dr.jk 
Copyright © 1971, 1978,1979 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 AUGUST 1968
Issue II
Remimeo	            
FO
DRUGS

(Note: Drug taking has become very common
in the West, pushed by psychiatrists.)

It is possible to come off drugs without convulsions.

Drugs essentially are poisons. The degree they are taken determines the effect. A small amount gives a stimulant. A greater amount acts as a sedative. A larger amount acts as a poison and can kill one dead.

This is true of any drug. Each has a different amount. Caffeine is a drug. So Coffee is an example. 100 cups of coffee would probably kill a person. 10 cups would probably put him to sleep. 2 or 3 cups stimulates. This is a very common drug. It is not very harmful as it takes so much of it to have an effect so it is known as a stimulant.

Arsenic is known as a poison. Yet a tiny amount of arsenic is a stimulant, a good sized dose puts one to sleep and a few grains kills one dead.

But there are some drugs which have another factor. They directly affect the reactive bank. Marijuana (pot), peyote, morphine, heroin, etc. turn on the pictures one is stuck in. And they turn them on too hard to audit out.

LSD-25 is a psychiatric drug designed to make schizophrenics out of normal people. It is evidently widely distributed by psychiatrists. It looks like cube sugar and is easily made.

Drugs are considered valuable by addicts to the degree that they produce some “desirable effect”.

But they are dangerous to those around because a person on drugs

(a) 	has blank periods
(b) 	has unrealities and delusions that remove him from PT
(c) 	is very hard to audit.

Thus a drug taker can be holding a boat alongside, go into one of his blanks, think he is on Venus and let go.

A drug taker left on watch may go blank and miss a menacing situation and not handle it because he is “somewhere else”.

Giving an order to a drug taker can be grim as he may simply stand and stare at one. He ARC breaks anyone with it.

It takes about six weeks apparently for LSD to wear off. After that a person can be audited. But it ruins his case to a marked degree as it builds up ridges which don’t as-is well.

A drug or alcohol burns up the Vitamin B1 in the system rapidly. This increased speed of burning up B1 adds to his “happy state”. But now his system is out of B1 so he goes depressed.

To avoid convulsions take lots of B1 daily when coming off drugs.

And wait for six weeks before one is audited.

And then lay off. It’s a pretty poor trick on those who are dependent on one and get let down.

LRH:jp.ei.rd							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright ©1968						Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 AUGUST 1968
Remimeo	  
(Corrected & reissued 10 June 1975
as contained a misprint in para 4)

DRUG DATA

LSD-25 is a colourless, odourless, tasteless and virtually undetectable derivative of a rye mould called ergot. The use of sugar cubes as a medium was discontinued several years ago. Dosage is fantastically small, 50 to 1000 micrograms per dose, so capsules and tablets are used to reduce evaporation. Price varies from 3 to 7 dollars and it is only sold on the black market. Prior to 1964 the drug was administered by psychologists and psychiatrists. However, it is now illegal for them to do so. Despite its illegal status, LSD is very popular among teenagers and college students. An entire sub-culture of psychedelic (mind-manifesting) posters, light shows, and electronic music has emerged on the West Coast. Most of the Pop music has hidden drug references. A recent survey indicated that over 50% of the students graduating from the Los Angeles City School System had tried either LSD or marijuana.

Marijuana is the most popular of the psychedelic drugs. One ounce may be readily purchased for $10 and will furnish 30-50 cigarettes or “joints”. A smoker quickly progresses from the one ounce “lids” to purchasing a “brick” or “kilo”. This is a kilogram (2.2 lbs) and sells for $75 to $150. Marijuana may be easily identified. It has a strong characteristic odour which is similar to fresh hay or wet, freshly cut grass. Smoking some tea leaves, rolled up into a cigarette will give you a good stable datum for identifying marijuana odour. Marijuana may be physically identified as a green or greenish brown tobacco with varying amounts of brown stems and small round seeds.

Hashish, like marijuana, comes from the female hemp plant, Cannabis sativa. When matured, the plant is hung upside down and resins collect which are dried into hashish. One gram of hashish sells for $10 and will supply 10 to 30 “hits” or periods of being “high”. Hashish is brown, tan, or black and is usually kept in tin foil. Users of both hashish and marijuana will have bloodshot eyes while under the influence. Someone under LSD may be identified by very dilated pupils.

Peyote “buttons” are several inches in diameter and come from the peyote cactus of S.W. America. The pure form of the drug is a synthetic (white) or natural (brown) powder called mescaline. A beefed-up version of this drug was recently made available but was, as of June 1968, unnamed.

Another new drug is STP. This drug is much more powerful than even LSD. As of June 1968, STP was waning in use as people found its results too unpredictable.

One other drug worth mentioning is DMT. This drug is smoked or injected and has immediate effects which end in about an hour. It may be identified by an odour similar to moth balls and is either a white powder or soaked into a medium such as pot or tobacco.

Marijuana is basically a very mild drug which creates euphoria. Also it has the unpleasant consequence of distorting the senses of the user to the point that people on “trips” have been known to open the door of a car going 80 mph and step out “since they could walk faster”.

The remaining psychedelic drugs are much more powerful and will strongly influence a pc.

It was found in L.A. that over a period of several months (4-6) every single income slump was traced to the accidental acceptance of one or more drug (LSD, etc) users into the Academy and/or HGC and traced as well to the spreading waves of chaos in attempts to handle their “disagreements” with the tech, demands for special handling and no case gain.

The “trips” that a drug user goes on tend to produce stuck points on the track with much fixation of attention on that area. Bad “trips” tend to act like Super Engrams collapsing the track at that point.

Users of drugs cannot as-is, do not get TA, nor do they have cognitions.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
								Founder
LRH:nt.rdjh	
Copyright © 1968, 1975
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 MAY 1969
Remimeo
Dian Checksheet
DRUG AND ALCOHOL CASES
PRIOR  ASSESSING

Those cases which have been long and habitually on drugs and alcohol sometimes suffer from a “SOMATIC SHUT-OFF”. They appear anaesthetized (unfeeling) and sometimes have “nothing troubling them” whereas they are on drugs, drink and are in reality in a suppressed physical condition and cannot cease to take drugs or drink.

One can find, in such a case, a very high TA which doesn’t seem to reduce. The TA can be brought down by auditing the drug and alcohol engrams as a chain.

However, there is another approach.

Any such case took up drugs or alcohol because of unwanted pain or sensation or misemotion. You can use that as a stable datum which resolves the situation.

All it requires is a special assessment called a PRIOR ASSESSMENT. For the person looked on drugs or alcohol as a cure for unwanted feelings. One has to assess what was wrong before or prior to the cure.

You determine if the person is on drugs or alcohol habitually. If so you determine which was earlier.

Now you ask for and list the pains, sensations, emotions or feelings he or she had before taking drugs or alcohol.

In doing this assessment, you must grab the read and mark it plainly as it occurs. If you just list and then go over the list the person may be back in present time and, as these are now cut off by the masses of drug or alcohol engrams on top of them, they won’t read again. So you must catch the read as the person first mentions it.

You choose the longest read and find and run the chain by R-3R as in any other Standard Dianetic auditing.

The only difference is the assessment time period. You are listing for a time before they went on drugs or alcohol.

The running out of the chain of unwanted feelings they had before going on drugs or alcohol removes the reason they started taking drugs, smoking marijuana or drinking. The compulsion to still use drugs or drink is lessened and they can come off it.

This can also be used as a working rule to get earlier than any “curative” activity. Almost anything which comes later is a cure for something earlier. It could be said that the present time being is a compound of past cures. To handle, the action would be the same as for drugs or alcohol. List the unwanted pains or feelings before the cure and run the longest reads by R-3R.

As there will be more than one chain involved, you of course take your next longest read and run that next, just as in any assessment.

The general term for this type of assessment is PRIOR Assessing, not because it is done before auditing but to determine what the pc was suffering from before he used a harmful “cure”.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 OCTOBER 1969

Remimeo
Dn Checksheet
Class VIII Chksht

DRUGS,
ASPIRIN AND TRANQUILIZERS

I have just made a real breakthrough on the action of painkillers (known as aspirin, tranquilizers, hypnotics, soporifics).

It has never been known in chemistry or medicine exactly how or why these things worked. Such compositions are derived by accidental discoveries that “such and so depresses pain”.

The effects of existing compounds are not uniform in result and often have very bad side effects.

As the reason they worked was unknown very little advance has been made in biochemistry. If the reason they worked were known and accepted possibly chemists could develop some actual ones which had minimal side effects.

We will leave the fact that this could be the medical biochemical discovery of the century and let the Nobel prizes continue to go to the inventors of nose-drops and new ways to kill and simply ourselves use it. Biochemical tech is not up to the point at this time that it can utilize it.

Pain or discomfort of a psychosomatic nature comes from Mental Image Pictures. These are created by the thetan or living beings and impinge or press against the body.

By actual clinical test, the actions of aspirin and other pain depressants are to

A. 	INHIBIT THE ABILITY OF THE THETAN TO CREATE MENTAL IMAGE PICTURES and also

B. 	TO IMPEDE THE ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY OF NERVE CHANNELS.

Both of these facts have a vital effect on processing.

If you process someone who has lately been on drugs, including aspirin, you will not be able to run out the Dianetic engram chains properly because they are not being fully created.

If you process someone immediately after taking aspirin for instance, you probably will not be able to find or assess the somatics that need to be run out to handle the condition. For the next day after taking the aspirin or drug the mental image pictures may not be fully available.

In the case of chronic drug taking, the drugs must be wholly worn off and out of the system and the engrams of drug taking must be run out in their entirety, triple flow. If this is not done, auditing will be trying to handle chains that aren’t being fully created by the thetan.

In the case of auditing someone who has taken drugs—aspirin, etc—within the last few hours or two or three days, the chains of engrams definitely will be found not fully created and therefore not available.
This would all be fine except for three things:

1. 	Auditing under these conditions is very difficult. The TA may be high and will not come down. One gets “erasures” at TA 4.0 with an “F/N”. Auditing errors become easy to make. The bank (chains) is jammed.

2. 	The thetan is rendered STUPID, blank, forgetful, delusive, irresponsible. A thetan gets into a “wooden” sort of state, unfeeling, insensitive, unable and definitely not trustworthy, a menace to his fellows actually.

3. 	When the drugs wear off or start to wear off the ability to create starts to return and TURNS ON SOMATICS MUCH HARDER. One of the answers a person has for this is MORE drugs. To say nothing of heroin, there are, you know, aspirin addicts. The compulsion stems from a desire to get rid of the somatics and unwanted sensations again. There is also something of dramatization of the engrams already gotten from earlier drug taking. The being gets more and more wooden, requiring more and more quantity and more frequent use.

Sexually it is common for someone on drugs to be very stimulated at first. This is the “procreate before death” impulse as drugs are a poison. But after the original sexual “kicks” the stimulation of sexual sensation becomes harder and harder to achieve. The effort to achieve it becomes obsessive while it itself is less and less satisfying.

The cycle of drug restimulation of pictures (or creation in general) can be at first to increase creation and then eventually to inhibit it totally.

If one were working on this biochemically the least harmful pain depressant would be one that inhibited the creation of mental image pictures with minimal resulting “woodenness” or stupidity and which was body soluble so that it passed rapidly out of the nerves and system. There are no such biochemical preparations at this time.

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

These tests and experiments tend to prove that the majority of pain and discomfort does come from mental image pictures and that these are immediately created.

Erasure of a mental image picture by Standard Dianetic processing removes the compulsion to create it.

Drugs chemically inhibit the creation but inhibit as well the erasure. When the drug has worn off the picture audited while it was in force can return.

The E-Meter Tone Arm under drugs or on a drug case can go very high—TA 4.0 TA 5.0. It can also be dropped to “dead thetan” (a false clear read).

Auditing a person on drugs can obtain an “erasure” and “F/N” at TA 4.0. But the erasure is only apparent and must be “rehabbed” (verified or redone) when the person is off drugs.

Any habitual drug taker applying for auditing while still on drugs should be given a six weeks “drying out” period, off drugs this whole time, and then the drug taking (by somatic or sensation of drugs or prior assessment to drugs—preferably both) must be run out as an early auditing action.

A person who has taken aspirin or other drugs within the past 24 hours or the past week, should be given a week to “dry out” before auditing of any kind is given.

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

It is not fatal to audit over drugs. It is just difficult, the results may not be lasting and need to be verified afterwards.

Chronic drug takers who have not had drugs specifically handled may go back to drugs after auditing as they were too drugged during auditing to get rid of what was bothering them and which drove them to drugs.

With the enemies of various countries using widespread drug addiction as a defeatist mechanism, with painkillers so easily available and so ineffective, drugs is a serious auditing problem.

It can be handled. But when aspirin, that innocent seeming painkiller, can produce havoc in auditing if not detected, the subject needs care and knowledge.

The above data will keep the auditor clear of the pitfalls of this hazard.

To paraphrase an old quote, we used to have iron men and wooden ships. We now have a drug society and wooden citizens.

I’ve been studying this for over a year and a half and have made the breakthrough.

Drug companies would be advised to do better research.

And auditors are advised to ask any pc, “Have you been taking any drugs or aspirin?”

The medical aspect is an understandable wish to handle pain. Doctors should press for better drugs to do this that do not have such lamentable side effects. The formula of least harmfulness is above.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH: ldm.ei.rd 
Copyright © 1969 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 3 JULY 1978R
REVISED 22 SEPTEMBER 1978
Remimeo
(Revisions in this type style)

New Era Dianetics Series 10R

RELIEF RUNDOWN

Where the Original Assessment Sheet has shown losses by death or other severe changes in a person’s life such as losses of position or pets or objects it will be found that the person’s life changed for the worse at that point. (See Sections F. G. H. and I of HCOB 24 June 78R New Era Dianetics Series 5R Original Assessment Sheet.)

The auditor spots these points of change either on the Original Assessment Sheet or by asking the preclear. These points are then run Narrative R3RA Quad.

If the Narrative R3RA Quad does not clean it up fully one goes to the preassessment step of New Era Dianetics Series 4R and carries on from there, but do not do this until the narrative is fully handled.

In running such incidents narrative it will be found that the clue to erasure lies in locating earlier beginnings each time the pc has been moved through the incident. It will be found that the pc finds earlier and earlier moments when he received the information that then built up to a catastrophe. This can even go back to a dream or a telepathic awareness or a premonition that the incident was going to occur. Narrative erasures often depend utterly on finding, after each run through, if there was any earlier beginning.

If the incident starts to grind (no change of TA or content) despite having repeatedly searched for an earlier beginning only then do you go into an earlier narrative incident but do so with caution as most narratives expertly run will erase all by themselves and running a chain of deaths for instance can go back an awfully long way.

When all such great changes in a person’s life have been found and erased the person should experience a considerable sense of relief about life.

If he does not, then treat the narrative, even though handled as a narrative, as an original item and preassess it to find other running items connected with it and treat it with R3RA full handling. Also do this if the narrative grinds and there is trouble going earlier.

Narrative chains properly run produce dramatic and miraculous case changes.

L. RON HUBBARD 
Founder 

LRH:rb.nc 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 JULY 1978
Remimeo
All Auditors
(Cancels BTB 9 Aug 1970R, Rev 10 June t974,
Dianetic Student Rescue Intensive.)

New Era Dianetics Series 11

DIANETIC STUDENT RESCUE INTENSIVE

Dianetic Student Rescue Intensive. This is an optional step to be taken if your pc is having any trouble with study.

The steps are very simple:

	1. 	Assess:	Being Trained	Stress
	Being Educated	Education
	Study	Schools
	Learning	Teachers
	Examination	Enforcement
	Misunderstoods

for best read.

2. 	Do a preassessment on the largest reading item from Step 1.

3. 	Find the running item, using standard preassessment procedure (ref. NED Series 4).

4. 	Run out the item you have found in Step 3 R3RA Quad.

5. 	Repeat the preassessment on the original item found in Step 1, and repeat the following steps 3 and 4 on that item.

6. 	Continue reassessing the Preassessment List on the original item and running out R3RA Quad the best reading running item until there are no further reads on the preassessment of that original item.

The intensive should be concluded when the pc is now happy about study.

L. RON HUBBARD 
Founder 

LRH:rb 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 4 JULY 1978R
REVISED 22 SEPTEMBER 1978
Remimeo
(Revisions in this type style)

(Cancels HCOB 16 April 1969, HEALTH FORM, USE OF, and PASTORAL COUNSELING HEALTH FORM, Revised 22 July 69 and HCOB 19 May 1969, HEALTH FORM, USE OF, A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF AUDITING.)

	Ref:	HCOB 24 Jun 78R	New Era Dianetics Series 5R
			ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT SHEET
		HCOB 25 Jun 78R	New Era Dianetics Series 8R
			DIANETICS, BEGINNING A PC ON
		HCOB 18 Jun 78R	New Era Dianetics Series 4R
			ASSESSMENT AND HOW TO GET THE ITEM
		HCOB 26 Jun 78RA	New Era Dianetics Series 7RA
			ROUTINE 3RA, ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS

New Era Dianetics Series 12R

SECOND ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT

At the point in the New Era Dianetics Program, when the pc has fully completed his Drug Rundown and handled the items on the Original Assessment Sheet, the Original Assessment Sheet is REDONE.

The Second Original Assessment Sheet gives a comparison. The somatics and pains not mentioned in the second assessment can be considered to be gone.

A second form done gives the auditor and the C/S an indication of the actual improvement.

Additionally, the pc’s memory will have improved if you’ve done a good job of auditing.

So we reassess the Original Assessment Sheet and handle any additional items which come up.

In assessing this list the second time, mark SECOND ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT across the top of the sheet.

It is important to give your pc an R-Factor at this stage so he’ll not feel invalidated by doing this form again.

Let him know that you will be asking him questions from the Original Assessment Sheet for the purpose of picking up any new items which he may now remember and to make sure you’ve handled all the charge on the items you have already taken up. Ask him to answer each question as fully as he can even if he has already given the information in a previous session.

Handle the items on the Second Original Assessment according to the directions for handling the Original Assessment Sheet, HCOB 24 June 1978R New Era Dianetics Series 5R, THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT SHEET.

LRH:lfg.dr	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1978 	Founder 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 JULY 1978

Remimeo

New Era Dianetics Series 13

THE DIANETIC PREPARED ASSESSMENT RUNDOWN
ACTION FOURTEEN

Many chains, locks, secondaries and engrams are available on any pc. But some of them are beyond the pc’s reality and ability and some of them are too featherweight to get any case gain. This rundown is designed to locate items that can be run R3RA. It is called the Dianetic Prepared Assessment Rundown.

EARLIER ASSESSMENT DONE

The very earliest assessment (1948) used was “What the pc could see” when he closed his or her eyes. This was then run.

This was followed by an arbitrary method of assigning necessary incidents to be run such as birth and prenatals.

The next earliest assessment (1949) was to ask each time for “the incident necessary to resolve the case.” An automaticity known as the “File Clerk” was depended upon, impinged on by finger snapping.

The next period (1951) concerned whole track exploration running whatever you could get to read on a meter.

The next period (1952) concerned overt engrams located by what the pc seemed to be doing physically.

This ended the Dianetic period when engrams were run to clear a case.

Variations of these assessments were revived from time to time in Dianetic uses, culminating in the 5th ACC where overt engrams were run with confront and great stress was laid on getting the postulates out of them. The meter and shrewd guesses played their part in assessments.

Significance and story content have no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of a chain selected. They are entirely incidental to judging the correctness of a chain.

1. 	The first action of this RD is to assess the following list:

infirmity	________
sickness 	________
being unwell 	________
bad feelings	________
unpleasant feelings 	________
disagreeable feelings	________

soreness	________	panic	________
hurting	________	apprehension	________
ailment	________	qualms	________
complaint	________	alarm	________
a malady	________	timidity	________
a disorder	________	physical disabilities	________
damaged body parts	________	casualty	________
hurt body parts	________	distress	________
disabled body parts	________	bodily affliction	________
skin irritation	________	defective body parts	________
skin disorder	________	allergies	________
unwanted feelings	________	relatives	________
dental problems	________	jobs	________
an unwanted body condition	________	environment	________
unwanted states of the body	________	this area	________
an unwanted manner	________	upsets	________
depression	________	problems	________
infection	________	children	________
unwanted behavior	________	marriage	________
injuries	________	smells	________
mishap	________	machinery	________
perception troubles	________	matter	________
loss of a loved one	________	energy	________
impulses	________	space	________
crimes	________	time	________
urges	________	orgs	________
restraints	________	Dianetics	________
frights	________	Scientology	________
anxiety	________	auditors	________

terror	________	auditing	________
horror	________	preclears	________

2. 	You then take an item found as above and ask the pc to describe it briefly. Ask him, “In your own words briefly describe (item that read).”

3. 	Use the exact wording the pc gave you in 2. Treat that wording as an original item exactly as though it had been obtained on the Original Assessment List NED Series 5.

4. 	Handle the items in 3 above exactly as you would handle any original item or items in NED Series 4 (Assessment and How to Get the Item).

5. 	Exhaust all reading items on the above prepared list.

6. 	Reassess the prepared list and do 2 to 5 above.

7. 	When this prepared list no longer gives reads and only F/Ns you have finished Action Fourteen.

L3RE

If you run into any trouble an L3RE should be done immediately.

Done correctly, with standard R3RA and flawless metering the gains from this rundown will not be small.

L. RON HUBBARD 
Founder 

LRH:rb 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 JUNE 1978
Remimeo
All Auditors

New Era Dianetics Series 14

DISABILITY RUNDOWN

This rundown is done by getting the pc to give you anything he considers a disability, mental, physical or otherwise.

This list can include anything from a withered foot to being too small to not being able to learn French.

Make a list of all items the pc gives you ensuring you get the meter read as the pc gives you the item.

Take the largest reading item and do a full preassessment on it. Check interest and handle each reading item from the preassessment Quad R3RA. Take up the next biggest reading disability and do a preassessment and handling on it.

Reassess/add to the original list. Use Suppress and Invalidate buttons as needed.

When you have exhausted the list of all reading disabilities and the pc says there are no more disabilities this rundown is complete.

L. RON HUBBARD 
Founder 

LRH:lfg.dr 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 JUNE 1978
Remimeo
All Auditors
New Era Dianetics Series 15

IDENTITY RUNDOWN

We have never before had a Dianetic process specifically directed to getting a pc into valence. This result has occasionally been achieved by Standard Dianetics as one of many miracles produced, but previous to this there has been no Dianetic RD which specifically lends itself to handling valences.

You can, of course, order them into valence in an incident but that isn’t in the realm of R3RA.

PROCEDURE

1. 	Have the pc make a list of all the things he has never wanted to have.

2. 	Do preassessment on those that read in 1. Quad R3RA reading items, first checking interest.

3. 	Have the pc list all the things he has never wanted to do.

4. 	Do preassessment on those that read in 3. Quad R3RA reading items, first checking interest.

5. 	Have the pc list all of the things he has never wanted to be.

6. 	Do preassessment on those items that read in 5. Quad R3RA reading items, first checking interest.

The end phenomena of this process is when the pc originates that he is in valence, or some similar remark such as for the first time he feels himself.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH: lfg 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 JUNE 1978R
REVISED 22 SEPTEMBER 1978

Remimeo
(Revisions in this type style)
(Ellipses indicate deletions)

New Era Dianetics Series 16R

PRECLEAR CHECKLIST

INFORMATION: When a pc is ready to start Dianetics this form must be filled out with his name and commencing date and kept in the front of the pc folder.

It is his advanced program.

As each step of Dianetics is done, the auditor plus C/S must attest by that step that this pc has done the step thoroughly per HCOB 22 June 1978R New Era Dianetics Series 2R, New Era Dianetics Full PC Program Outline.

When all steps have been run and completed, the pc’s Dianetic folders, with this checklist included, get sent to the Qual Sec for full verification and attest before the pc is allowed to attest to Dianetic Case Completion.

After a grace period of 3 weeks after the date of this issue it will be a commevable offense for the auditor, C/S and Qual Sec to let any pc attest to Dianetic Case Completion without having thoroughly completed EACH step of this checklist.

PC NAME	STARTING DATE______________
ORG	COMPLETION DATE ___________

AUDITOR(s)__________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

		Auditor	C/S	Qual Sec
		Attest	Attest	Attest

STEP ONE:	Original Assess
	ment Sheet	________	________	________

STEP TWO:	PTSness Handled	________	________	________

STEP THREE:	Objective ARC	________	________	________

STEP FOUR:	Sweat Program	________	________	________

STEP FIVE:	Objectives (CCHs
	1-10, . . . SCS on
	an Object, SCS,..)	________	________	________

	Auditor	C/S	Qual Sec
	Attest	Attest	Attest

STEP SIX:	Hard TRs	________	________	________

STEP SEVEN:	Dianetic CS-1	________	________	________

STEP EIGHT:	Drug Rundown	________	________	________

STEP EIGHT-A:	More Objectives
	(SOP 8C and Op
	Pro by Dup.)	________	________	________

STEP NINE:	Relief Rundown	________	________	________

STEP TEN:	(Optional) Picture
	& Masses Remedy	________	________	________

	Past Life Remedy	________	________	________

STEP ELEVEN:	Complete Handling
	on Original Assess
	ment Sheet	________	________	________

STEP TWELVE:	Second Original
	Assessment Sheet	________	________	________

STEP THIRTEEN:	(Optional) Student
	Rescue Intensive	________	________	________

STEP FOURTEEN:	Prepared Assess
	ment Form	________	________	________

STEP FIFTEEN:	Disability Rundown ________	________	________

STEP SIXTEEN:	Identity Rundown	________	________	________

STEP SEVENTEEN: 	(Optional) Auditing 
	Out Sessions	________	________	________

STEP EIGHTEEN: 	After full attest 
	From Qual Sec— 
	PC DECLARE	________	________	________

L. RON HUBBARD 
Founder

LRH: lfg. dr 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JUNE 1978

Remimeo
NEW ERA DIANETICS
SERIES 1

New Era Dianetics is a summary and refinement of Dianetics based upon 30 years of experience in the application of the subject.

In that 30 years I have found much that could improve results if properly applied.

And in that 30 years, many issues have been written by others that were a bit altered and some materials have been lost. New Era Dianetics corrects these points.

Also, recently, I have done additional research and have come up with a few breakthroughs.

In 1950, I said we should build a better Bridge.

Well, in 1978, here is a better Dianetics section of the Bridge.

Old-timers in Dianetics will only approve these upgrades. There is no invalidation of what they know already to be true. But there are refinements about which they are jumping with joy.

New Era Dianetics is even more acceptable, even more workable.

I did this review to move Dianetics back into the “miracles as usual” band and the student studying it and the auditor practicing it will find that if he follows its precision drills with precision he will be able to handle life and the spirit as never before.

Of course I cannot claim or guarantee that anyone audited on Dianetics or New Era Dianetics will become cured of illnesses which would best be handled by immediate medical treatment and I cannot promise any pc that all of his undesirable conditions will be eradicated since that depends on the state of training and the accuracy of application by the student.

THE STUDENT

What does a student need to know and do to acquire the skill of a Dianetic auditor?

0. 	The student needs to have completed the Student Hat. He needs to be able to handle study tech. Without that, his misunderstood words will wipe him out. Study tech is contained in the Student Hat. The definitions are in the Tech and Admin dictionaries and standard dictionaries. The student must not go by a single word he does not know the definition of.

1. 	He should know the background of Dianetics as contained in several books on the subject, particularly the Original Thesis and Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.

2. 	He needs an E-Meter and must know how to handle it.

3. 	He should have good TRs as acquired in a TR course.

4. 	He should have a good grasp of Objective Processes, both to make him a better auditor, and to enable him to do full Drug Rundowns.

Objectives are actually Scientology processing but if a Dianetic auditor doesn’t know and cannot do them he is dependent on a Scientology auditor to finish up the Drug Rundown.

The training of a Dianetic auditor in Objectives is not as complete as a Scientology auditor’s. But it is sufficient to enable him to do those Objective Processes necessary to get a person off drugs or to get him in condition to run Dianetic processes.

5. 	He should have a good grasp of the materials of New Era Dianetics.

6. 	He should be able to make and assess lists of Dianetic items as called for in specific assessments of a preclear in order to complete rundowns and preclears.

7. 	He must be able to do TR 101 to 104 flawlessly. using the commands of New Era Dianetics.

8. 	He must know how to do Dianetic Assists.

9. 	He must be able to assess and handle a Dianetic Repair List and do repair actions.

10. 	He must be able to handle Dianetic remedies and all other actions called for in a complete Dianetic course or processing.

11. 	He needs to be able to apply what he knows.

If the student can acquire the above skills he will achieve fine results.

It does not require mile long checksheets to make a good Dianetic auditor.

It does require study and hard effective drilling.

And it requires a desire to help oneself and others and really make a better Bridge and a better world by putting it there in terms of faultless application.

Scientology goes on and is above Dianetics. But Dianetics is the solid base of all this research. So learn and apply it well.

L. RON HUBBARD 
Founder 

LRH: ldv 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 JUNE 1978RA
Remimeo	REVISED 4 SEPTEMBER 1978
All Auditors	RE-REVISED 15 SEPTEMBER 1978

(Revisions in this type style)

New Era Dianetics Series 7RA

IMPORTANT: 	Included in the vital revisions of this Bulletin is a change in the order of R3RA commands.

R3RA COMMANDS

This is a short list on R3RA commands.

STEP 1: 	“Locate a time when you had_______ .”

STEP 2: 	“When was it?” (Note: You accept any time or date or approximation the pc gives you. Do not attempt any dating drill.)

STEP 3: 	“Move to that incident.” (This step is omitted if the pc keeps telling you he is there already.)

STEP 4: 	“What is the duration of that incident?” (Accept any duration the pc gives you or any statement he makes about it. Do not attempt to meter him a more accurate duration.)

STEP 5: 	“Move to the beginning of that incident and tell me when you are there.”

STEP 6: 	“What do you see?” (If the pc’s eyes are open, tell the pc first, “Close your eyes,” acknowledge him quietly for doing so and then give him the command.)

STEP 7: 	“Move through that incident to a point (duration pc said) later.”

STEP 8: 	If pc comments before reaching the end say “OK, continue.”

STEP 9: 	When pc has reached the end of the incident ask “What happened?”

If the TA has risen (from its position at Step 1) the auditor immediately checks for an earlier incident (Step G). If no earlier incident, he asks for an earlier beginning to the incident (Step H).

If the TA is the same or lower, he runs the incident through again (Step A).

In going through an incident the second or successive times one DOES NOT ask for date and duration or any description.

A. 	(When the pa has told what happened and the auditor has acknowledged) “Move to the beginning of that incident and tell me when you are there.”

B. 	“Move through to the end of that incident.”

C. 	(When the pa has done so) “Tell me what happened.”

Ca. 	“Is that incident erasing or going more solid?” (TA rising means the: incident has gone more solid so the question is unnecessary if TA is higher.)

If the incident is erasing, go through it again (Step D).

If it has gone more solid, ask for an earlier incident (Step G) and if no earlier incident, ask for an earlier beginning (Step H).

D. 	“Return to the beginning of that incident and tell me when you are there.”

E. 	“Move through to the end of that incident.”

F. 	“Tell me what happened.”

Fa. 	“Is that incident erasing or going more solid?” (TA rising means the incident has gone more solid so the question is unnecessary if TA is higher.)

If the incident is erasing, go through it again (Step D).

If it has gone more solid, ask for an earlier incident (Step G) and if no earlier incident, ask for an earlier beginning (Step H).

G. 	“Is there an earlier incident when you had a (exact same somatic)?”

	Continue on down the chain of the SAME somatic using Steps 2-9, A, B. C, D, E, F. G. H and EYE.

H. 	“Is there an earlier beginning to this incident?” or “Does the one we are running start earlier?” or “Does there seem to be an earlier starting point to this incident?”

	(If not, give command D and put the pc through the incident again. If there is an earlier beginning, give command EYE.)

EYE. “Go to the new beginning of that incident and tell me when you are there.” (Followed by B. C.)

When it appears that you have reached the basic incident of the chain and that it is erasing, after each pass through, ask:

“Has it erased?”

The pc sometimes thinks the incident is erasing but it’s not erasing, so you have to go back to your G. H. EYE, followed by 2-9, A-EYE. In some cases this can happen several times in one chain.

POSTULATE OFF EQUALS ERASURE

The postulate coming off is the EP of the chain and means that you have obtained an erasure. This will be accompanied by F/N and VGIs.

Getting the postulate is the important thing. Even if you get an F/N you don’t call the F/N UNTIL you’ve gotten the postulate, at which time you have reached the EP and end off on that chain.

If the pc says the chain has erased, but the postulate made during the time of the incident has not been volunteered by the pc ask:

“Did you make a postulate at the time of that incident?”

Only when the postulate has come off to F/N and VGIs can one consider that the full EP of a Dianetic incident or chain has been reached.

You must recognize what the postulate is when it comes up. If you overrun past the postulate you can really mess a pa up and he may need extensive repair. All you’re trying to get off the line is the postulate. That is what is keeping the chain there.

If the pc has given the postulate to F/N and VGIs, that is it. You have the EP of that chain.

GOING EARLIER

Ordinarily one runs an incident through twice, (Steps 1-9 then A-C), to unburden it and allow the pc to locate earlier incidents on the chain.

However, the TA rising on Step 9 is an indication that there is something earlier. If the auditor observes the TA rising, he should ask the pc if there is an earlier incident, using in the command the exact same somatic or feeling used in Step One. If there is no earlier he asks if there is an earlier beginning.

An auditor should never solidify a pc’s bank by putting him through an incident TWICE, when by observation of the TA it is c/ear that the incident has gone more solid by the end of the FIRST run through.

Checking for an earlier incident after the first run through (if the TA has risen) is the solution to this.

If, after the second pass through, when you have asked the pc “Is the incident erasing or going more solid?” and the pc doesn’t know or isn’t sure, ask for an earlier incident.

Never ask erasing/solid in the middle of an incident.

BOUNCERS

If the pc is out of the session, out of the incident, bounces from the incident, etc. you would have to have him or her RETURN to the beginning of the incident and move through the incident, returning the pc to the incident as necessary.

The pc who bounces out of an incident on a “bouncer” has to be put back into the incident and continue running it.

The commands to do this are: As soon as you have seen that the pc has bounced give him command D (“Return to the beginning of that incident and tell me when you are there.”), followed with E, F. Fa.

FLOWS 2, 3 AND 0

FLOW 2:

STEP ONE:	“Locate an incident of your causing another_____(the exact somatic or feeling in Flow 1).”

STEP G:	“Is there an earlier incident of your causing another_____(the exact somatic or feeling used in Flow 1)?”

FLOW 3:
STEP ONE:	“Locate an incident of others causing others _____(plural of the somatic or feeling used in Flow 1).”

STEP G.:	“Is there an earlier incident of others causing others_____ (plural of the exact somatic or feeling used in Flow 1)?”

FLOW 0:

STEP ONE:	“Locate an incident of you causing yourself_____(the exact somatic or feeling used in Flow 1).”

STEP G:	“Is there an earlier incident of you causing yourself_____(the exact somatic or feeling used in Flow 1)?”

The commands for Narrative are:

FLOW 1:

STEP ONE:	“Return to the time you (specific incident) and tell me when you are there.”

Steps 2-9 are followed (3 is omitted as you have already got the pc to the incident by giving him the first command, “Return to the time....”).

Earlier beginning (Step H) is checked after each run through the incident. If there is one, send the pc to the new beginning of the incident (Step EYE) then follow with Steps B and C.

If there is no earlier beginning, return the pc to the incident with Step A, followed by B and C, again checking earlier beginning (Step H) at the end of each run through the incident. On third and subsequent runs through the incident use Steps D, E, F. making certain to check for earlier beginning after each pass through, and only when the pc is obviously starting to grind and gets no place does one then use the command, “Is there an earlier similar incident?”

FLOW 2:

STEP ONE:	“Return to the time you caused another to/a (specific incident) and tell me when you are there.”

Steps 2-9 are followed (3 is omitted as you have already got the pc to the incident by giving him the first command, “Return to the time.... “).

Earlier beginning (Step H) is checked after each run through the incident. If there is one, send the pc to the new beginning of the incident (Step EYE) then follow with Steps B and C.

If there is no earlier beginning, return the pc to the incident with Step A, followed by B and C, again checking earlier beginning (Step H) at the end of each run through the incident. On third and subsequent runs through the incident use Steps D, E, F. making certain to check for earlier beginning after each pass through, and only when the pc is obviously starting to grind and gets no place does one then use the command, “Is there an earlier similar incident?”

FLOW 3:

STEP ONE:	“Return to the time others caused others to/a (specific incident) and tell me when you are there.”
Steps 2-9 are followed (3 is omitted as you have already got the pc to the incident by giving him the first command, “Return to the time....”).

Earlier beginning (Step H) is checked after each run through the incident. If there is one, send the pc to the new beginning of the incident (Step EYE) then follow with Steps B and C.

If there is no earlier beginning, return the pc to the incident with Step A, followed by B and C, again checking earlier beginning (Step H) at the end of each run through the incident. On third and subsequent runs through the incident use Steps D, E, F. making certain to check for earlier beginning after each pass through, and only when the pc is obviously starting to grind and gets no place does one then use the command, “Is there an earlier similar incident?”

FLOW 0:

STEP ONE:	“Return to the time you caused yourself to (specific incident) and tell me when you are there.”

Steps 2-9 are followed (3 is omitted as you have already got the pc to the incident by giving him the first command, “Return to the time....”).

Earlier beginning (Step H) is checked after each run through the incident. If there is one, send the pc to the new beginning of the incident (Step EYE) then follow with Steps B and C.

If there is no earlier beginning, return the pc to the incident with Step A, followed by B and C, again checking earlier beginning (Step H) at the end of each run through the incident. On third and subsequent runs through the incident use Steps D, E, F. making certain to check for earlier beginning after each pass through, and only when the pc is obviously starting to grind and gets no place does one then use the command, “Is there an earlier similar incident?”

SECONDARIES

Secondaries are run with the same commands as R3RA. If they are narrative secondaries they are run with the same commands as Narrative R3RA engrams.

The earlier similar command is “Is there an earlier similar incident?”

ALWAYS RUN NARRATIVE INCIDENTS TRIPLE OR QUAD FLOW AS ABOVE.

Auditors must be thoroughly drilled on these commands until they have them down cold using TR 101, 102, 103 and 104.

This must be done before the auditor audits the pc on Dianetics.

L. RON HUBBARD 
Founder 

LRH:lfg.dr 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 JUNE 1978RA
Issue II
REVISED 4 SEPTEMBER 1978
RE-REVISED 15 SEPTEMBER 1978
Remimeo
All Auditors	(Revisions in this type style)
(Ellipsis indicates deletion)

CANCELS
HCOB 26 MAY 1978 Issue II
BTB 6 MAY 1969RA Issue II

New Era Dianetics Series 6RA

IMPORTANT: 	Included in the vital revisions of this bulletin are a change in the order of R3RA com mands and additional data on Dianetic EPs and postulates.

ROUTINE 3RA
ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS

	Ref:	HCOB 23 Apr 69RII	DIANETIC ERASURE & HOW TO ATTAIN
		HCOB 2 Dec 69R	RISING TA
		HCOB 28 May 69R	HOW NOT TO ERASE
		HCOB 23 May 69R	AUDITING OUT SESSIONS NARRATIVE
			VERSUS SOMATIC CHAINS
		HCOB 2 Apr 69RA	DIANETIC ASSISTS
		HCOB t3 Sep 78	R3RA ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS AND
			NARRATIVE R3RA—AN ADDITIONAL DIFFERENCE
		HCOB 16 Sep 78	POSTULATE OFF EQUALS ERASURE

The search to unravel the mystery of the human mind was so long and so complex that it had many turnings. Methods were changed so as to be perfected as understanding increased in the research line. Unfortunately this was taken advantage of by some of questionable intent. Because there had been changes and perfecting actions they could introduce unworkable changes that would go relatively undetected.

Probably this is the fate of all subjects and why Man is in a state of high material cultural achievement yet does not have really workable equipment and is in a terrible mess, surrounded on every hand by a failing material culture.

Probably the heaviest hat I’ve worn in recent years is the recovery of lost Dianetic and Scientology tech and eradicating and correcting alterations introduced into the subject by others.

Given a knowledge of the composition and behavior of the time track, engram running by chains is so simple that any auditor begins by overcomplication. You almost can’t get uncomplicated enough in engram running.

In teaching people to run engrams in 1949, my chief despair was summed up in one sentence to the group I was instructing: “All auditors talk too much.” And that’s the first lesson.

The second lesson is: “All auditors acknowledge too little.” Instead of cheerily acking what the pc said and saying “Continue,” auditors are always asking for more data and usually for more data than the pc could ever give. Example: Pc: “I see a house here.” Auditor: “Okay. How big is it?”

That’s not engram running, that’s just lousy “Q and A.”

The proper action is: Pc: “I see a house here.” Auditor: “Okay. Continue.”

The exceptions to this rule are non-existent. This isn’t a special brand of engram running. It is modern engram running. It was the first engram running and is the latest and you can put aside any complications in between.

The rule is ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT THE PC SAYS AND TELL HIM TO CONTINUE.

Then there’s the matter of being doubtful of control. Wrong example: Auditor: “Move to yesterday. Are you there? How do you know it’s yesterday? What do you see that makes you think....” FLUNK, FLUNK, FLUNK.

Right example: Auditor: “Move to the beginning of that incident and tell me when you are there.” (Pc answers.) “What do you see? . . . . . . . . . . Good.”

Another error is a failure to take the pc’s data. You take the pc’s data. Never take his orders.

EARLY ENGRAM RUNNING

No auditor who knew earlier than June 1978 engram running should consider he or she knows how to run engrams.

Routine 3RA is itself. It has no dependence on earlier methods of running engrams. Failure to study and learn R3RA “because one knows about engram running” will cause a lot of case failure.

If you know old-time engram running there is no attempt here to invalidate you or that knowledge or make you wrong in any way. Those are all ways to run engrams and gave you a better grasp on it. I only wish to call to your attention that R3RA is not old-time engram running.

ROUTINE 3RA

Engram running by chains is designated “Routine 3RA.”

It is a new triumph of simplicity. It does not demand visio, sonic or other perception at once by the pc. It develops them.

R3RA REVISED BY STEPS

The first thing the auditor does is to make sure the room and session are set up. This means, in other words, that the room is as comfortable as possible and free from interruptions and distractions; that the auditor’s meter is fully charged and set up and that the auditor has all the administrative supplies he will need for the session. Prepared correction lists for Dianetics must also be included.

He has the C/S for that session.

The pc is seated in the chair furthest from the door and is asked to pick up the cans.

The auditor checks that the pc has had enough to eat by doing the metabolism test and also checks that the pc has the correct sensitivity setting by having the pc squeeze the cans and adjusting the sensitivity knob so that the needle registers one third of a dial fall when squeezing the cans.

The auditor then starts the session by saying, “This is the session” (Tone 40).

The auditor then puts in the R (reality) factor with the pc by telling the pc briefly what he is going to do in the session.

PRELIMINARY STEP:

Establish the type of chain the pc is to run by assessment. Ref: HCOB 18 June 78 New Era Dianetics Series 4, ASSESSMENT AND HOW TO GET THE ITEM.

R3RA COMMANDS

FLOW 1:

STEP ONE:

Locate the first incident by the command “Locate a time when you had_____.”

STEP TWO:

“When was it?” You accept any time or date or approximation the pc gives you. Do not attempt any dating drill.

STEP THREE:

Move the pc to the incident with the exact command, “Move to that incident.” (This step is omitted if the pc keeps telling you he is there already.)

STEP FOUR:

“What is the duration of that incident?” Accept any duration the pc gives you or any statement he makes about it. Do not attempt to meter him a more accurate duration.

STEP FIVE:

Move the pc to the beginning of the incident with the exact command: “Move to the beginning of that incident and tell me when you are there.”

STEP SIX:

Ask pc what he or she is looking at with the exact command: “What do you see?” (If the pc’s eyes are open, tell the pc first, “Close your eyes,” acknowledge him quietly for doing so and then give him the command.)

STEP SEVEN:

“Move through that incident to a point (duration pc said) later.”

STEP EIGHT:

Ask nothing, say nothing, do nothing (except observe the meter or make quiet notes) while pc is going through the incident. If pc comments before reaching the end say “OK, continue.”

STEP NINE:

When the pc reaches the end of the incident say only: “What happened?”

Take whatever pc says, acknowledge only as needful. Say nothing else, ask nothing else. When pc has told little or much and has finished talking, give him a final acknowledgement .

If the TA has risen (from its position at Step 1) the auditor immediately checks for an earlier incident (Step G). If no earlier incident, he asks for an earlier beginning to the incident (Step H).

If the TA is the same or lower, he runs the incident through again (Step A).

In going through an incident the second or successive times one DOES NOT ask for date and duration or any description.

A. 	(When the pc has told what happened and the auditor has acknowledged) “Move to the beginning of that incident and tell me when you are there.”

B. 	“Move through to the end of that incident.”

C. 	(When the pc has done so) “Tell me what happened.”

Ca.	“Is that incident erasing or going more solid?” (TA rising means the incident has gone more solid so the question is unnecessary if TA is higher.)

	If the incident is erasing, go through it again (Step D).

	If it has gone more solid, ask for an earlier incident (Step G) and if no earlier incident, ask for an earlier beginning (Step H).

D. 	“Return to the beginning of that incident and tell me when you are there.”

E. 	“Move through to the end of that incident.”

F. 	“Tell me what happened.”

Fa.	“Is that incident erasing or going more solid?” (TA rising means the incident has gone more solid so the question is unnecessary if TA is higher.)

	If the incident is erasing, go through it again (Step D).

	If it has gone more solid, ask for an earlier incident (Step G) and if no earlier incident, ask for an earlier beginning (Step H).

G.	“Is there an earlier incident when you had a (exact same somatic)?”

	Continue on down the chain of the SAME somatic using Steps 2-9, A, B. C, D, E, F. G. H. and EYE.

H.	“Is there an earlier beginning to this incident?” or “Does the one we are running start earlier?” or “Does there seem to be an earlier starting point to this incident?”

	(If not, give command D and put the pc through the incident again. If there is an earlier beginning, give command EYE.)

EYE. “Go to the new beginning of that incident and tell me when you are there.” (Followed by B. C.)

POSTULATE OFF EQUALS ERASURE

When it appears that you have reached the basic incident of the chain and that it is erasing, after each pass through, ask:

“Has it erased?”

The pc sometimes thinks the incident is erasing but it’s not erasing, so you have to go back to your G. H. EYE followed by 2-9, A-EYE. In some cases this can happen several times in one chain.

The postulate coming off is the EP of the chain and means that you have obtained an erasure. This will be accompanied by F/N and VGIs.

Getting the postulate is the important thing. Even if you get an F/N you don’t call the F/N UNTIL you’ve gotten the postulate, at which time you have reached the EP and end off on that chain.

If the pc says the chain has erased, but the postulate made during the time of the incident has not been volunteered by the pa ask:

“Did you make a postulate at the time of that incident?”

Only when the postulate has come off to F/N and VGIs can one consider that the full EP of a Dianetic incident or chain has been reached.

You must recognize what the postulate is when it comes up. If you overrun past the postulate you can really mess a pc up and he may need extensive repair. All you’re trying to get off the line is the postulate. That is what is keeping the chain there.

If the pc has given the postulate to F/N and VGIs, that is it. You have the EP of that chain.

GOING EARLIER

Ordinarily one runs an incident through twice, (Steps 1-9 then A-C), to unburden it and allow the pa to locate earlier incidents on the chain.

However, the TA rising on Step 9 is an indication that there is something earlier. If the auditor observes the TA rising, he should ask the pc if there is an earlier incident, using in the command the exact same somatic or feeling used in Step One. If there is no earlier incident he asks if there is an earlier beginning.

An auditor should never solidify a pays bank by putting him through an incident TWICE, when by observation of the TA it is c/ear that the incident has gone more solid by the end of the FIRST run through.

Checking for an earlier incident after the first run through (if the TA has risen) is the solution to this.

If, after the second pass through, when you have asked the pc “Is the incident erasing or going more solid?” and the pc doesn’t know or isn’t sure, ask for an earlier incident.
Never ask erasing/solid in the middle of an incident.

BOUNCERS

If the pc is out of the session, out of the incident, bounces from the incident, etc., you would have to have him or her RETURN to the beginning of the incident and move through the incident, returning the pc to the incident as necessary.

The pc who bounces out of an incident on a “bouncer” has to be put back into the incident and continue running it.

The commands to do this are: As soon as you have seen that the pc has bounced give him command D (“Return to the beginning of that incident and tell me when you are there.”), followed with E, F. Fa.

FLOWS 2, 3 AND 0

Step One and Step G (going earlier) commands for Flows 2, 3 and 0 are:

FLOW 2:

STEP ONE:

	“Locate an incident of your causing another_____ (the exact somatic or feeling used in Flow 1).”

STEP G:

	“Is there an earlier incident of your causing another_____ (the exact somatic or feeling used in Flow 1)?”

FLOW 3:

STEP ONE:

	“Locate an incident of others causing others_____ (plural of the somatic or feeling used in Flow 1). “

STEP G:

	“Is there an earlier incident of others causing others_____(plural of the exact somatic or feeling used in Flow 1)?”

FLOW 0:

STEP ONE:

	“Locate an incident of you causing yourself_____(the exact somatic or feeling used in Flow 1).”

STEP G:

	“Is there an earlier incident of you causing yourself_____(the exact somatic or feeling used in Flow 1)?”

Each of these Step One and Step G commands are run on the full verbatim 1-9, A-EYE steps as given herein.

NARRATIVE R3RA

A narrative item is often run to run out the physical experiences the person has just undergone. This could be for example an accident, illness, an operation or emotional shock.

However, a condition or circumstance without an incident is NOT narrative. It’s just an incorrect item. An example of this would be trying to run the item, “Obstruction of justice.” It would not run as there is no exact incident there.

Narratives are too often just run through once or twice and abandoned. This, unfortunately, leaves the incident still charged and affecting the pc. A narrative needs to be run and run and run on that one incident. What you are doing is running the incident narrative to erasure and only going earlier similar if it starts to grind very badly.

Most narratives will run out by themselves without going earlier even though it takes a very long time but if you want to change somebody’s life, that’s how you can do it.

When you are running a narrative you always add the known incident to the command.

Using the earlier beginning command in running narratives is essential. For example: If the pc is running out a death of somebody closely related to him you will find that the incident actually started when he heard the phone ring, then, going back earlier to when somebody looked at him peculiarly, etc.

So using the earlier beginning command in narrative running is VITAL.

The commands for Narrative are:

FLOW 1:

STEP ONE:

	“Return to the time you______(specific incident) and tell me when you are there.”

Steps 2-9 are followed (3 is omitted as you have already got the pc to the incident by giving him the first command, “Return to the time....”).

Earlier beginning (Step H) is checked after each run through the incident. If there is one, send the pa to the new beginning of the incident (Step EYE) then follow with Steps B and C.

If there is no earlier beginning, return the pa to the incident with Step A, followed by B and C, again checking earlier beginning (Step H) at the end of each run through the incident. On third and subsequent runs through the incident use steps D, E, F making certain to check for earlier beginning after each pass through, and only when the pa is obviously starting to grind and gets no place does one then use the command, “Is there an earlier similar incident?”

FLOW 2:

STEP ONE:

“Return to the time you caused another to/a (specific incident) and tell me when you are there.”

Steps 2-9 are followed (3 is omitted as you have already got the pc to the incident by giving him the first command, “Return to the time . . .”).
Earlier beginning (Step H) is checked after each run through the incident. If there is one, send the pc to the new beginning of the incident (Step EYE) then follow with Steps B and C.

If there is no earlier beginning, return the pa to the incident with Step A, followed by B and C, again checking earlier beginning (Step H) at the end of each run through the incident. On third and subsequent runs through the incident use Steps D, E, F. making certain to check for earlier beginning after each pass through, and only when the pa is obviously starting to grind and gets no place does one then use the command, “Is there an earner similar incident?”

FLOW 3:

STEP ONE:

“Return to the time others caused others to/a (specific incident) and tell me when you are there.”

Steps 2-9 are followed (3 is omitted as you have already got the pc to the incident by giving him the first command, “Return to the time....”).

Earlier beginning (Step H) is checked after each run through the incident. If there is one, send the pc to the new beginning of the incident (Step EYE) then follow with Steps B and C.

If there is no earlier beginning, return the pa to the incident with Step A, followed by B and C, again checking earlier beginning (Step H) at the end of each run through the incident. On third and subsequent runs through the incident use steps D, E, F. making certain to check for earlier beginning after each pass through, and only when the pc is obviously starting to grind and gets no place does one then use the command, “Is there an earlier similar incident?”

FLOW 0:

STEP ONE:

“Return to the time you caused yourself to/a (specific incident) and tell me when you are there.”

Steps 2-9 are followed (3 is omitted as you have already got the pc to the incident by giving him the first command, “Return to the time....”).

Earlier beginning (Step H) is checked after each run through the incident. If there is one, send the pa to the new beginning of the incident (Step EYE) then follow with Steps B and C.

If there is no earlier beginning, return the pc to the incident with Step A, followed by B and C, again checking earlier beginning (Step H) at the end of each run through the incident. On third and subsequent runs through the incident use steps D, E, F. making certain to check for earlier beginning after each pass through, and only when the pc is obviously starting to grind and gets no place does one then use the command, “Is there an earlier similar incident?”

SECONDARIES

Secondaries are run with the same commands as R3RA. If they are narrative secondaries they are run with the same commands as Narrative R3RA engrams.

The earlier similar command is “Is there an earlier similar incident?”

ALWAYS RUN NARRATIVE INCIDENTS TRIPLE OR QUAD FLOW AS ABOVE.

AUDITOR KNOWLEDGE OF COMMANDS

These commands and procedures as given above must be thoroughly drilled with TR 101, 102, 103 and 104 before any Dianetic auditing may be done on a pc.

Pcs can be messed up by incorrect and sloppy commands.

SPEED OF COMMANDS

Some pcs run fast and some run slow. An auditor must never rush a pc or hold him up when he is ready to go on with the next command. The auditor must never keep a pc waiting for him while he handles his admin or comm lags before giving the next command.

Timing and speed are especially crucial when the auditor gives the command to move through the incident after having told the pc to move to the beginning of the incident. With a slow command, the pc would wind up halfway through the incident before he receives the command to move through it.

The better an auditor knows his TRs, his process commands, his meter and admin the faster and more accurately he can operate. Speed is very important, especially when auditing fast pcs.

PC INTEREST

In doing R3RA it is necessary that (a) one chooses things the pc is interested in and (b) one does not force a pc to run things he is protesting being run on.

LAST INCIDENT FOUND

If you ask if there is an earlier beginning and you have already checked for an earlier incident and the pc says there is no earlier beginning, you do not just walk off from the one he was just running. You send the pc through it again and it will erase with full end phenomena or the pc will then be able to see an earlier incident and continue with the chain.

COMPLETING CHAINS

If you do sloppy R3RA and do one thing after another without getting the full EP of:

1) 	the actual postulate WHICH WILL BE THE ERASURE,

2) 	F/N,

3) 	VGIs,

you will get the pc stuck up on the track. You complete each chain to full EP as above, remembering that when the postulate comes off, THAT is your EP. The chain will have blown.

F/Ns

In running Dianetics you do not stop at the first sign of an F/N, you do not call F/Ns during the running. Dianetics runs only by asking the pc if it is erasing. You ignore F/Ns until the postulate has come off to F/N and VGIs. THEN you call the F/N and that’s it for that chain.

BLOWING BY INSPECTION

An auditor may occasionally encounter a pc who erases chains before he can even tell about them. Along about Step 3 of R3RA, the TA blows down, the needle F/Ns, the pc says, “It’s gone,” and VGIs come in. This is called blowing by inspection and occurs once in a while with a fast running pc on a light chain.

If it was basic for that chain and the auditor fails to recognize and handle it, the pc will go into another chain or a heavy protest.

ENDING SESSION

An R3RA session can be safely ended on a completed chain that ended with the full Dianetic EP as above stated....

This doesn’t mean the end of all Dianetic auditing. In the next session another assessment will turn up more unwanted feelings, etc.

ENDING DIANETICS

Dianetics is ended off only when a pc has become well and happy and remains that way.

And there you have it, engram running superior to any engram running ever done and giving superior and faster results.

SPECIAL NEW ERA DIANETICS RUNDOWN
FOR OTs

New Era Dianetics or any Dianetics is NOT to be run on Clears or above or on Dianetic Clears.

Clears and OTs are to be audited on the Special New Era Dianetics Rundown for OTs, which is available at Advanced Orgs and Flag. (Ref: HCOB 12 Sep 78 Dianetics Forbidden on Clears and OTs.)

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:lfg.mdf 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
Remimeo
Dianetic Crse	HCO BULLETIN OF 7 JULY 1978
Dianetic	CANCELS
Interne Sups	HCOB 18 MARCH 78
Class VIII	POSTULATES AND ENGRAMS
Auditors
DIANETIC F/Ns

An F/N seen by the auditor in running R3RA is NOT called. It simply means that the pc is running well.

An auditor running R3RA is NOT looking for F/Ns. He is looking for total, complete erasure of the basic of a chain.

In running R3RA one has to CONSULT THE PC! This is part of R3RA commands.

An F/N can occur five or more engrams before basic is reached! You just go on with R3RA. Only when the pc says the engram has totally erased, when he has cognited, is VGIs and the postulate in the basic has come off do you consider the chain complete.

The E-Meter will have been F/Ning for some time.

When the full end phenomena of a Dianetic chain is obtained, the needle will of course be F/Ning. The F/N simply broadens.

The auditor does not call F/Ns when running Dianetics until the fu/l EP of the chain is reached.

1) 	When it appears that you have reached the basic incident of the chain and that it is erasing, after each pass through the auditor asks, “Has it erased?”

2) 	The meter will have been F/Ning for some time.

3) 	When the pc has stated that it has erased the auditor should also expect a cognition volunteered by the pc.

4) 	The auditor should expect to see very good indicators (VGIs).

5) 	If no postulate made during the time of the incident has come off and been volunteered by the pc the auditor should ask, “Did you make a postulate at the time of that incident?” Note that the postulate may have come off in the form of a cognition and on the other hand may not have even though a cognition was given.

Only when these latter steps have occurred can one consider that the EP of a Dianetic incident or chain has been obtained.

POWER F/Ns

F/Ns are disregarded in Power.

Each Power Process has its own end phenomena and is ended only when that is obtained.

LRH:lfg	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright (g) 1978	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 APRIL 1969
Remimeo
Dianetics Cksht
HIGH TA IN DIANETICS

In Scientology a high TA is always an overrun.

In Dianetics it means AN ENGRAM TOO LATE ON THE CHAIN TO ERASE IS IN RESTIMULATION.

A Scientology auditor “rehabs” overruns.

A Dianetic auditor cures high TA by finding what engram (lock or secondary) is in restimulation (active). This will show up as a PAIN, SENSATION, MISEMOTION OR OTHER PRESENT TIME FEELING the pc has. In short, just by finding the somatic by list and assessing for longest read and running R-3-R you can cure a high TA.

You handle a TA that goes up during a session by completing the chain exactly as in R-3-R.

The same action you do for R,3-R also cures the high TA.

By running a pc through only once each time instead of twice you leave a later incident too charged for the pc to see an earlier incident.

By trying to erase the somatic only, not the picture (“pc no longer has somatic”) you can leave the picture partially there.

There can be an infinity of wrong ways but only one right way and the right way is R-3-R by the book.

A high TA (4 or above) is simply the E-Meter’s reaction to increased mass. Mental Image Pictures have mass. The mass has what is called resistance to electricity. The E-Meter measures electrical resistance. Mass resists electricity. Thus in the presence of mental mass as contained in mental image pictures, the Tone Arm of the E-Meter rises.

When you restimulate an engram, the E-Meter current flow has more trouble getting through the pc and the TA rises.

When the engram (or lock or secondary) is “keyed out” (moved away) the TA comes down and the meter needle will float.

If you find a long chain with many engrams on it and run a late engram the TA goes up. As you go earlier, and eventually find Basic, the TA comes down and when you erase the basic engram the TA will come down to between 2 and 3 and the needle will float.

Old disproved theory pre-Dianetics was that the E-Meter reacted to sweat on the hands but of course a person would have to sweat and “unsweat” to make the meter behave as it does. And the idea of “unsweating” would be ridiculous. Palms of the hand do not go wet—dry with enough rapidity to account for meter reaction up and down.

When you run several engrams through once or several somatic chains without erasing any you pile up too much mass and the TA will go high and stick.

Even if nothing is done to repair this the pc will de-stimulate (the pictures will drop away) in from 3 to 10 days.

It is a very poor show of auditing to do R-3-R other than exactly by the book. It is very easy to do it exactly right. The drill is simple. If done exactly right the result is good and invariable.

LRH:clc.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 14 JULY 1978R
Issue II
REVISED 15 SEPTEMBER 1978
Remimeo
(Revisions in this type style)

A TYPICAL NARRATIVE ITEM

NARRATIVE ITEM: “Death of my father”

	TA Position
1st pass through
	2.9 at Step 9
<------original duration------>
2 hours
2nd pass through
	EB---------------------------------------------	3.0 at Step C

3rd pass through
	EB----------------------------------------------------	3.0 at Step C

4th pass through
	EB--------------------------------------------------------grief 	2.8 at Step C

5th pass through
 	---------------(center now missing)--------------------	2.7 at Step C

6th pass through
	---------------( 	center to end now gone) 	2.6 at Step C

7th pass through
	EB----------------(center erased) new piece  appears	2.7 at Step C

8th pass through
EB------	Postulate comes off	2.5
(Auditor ceases to put pc through the
chain the instant the postulate comes off.)
Broader continual F/N, VGIs
(Incident has erased).

L. RON HUBBARD 
Founder

LRH:lfg.dr 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 JULY 1978R
Issue I
REVISED 15 SEPTEMBER 1978
Remimeo
(Revisions not in Script)

TYPICAL DIANETIC CHAIN

Original item: “Bronchitis”

Preassessment item: “Misemotion”

Running item: “Horrible feeling in my lungs”

Incident	Date of	Duration of	TA Position
	Incident	Incident

1st Incident	1 Mar 1970	2 Hours	3.3 at Step 1
run 2 times			3.2 at Step 9
through			3.5 at Step C

2nd Incident	2 Jul 1963	7 Minutes	3.4 at Step 9
run 3 times			3.4 at Step C
through		EB--------	(Earl. Begin.)
(due to there			3.5 at Step F
being an EB)

3rd Incident	3 Aug 1960	---------5 Hours---------	3.6 at Step 9
run 1 time through

4th Incident	1 Dec 1951	1 1/2 Hours	3.5 at Step 9
run 2 times through			3.6 at Step C

5th Incident	16 Feb 1921	2l/2 Hours	3.7 at Step 9
run 1 time through

6th Incident	2 Feb 1898	2 Hours	3.2 at Step 9
run 2 times through			3.4 at Step C

7th Incident	22 May 1882	1 Hour	3.3 at Step 9
run 8 times			3.2 at Step C
through			3.0 at Step F
(BASIC)			2.8 at Step F
	EB-------------	(Earl. Begin.)
	2.8 at Step F
	2.9 at Step F
	EB----------------------	(Earl. Begin.)
	2.6 at Step F
	BD & F/N
	Pc gives Postulate
	Wide F/N & VGIs
	EP of chain.

The three remaining flows are each run as above to their basics. Then do further preassessment per R3RA. Twenty-five more running item Quad chains to go. (100 in all). Meaning 100 more chains, each one of which reaches a BASIC and each one of which has an EP of F/N, POSTULATE, VGIs, accompanied by an erasure.

LRH:dr 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright ©1978 	Founder 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 JULY 1969
Dian Checksheet	
AOs
Class VIIIs	IMPORTANT
Class VIII Checksheet
D of Ts	
AUDITING SPEED

Almost any failure you have ever had with an auditor or in auditing came from Auditor Comm Lags or errors.

This is a vital datum. It came to light from applying the rule—ask the pc what the auditor did after any failed session and get it corrected in the auditor.

SPEED is the main factor behind the mystery of a failed session.

In AUDITING OTs the speed the auditor must have is far greater than required by just in off the street. This speed factor is the real REASON why OTs were at first considered very hard to audit on Dianetics.

All this also applies to VIII auditing and training.

The better an auditor knows his TRs, his processes, his meter and admin the faster he can operate.

If you train auditors only up to slow, comm laggy handling of a session you will get a lot of mysteriously “failed sessions”, ending with the TA high and the pc very low!

A somewhat slow auditor auditing a new pc may be fast enough to get away with it.

Put him on a person whose Dianetics is finished and some grades in, he begins to have a few “case failures”.

Now put him to auditing reviews or Dianetics on a Pre OT and all sessions fail.

The remedy is to speed the auditor up with TRs 101, 102, 103, 104.

In assigning auditors you only dare assign fast ones to Pre OTs.

For 19 years this hidden speed factor has lain behind the vast majority of our “failed sessions”. As it never appeared on the session reports (except as excessive admin for which the pc must have had to wait) anyone doing D of P work or C/S work was in mystery and tended to get desperate and even squirrel (change and invent processes).

The only other source of failure was the physically ill aspect. This has just been verified in a series of over one hundred cases. Dianetics combined with Scientology reviews progressed splendidly on all but about seven and these who were then physically examined thoroughly were found to have serious and current physical illness.

Speed and accuracy then is the stress of all training and the lack of it is the source of all auditing failures on pcs who are not severely ill.

Even the latter respond once their purely physical illness is properly handled.

LRH: cs.ei.aap 	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 24 MAY 1969
Issue II
Remimeo
Dian Checksheet

DIANETIC HIGH CRIMES

Aside from Auditor’s Code violations there are only four high crimes a Dianetic auditor can commit:

1. 	Cease to audit suddenly with the pc down the track somewhere.

2. 	Make a sudden evaluative remark in the middle of the session.

3. 	React or comment adversely on what the pc is running such as being critical of the pc for having such an incident.

4. 	Force a pc to go on when he doesn’t want to.

These mess up pcs quite badly and give them a great deal of trouble afterwards.

Over the years these four actions have been observed being done from time to time by persons trying to audit in Dianetics. They are just as bad in Scientology but oddly, I don’t recall them being done in Scientology, only Dianetics.

Example of 1:   Auditor fails to give next command or any further commands and leaves pc hanging.

Example of 2:   “Are you really interested in this session or not?”

Example of 3:   “That was a horrible thing to do.”

Example of 4:   “Go ahead. Get into it,” after pc has asked to stop.

There are countless variations of these. In I the pc volunteers it’s all sort of unreal in the incident so the auditor, instead of TR 4, just ends session.

These are very bad things to do. They don’t kill anybody. But they surely make pcs less auditable.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 MAY 1969
Remimeo
Dian Checksheet

ASSESSMENT

In all the years of auditing, listing and assessing anything has been a weak spot in general auditing.

More goofy alterations can occur and more errors in this activity than any other.

In Standard Dianetics if you assess the wrong item or a wrongly worded item the case won’t run, the TA goes up or the TA goes down. HIGH TA (above 3.5) is a lot of mass coming in. LOW TA (below 2) is overwhelm.

Bad TRs can cause low TA as the auditor is overwhelming the pc. Too many times through without going earlier is the usual cause of these 4.5 to 5.5 TAs.

But both high and low TA are in some degree caused by not quite right assessment.

Pictures going off (pc gets a black or invisible field) is also caused by a wrong assessment.

The whole subject of assessment means PICK OUT THE THING THAT WILL RUN. That’s all one is trying to do.

As I have never had the faintest trouble listing and assessing anything or even finding the right somatic with no meter at all, it is hard for me to advise how to correct MISASSESSMENT or assessment errors. It just evades my reality. The whole subject is too easy. Just too awful easy.

So my belief is that students try to put too much into it. They try to get a pat-phrased question to ask like “What is the feeling?”

They stare (TR 0) at the pc when they should be looking at the meter. Try TR 0 on the meter!

An old operating definition of ASSESSMENT is:

ASSESSMENT IS DONE BY THE AUDITOR BETWEEN THE PC’S BANK AND THE METER. THERE IS NO NEED IN ASSESSING TO LOOK AT THE PC. JUST NOTE WHICH ITEM HAS THE LONGEST FALL OR BD. THE AUDITOR LOOKS AT THE METER WHILE DOING AN ASSESSMENT.

A clue to this is the continual misuse of the Azimuth meter. I keep finding them with paper pasted behind the dial. This shows they aren’t used right. One bends the stand peg to get it out of the way, and writes by looking at his pen through the glass. Then he never misses a read as the meter is between him and the item he is writing.

One is assessing for PAINS, SENSATIONS, UNWANTED EMOTIONS, ACHES. It can get so far out that the pc is made to say only feelings like “a going in feeling” and never even mention a pain.

There are so many signs and indicators that it is a wrong item when it is that I can’t see how it could be missed. On a wrong item the pc has bad indicators, the meter doesn’t read, there is no pc interest. Wow. It’s as obvious as a sinking ship.

On a right item the meter reads well when the pc says it, the pc’s good indicators come in somewhat when it’s announced, the pc is very interested in running it. It’s about as obvious as sky rockets.

So just given these two descriptions of the reaction to a wrong item and a right item I should think anybody could tell them.

Rote procedure gets heavily in the road of a Dianetic assessment. The pc gives a list, the auditor doesn’t watch the reads and note them, then the auditor commonly goes back to assess the list. By that time the charge is off. He should have watched the meter in the first place and taken that. Why all this assessing of the finished list. Of course when you already have a list done by another with no reads marked on it, you have to read it off and mark what reads. And using a list a second time you have to read it off to the pc to see what reads.

When a student demands a rote procedure for Dianetic assessment he is asking for trouble and is trying not to understand.

If the student simply understood that he was trying to find an item that read well, brought in moderate GIs and in which the pc was interested and which was usefully worded and which would run, he would have it made.

I get the feeling that Scientology listing gets all mixed up on a Dianetic Course. There are precision Scientology listing and nulling actions which must not be violated. These have NOTHING to do with Dianetics. Nothing!

A Standard Dianetics list can be so sloppily done it’s hard to believe. BUT the auditor has to watch the meter and be sure he has one with the pc’s interest, worded so as to run into an engram chain.

I’ve seen an incredibly botched up job as finding a somatic done this way. Pc listed, needle and TA all over the dial. Auditor picked out four somatics. Wrote them down and called them off. None read. The auditor then said the pc couldn’t be audited on Dianetics and should be sent for Scientology. Who is kidding who? The somatics read like mad. There was even one with a LFBD. Yet the auditor had to go into some goofy rote procedure or ritual and by it “discover” there were no somatics.

The errors in this operation of finding a somatic can be so corny and so idiotic that I have to assume the auditor doesn’t know or understand what he’s trying to do and doesn’t even look at the meter while he does it.

Honest, this action of finding the somatic to run is SO easy to do that only over-complication can block it.

The auditor wants to know what aches, pains, bad feelings, misemotions the pc complains of and out of these takes the one that reads best while the pc is saying it or it is being called off and which brings in the pc’s GIs moderately and in which the pc is interested. The somatic MUST read.

Now what’s so hard about that?

It requires one looks at his meter when the pc is giving it or it is being talked about.

There are no Scientology listing considerations in it.
Now and then the pc has a discreditable somatic and the auditor has to coax the pc to give all.

Now and then the pc says “My LUMBOSIS” and if you ran that or any medical term you’d only get him in doctors’ offices or in hospitals, as it’s a medical term, not a somatic.

Evidently the student gets in such a sweat about finding a “right item” that he goes up the spout on good sense.

In Scientology lists there’s only ONE item. On Dianetic lists there can be a dozen, for a Dianetic list isn’t really a list. It isn’t trying to isolate the mental troubles of the pc. A Dianetic list is simply the pc’s physical aches and pains. Golly, people are notorious for discussing their aches and pains. Why is it so hard to find one that reads well on a meter?

Well, you have to watch the meter.

That’s probably the outness. Students are so socially adjusted they keep looking at the pc, maybe even trying to look pleasant rather than trying to read a meter.

I feel, in trying to communicate and teach how to locate what to run, as if I am explaining where the floor is. And the people I’m explaining it to are wondering how you look at a floor, what chant you intone while looking at a floor and what mathematical equation you use to make sure it is the floor. It’s that kind of a thing. I say, “There’s the floor. If you stamp on it and it is there you will get a sound.” And guys think, “Well, maybe but how loud a sound and do you use the right foot or the left foot and if that’s the floor I can’t find the ceiling because I have no sextant.”

All I’m trying to tell you is that when you are looking for a somatic in the pc and hit it the meter reads well, the pc has moderate GIs when you tell him what it is you’ve chosen, he is interested and it will run.

And honest to Pete, that’s all there is to it. And if somebody says there’s anything else he’s trying to wreck a whole course and a lot of auditors.

I can’t say it any plainer.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 APRIL 1969

Remimeo 
Dn Checksheet

ASSESSMENT AND INTEREST

An assessment consists simply of calling off the items the pc has given and marking down the reads that occur on the meter. The pc is not required to comment during this action and it is better if he does not.

This action is called “Assessment for Longest Read”. It is used mainly in Dianetics.

There are two Scientology assessments which are differently done. These are “Assessment by Elimination” and “Listing and Nulling”. They are not used in Dianetics. One does not mix the three types.

In Dianetic Assessment by Longest Read one uses these symbols:

     	X 	— 	didn’t read
	Tick	— 	small jerk of needle 
	sF 	— 	Small Fall (a quarter to half an inch) 
	F 	— 	Fall (about one to 2 inches)
     	LF 	— 	Long Fall (2 to 3 inches)
     	LFBD	— 	Long Fall followed by a “blow down” or TA motion downward.

All falls are to the right. A “BD” is a Tone Arm motion to the left made to keep the needle on the dial.

The favoured action for an item is an LFBD and if one item on the list does so, that is it without any further assessment.

The reason one assesses is that IF AN ITEM DOES NOT READ ON THE METER WHEN ASSESSED IT IS BEYOND THE PC’S LEVEL OF AWARENESS.

It is very unwise and unsafe to try to run a somatic which has not read on the list. It will be beyond the pc’s reality and beyond his awareness and will result in overwhelming him.

That an item reads guarantees that the pc will be able to confront and erase the chain. So that an item reads well is a guarantee that the pc can handle it and will not get in too deep for him.

The exception to this is a PROTEST read. An item, possibly already run, is seen to read. The pc frowns. He is protesting and the meter is registering protest, not the item. One never runs a pc against his protest. To do so will overwhelm him and give a bad result. A protest almost never blows down the TA.

To be sure that the item is right, one usually asks the pc if he is interested in the item chosen.

If the pc says no, he doesn’t want to run it, this is a protest read.
One then picks the second best reading item on the assessment already done and checks that with the pc for interest. The pc will usually be interested in it.

The pc can almost always be counted on to be interested in any item that gives a LFBD.

One never simply asks the pc which on the list he is interested in as “an assessment” as it will be found the pc simply chooses at random and may choose a null item. The result may be a very unsuccessful session.

An auditor may sometimes be astonished by what reads. The pc, let us say, obviously has a broken leg but what reads is an earache. One runs what reads, not what the auditor knows should be run. A “know best” in an auditor can be a fatal fault.

On a second or third assessment, items which were at first null or reading poorly will be found to “come alive” and read well. The pc, by being audited, has had an increase of ability to confront and, if the auditing is standard, an increase in confidence. The result is that items beyond his reach previously (and did not read well) are now available and can be run easily.

The E-Meter measures the awareness depth of the pc. On things which do not read on assessment you would find his reality poor. Things that read well on assessment will be found to be things on which a pc has a high reality and a high interest level.

Only if pushed to audit without a meter could an auditor assess by interest only. There is no real excuse for it if one has an E-Meter.

Auditing without a meter is a chancy activity.

Good assessment by longest read is the best entrance to a successful session.

The same list will serve for the next item to be run and should be used rather than just asking the pc.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Example: “Have you ever injured dirty pigs?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reactive mind is composed of:

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

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

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

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

Only reactive thoughts react instantly.

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

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

The exceptions to this rule are:

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

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

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

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

LRH:jw.rd	L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright © 1962                              			
by L. Ron Hubbard	
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED         
	
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 FEBRUARY 1971
Remimeo
HGC Auditor
Checksheet	C/S Series 24
Academy Level 0
Checksheet
Dn Cse Checksheet	IMPORTANT

METERING READING ITEMS

(NOTE: Observation I have recently done while handling a C/S line has resulted in a necessary clarification of the subject of “a reading item or question” which improves older definitions and saves some cases.)

It can occasionally happen that an auditor misses a read on an item or question and does not run it as it “has not read”. This can hang up a pc badly if the item was in fact a reading item or question. It does not get handled and exists in records as “No read” when in fact it DID read.

THEREFORE ALL DIANETIC AUDITORS WHOSE ITEMS OCCASIONALLY “DON’T READ” AND ALL SCIENTOLOGY AUDITORS WHO GET LIST QUESTIONS THAT DON’T READ MUST BE CHECKED OUT ON THIS HCO B IN QUAL OR BY THE C/S OR SUPERVISOR.

These errors come under the heading of Gross Auditing Errors as they affect metering.

1. 	An Item or Question is said to “Read” when the needle falls. Not when it stops or slows on a rise. A tick is always noted and in some cases becomes a wide read.

2. 	The read is taken when the pc first says it or when the question is cleared. THIS is the valid time of read. It is duly marked (plus any blow down). THIS reading defines what  is a reading item or question. CALLING IT BACK TO SEE IF IT READ IS NOT A VALID TEST as the surface charge may be gone but the item or question will still run or list.

3. 	Regardless of any earlier statements or material on READING ITEMS, an item does not have to read when the auditor calls it to be a valid item for running engrams or listing. The test is did it read when the pc first said it on originating it or in Clearing it?

4. 	That an item or question is marked as having read is sufficient reason to run it or use it or list it. Pc Interest, in Dianetics, is also necessary to run it, but that it did not read again is no reason to not use it.

5. 	When listing items the auditor must have an eye on the meter NOT necessarily the pc and must note on the list he is making the extent of read and any BD and how much. THIS is enough to make it a “reading item” or “reading question”.

6. 	In Clearing a listing Question the auditor watches the meter, NOT necessarily the pc and notes any read while clearing the question.

7. 	An additional calling of the item or question to see if it read is unnecessary and not a valid action if the item or question read on origination or Clearing.

8. 	That an item is marked as having read on an earlier Dianetic list is enough (also checking interest) to run it with no further read test.
9. 	To miss seeing a read on an origin or clearing is a Gross Auditing Error.

10. 	Failing to mark on the list or worksheet the read and any BD seen during pc origination or clearing the question is a Gross Auditing Error.

EYESIGHT

Auditors who miss reads or have poor eyesight should be tested and should wear the proper glasses while auditing.

GLASSES

The rims of some glasses could obstruct seeing the meter while the auditor is looking at the worksheet or pc.

If this is the case the glasses should be changed to another type with broader vision.

WIDE VISION

A good auditor is expected to see his meter, pc and worksheet all at one time. No matter what he is doing he should always notice any meter movement if the meter needle moves.

If he cannot do this he should use an Azimuth Meter and not put paper over its glass but should do his worksheet looking through the glass at his pen and the paper—the original design purpose of the Azimuth Meter. Then even while writing he sees the meter needle move as it is in his line of vision.

CONFUSIONS

Any and all confusions as to what is a “reading item” or “reading question” should be fully cleaned up on any auditor as such omissions or confusions can be responsible for case hang-ups and needless repairs.

NO READ

Any comment that an item or question “did not read” should be at once suspected by a C/S and checked with this HCO B on the auditor.

Actually non-Reads, a non-reading item or question means one that did not read when originated or cleared and also did not read when called.

One can still call an item or question to get a read. That it now reads is fine. But if it has never read at all, the item will not run and such a list will produce no item on it.

It is not forbidden to call an item or question to test it for read. But it is a useless action if the item or question read on origination by the pc or clearing it with him.

IMPORTANT

The data in this HCO B, if not known, can cost case failures. Thus it must be checked out on auditors.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 18 JUNE 1978R
REVISED 20 SEPTEMBER 1978
(Revisions in this type sty/e)
Remimeo
New Era Dianetics Series 4R

ASSESSMENT AND HOW TO GET THE ITEM

A great deal of material has existed about assessment of the preclear. In New Era Dianetics Dianetic assessment has been summarized and simplified and added to. These New Era Dianetics assessment steps are precise. And they will detect and isolate the things that have to be handled to make a pc a well and happy being.

It is important to understand what assessment is and what you are attempting to accomplish when doing an assessment.

If you simply understand that you are trying to find an item that reads well, brings in the pc’s indicators, in which the pc is interested, an item which was usefully worded and would run, you would have it.

In New Era Dianetics, several different kinds of assessment are used to get items to run out R3RA on the pc.

The New Era Dianetics Original Assessment Items

This is the first assessment done in New Era Dianetics. It has been known by various names, “Health Form,” “Preclear Assessment Sheet” and is now reissued with only minor changes as HCOB 24 June 78R New Era Dianetics Series 5R, ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT SHEET.

It contains the pc’s physical history and background, and gives the auditor and C/S a picture of the case. It is an assessment as it is done on the meter and enables the auditor and C/S to see what needs to be handled.

Original Item

The original item is a condition, illness, accident, drug, alcohol or medicine, etc. that has been given by the pc to the auditor. This will come from the Original Assessment Sheet, from another New Era Dianetics rundown or may simply be offered by the pc.

Original items tend to be general in character, such as “lame” or a medical condition, and are either lacking things you will find on the Preassessment List or are too broad to be audited. Pcs normally give items this way when asked for them on the New Era Dianetics Original Assessment Sheet, NED Series 5R.

Preassessment

Preassessment is a new procedure in New Era Dianetics. It is done with a prepared Preassessment List and determines what categories of somatics are connected to the original item, and which of these is the most highly charged.

It is called the preassessment because it comes before the assessment of the actual item to run out R3RA. (The item to be run out is now called the running item.)

Preassessment is done on the original item with the Preassessment List.

Preassessment List

This is found in New Era Dianetics Series 4-1.

A prepared list of categories of somatics which is assessed in connection with the original item. (The list includes pains, sensations, feelings, emotions, attitudes, misemotions, unconsciousnesses, sorenesses, compulsions, fears, aches, tirednesses, pressures, discomforts, dislikes, numbnesses.)

Preassessment Item

The largest reading item obtained on an assessment of the Preassessment List. This item is used to get running items.

LISTING FOR RUNNING ITEMS

The auditor now takes the preassessment item and makes a list on a separate sheet of paper and asks the pc, “What (preassessment item found) are/is connected with (original item found)?”

The auditor writes down exactly what the pc says in a column and notes the meter reads at the exact moment the pc ends the statement of the running item.

The result is a list called the “running item list.”

If the pc gives you an exact feeling (“feeling scared,” “a burning feeling in my ear,” “a sharp pain in my toe”) the feeling is simply run out R3RA Quad if it reads and the pc is interested.

An item which states a somatic and is runnable is called a running item. Running items are exactly stated pains, sensations, feelings, emotions, attitudes, misemotions, unconsciousnesses, sorenesses, compulsions, fears, aches, tirednesses, pressures, discomforts, dislikes, numbnesses.

If the pc gives you a general type item like “stomach problems,” a drug, alcohol, medicine, medical term or narrative, which does not state a feeling (etc.), the feelings (etc.) for the item must be found so they can be run. The preassessment is done to get running items.

Running Item

The auditor takes the best reading item on the running item list (possibly an LF or an LFBD or an instant F/N) and checks with the pc, “Are you interested in this item?” and if so it becomes the running item which you will run by R3RA Quad.

Running items are sometimes abruptly volunteered by the pc and if they are within the categories of the assessment list they can be run, but be careful of: 1) jumping onto some other subject than the original item you are trying to handle or 2) upsetting the pc because you refuse to audit it. Warning: If you go off New Era Dianetics assessment procedure you will be pot shooting all over a case and never finish it.

All this New Era Dianetics procedure is leading up to finding running items that will run and resolve the case. So the thing you are after in assessment is the running item and it is most accurately obtained as above.

This is done by taking the original item, say “stomach problems,” doing a preassessment on it, and with the preassessment item, finding a running item.

(Example: Stomach problems is the original item. A preassessment is done and “sorenesses” is the largest reading item on the Preassessment List. The auditor then lists for running items, using sorenesses, and gets “A dull soreness on my left side.” This is the running item, which will be handled with R3RA Quad.)

PREASSESSMENT

Previous to New Era Dianetics you would have taken a Dianetic item such as a drug or a chronic condition or an accident and you would have asked the pc to give you the attitudes, emotions, sensations and pains connected to the item.

I have just developed a new procedure on the handling and running of Dianetics. It is called the preassessment. This is how it works.

1. 	The auditor obtains an original item from the pc. This will be from a drug list, the Original Assessment Sheet or other New Era Dianetics rundown. (It will be a drug, a condition, an illness, an accident, etc.)

2. 	He then preassesses the feelings on the Preassessment List to find out which preassessment item is the most highly charged in connection with the original item.

3. 	From the preassessment item (the largest reading Preassessment List item) the auditor can get specific somatics called running items from the pc. These running items will be the ones the pc is most interested in.

4. 	The running item found in Step 3 is run R3RA Quad.

Example: The original item is “bronchitis.” The auditor assesses the Preassessment List below by asking the pc:

	“Are__________connected with bronchitis?”
	pains	compulsions
	sensations	fears
	feelings	aches
	emotions	tirednesses
	attitudes	pressures
	misemotions	discomforts
	unconsciousnesses	dislikes
	sorenesses	numbnesses

He gets an LF on misemotions. This is the largest read.

“What misemotions are connected with bronchitis?”

As the pc tells him, the auditor takes them down, noting meter reads while the pc is giving the items. (And that’s all there is to the preassessment.)

PREASSESSMENT ITEM

This is in turn the largest reading item on the Preassessment List above and then subsequently lesser reading items from the same list are taken up.

With the preassessment item gotten, the auditor can list to find the running items.
(Example: The preassessment item is “misemotion.” The auditor asks, “What misemotions are connected with bronchitis?”)

He writes down all the answers the pc gives him, with their reads.

Feeling like I want to give up X
Worried about my lungs LFBD
Feeling angry about not breathing F
Scared to death sF

The auditor would first run “worried about my lungs” R3RA Quad and then would return to the next best reading item, in this case, “Feeling angry about not breathing.”

RUNNING ITEM

The auditor chooses the largest reading item the pc has given and checks interest for the next chain. This is the running item.

ACTUAL AUDITING

Having found the running item the auditor then runs it out R3RA Quad.

FINDING THE NEXT RUNNING ITEM

The auditor has a choice of taking a lesser reading item from the Preassessment List or the running item list or (safer) do a new preassessment on the same original item. (You don’t stop working on the original item until it is gone completely and forever. )

Having done a preassessment on the same original item you do a new running item list, take the best read (fall, LF, instant  F/N) and use it as your new running item.

ASSESSMENT COMMANDS

Commands for the Original Assessment Sheet of the New Era Dianetics Rundown:

1) 	Ask the question on the Original Assessment Sheet. Write answer and note meter read.

2) 	“Are (preassessment item being called) connected with (original item being preassessed)? “

3) 	“What (largest reading preassessment item) are connected with (original item)?”

4) 	“Are you interested in running (largest reading or instantly F/Ning running item found in 3 above)?”

5) 	Go straight into R3RA Quad, using the item in 4 if the pc is interested.

HANDLING SOMATICS

The Preassessment List is designed to locate somatics which the auditor can then handle with R3RA.

By somatic is meant a pain or ache, sensation, misemotion, or even unconsciousness. There are a thousand different descriptive words that could add up to a feeling Pain, aches, dizziness, sadness, they are all feelings.

All chains are held together by the general various awarenesses which are named on the Preassessment List.

One generally identified difficulty given by the pc on the original assessment is, in actual fact, in almost all cases composed of pains, sensations, feelings, emotions, attitudes, misemotions, unconsciousnesses, sorenesses, compulsions, fears, aches, tirednesses, pressures, discomforts, dislikes and numbnesses as well as one or more postulates. It is very possible that any major Original Assessment item contains 3 or 4 full chains for each one of these.

Hence an auditor really hasn’t got a prayer of eradicating a major Original Assessment unless he runs 64 or more complete chains thoroughly and accurately. Some might give up with less and some might require many more.

If you follow the New Era Dianetics assessment procedure perfectly and flawlessly, well you have every chance of achieving a well and happy human being.

HANDLING NARRATIVES

A narrative is a story, an account, a tale.

For many years narratives were held in disrepute and auditors were sometimes warned against running them. The reason for this is that when you try to solve a case on narratives alone it takes several thousand hours of auditing.

However to abandon narratives totally is to abandon some of the most dramatic case changes you can get.

Occasionally the pc will come into a session after a physically or emotionally painful experience, an accident, illness, loss or great emotional stress. Running these incidents out narrative erases the psychic trauma the person has undergone and speeds recovery.

You sometimes find that a person’s whole life changed around the death of a relative or child or a divorce or an auto accident or some other similar catastrophe. This is usually found and handled in ACTION NINE in the HCOB 22 June 1978R New Era Dianetics Series 2R, NEW ERA DIANETICS FULL PC PROGRAM OUTLINE.

When running a narrative, one is running out the narrative incident. A narrative needs to be run and run and run on that one incident. You are running that incident to erasure and you only go earlier similar if it starts to grind very badly.

The trick in running narratives is to find the earlier beginning each time the person is moved through it. (See ACTION NINE, New Era Dianetics Series 2.)

A condition or circumstance without an incident is NOT narrative. An example of this would be “obstruction of justice.” It would not run as there is not an exact incident. “Hitting a cop” is a narrative. “Feeling sick about cops” is not a narrative as there is no story connected with it, but there is a somatic.

RUNNING NARRATIVES

To run a narrative item, the auditor must first find out exactly what happened with the pc, then, by asking the pc “What shall we call this incident?” he will have the preclear’s wording and can run it narrative using the New Era Dianetics narrative commands. One would run a narrative item ONLY if it reads well and the pc is interested in running it out.

Narrative handling to its full EP can give miraculous results, but it can take a long time to get the pc through it. A full Dianetic EP of postulate off (which IS the erasure), F/N and VGIs must be reached. If the pc gives a cognition which is not the actual postulate from the incident or doesn’t sound like it to the auditor, the postulate is asked for.

NARRATIVE ASSESSMENT COMMANDS

1) 	Ask the questions called for on the Original Assessment Sheet.

2) 	Note any original items that contain recent losses, illnesses, accidents, upsets or deaths and ask:

	“Are you interested in handling (description of item on the Original Assessment Sheet)?”

3) 	If the pc signifies that he is, go immediately into R3RA Narrative.

ASSESSING TONE OF VOICE

The auditor does the assessing by asking the question as a question, not as a statement of fact. To assess the question as a statement tends to evaluate and can even invalidate the preclear.

You can go around asking questions with a tape recorder going. Play it back and you will notice the voice tone rises on a question and goes down on a statement. So the right way to assess the questions would be to have a slight upcurve at the end, and actually assess it as a question.

ASSESSMENT IS DONE BY THE AUDITOR BETWEEN THE PC’S BANK AND THE METER. THERE IS NO PARTICULAR NEED IN DIANETIC ASSESSING TO LOOK AT THE PC. JUST NOTE WHICH ITEM HAS THE LONGEST FALL OR BD. THE AUDITOR LOOKS AT THE METER WHILE DOING AN ASSESSMENT.

Rote procedure gets heavily in the road of a Dianetic assessment. The pc gives a list, the auditor doesn’t watch the reads and note them, then the auditor commonly goes back to assess the list. By that time the surface charge is off. He should have watched the meter in the first place and taken reads while the pc was originating the item. Why all this assessing of the finished list? Of course when you already have a list done by another with no reads marked on it, you have to read it off and mark what reads. And using a list a second time you have to read it off to the pc to see what reads.

In Dianetics one always handles an instant F/N first, then any LFBD, LF, F or sF, in that order. The largest reading items are the ones the pc can most easily confront. When the largest reading item is handled go on to the next biggest reading item (and so on) until all reading items have been handled. This same principle applies to all New Era Dianetics auditing. Take up the biggest reading areas and handle those first.

You may find there is something plainly visible that is wrong with the preclear, like a broken leg, yet it may not read at all. Instead the meter is reading on the pain in his arm. You do the standard action of handling the items that the meter reads on.

In assessing a prepared list such as the Preassessment List always take up the item which got an instant F/N first followed by the next largest read.

In a list like the running items list you continue listing until the pc says that’s all or you’ve got an F/N item. If you get in trouble right after listing a running item list on a pc and the pc seems upset and you are not a Scientology auditor, go get a Scientology auditor Class IV fast and have him repair the list for you as it may have become a Scientology list either through auditor error or inability to read a meter or missing a read or whatever.

The laws of listing and nulling always apply to Scientology lists and sometimes on rare occasions apply to a Dianetic list and can on these cases cause trouble.

Listing for a running item on the running item list usually doesn’t cause trouble as it is already taken from the Preassessment List and is not a very broad question.

This and a failure to follow New Era Dianetics assessment and R3RA procedure exactly or failure to actually erase the basic on a chain is about all the trouble you’d run into.

Review New Era Dianetics Series 1 on what is expected of a student.

LRH:lfg.dr 	L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright © 1978 	Founder 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 SEPTEMBER 1971 
Remimeo 
Also Dn Text
C/S Series 59

DIANETIC LIST ERRORS

It can happen that a Dianetic list of somatics, pains, emotions and attitudes can act as a list under the meaning of the Laws of Listing and Nulling as per HCO B 1 August 68.

The most violent session ARC Brks occur because of list errors under the meaning of Listing and Nulling. Other session ARC Brks even under withholds are not as violent as those occurring because of listing errors.

Therefore when a violent or even a “total-apathy-won’t-answer” session upset has occurred in Dianetics, one must suspect that the preclear is reacting under the Laws of Listing and Nulling and that he conceives such an error to have been made.

The repair action is to assess the prepared list which corrects listing errors. This is L4B—HCO B 15 Dec 68 amended to 18 March 71.

It is used “On Dianetics Lists_____” as the start of each of its questions when employed for this purpose.

When a pc has not done well on Dianetics and when no other reason can be found the C/S should suspect some listing error and order an L4B to be done “On Dianetic lists      “ at the start of each question.

Each read obtained on the list is carried Earlier Similar to F/N as per HCO B 14 Mar 71 “F/N Everything” or, preferably the list is found in the folder and properly handled in accordance with what read on L4B.

ALL Dianetic Lists can be carried to an item that blows down and F/Ns.

This does not mean the item found is now wholly clean. Even though it F/Ned it can be run by recall, by secondaries and by engrams as found in Class VIII materials. It is usually run by engrams, triple, R3R.

A C/S must be alert to the fact that

(a) 	Extreme upsets and deep apathies are almost always list errors.

(b) 	That a Dianetic List can be conceived to be a formal list and can behave that way.

(c) 	L4B is the correction list used in such cases.

Very few Dianetic lists behave this way but when they do they must be handled as above.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 JULY 1978
Remimeo

New Era Dianetics Series 18

AFTER THE FACT ITEMS

You will sometimes have trouble with a particular kind of running item.

It is known as an “after the fact item.”

First, why do you get erasures only because you ask for earlier beginnings or earlier similars? Because the thetan’s mind where pictures are concerned parallels the time track.

Late things hang up where earlier like things exist.

For some reason best known to thetans, you have to get the earlier like thing before you can erase the later like thing.

This is built into R3RA.

But what isn’t built in is preventing the pc giving or the auditor choosing an “after the fact” running item.

An “after the fact” running item is one which clearly has an earlier thing before it, yet, by its very wording, prohibits reaching the earlier thing.

Example of an “after the fact” running item: “Repression.”

Now clearly something had to happen before in order to have something repress.

The pc dutifully begins to run “Feeling repressed.” But what happened that caused it is not part of the item. So he is forced to run late in the incident.

Example: “Feeling blue about hospitals.”

This will find him in hospitals but will avoid letting him run what put him there.

The item is after the fact of having been run over.

The way to handle “after the fact” running items is:

1. 	Learn to recognize them.

2. 	Don’t choose one off a running item list. Choose something else that read.

L. RON HUBBARD 
Founder 
LRH: ldv 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 JULY 1978

Remimeo
New Era Dianetics Series 17

DIANETIC PERSISTENT F/Ns

If the original item is not totally and completely gone you can run into a condition where the pc is on a persistent F/N with regard to it but it’s still there slightly and nothing reads but it only F/Ns.

What you can do in that case is:

1. 	take the pc off auditing for a few days while the persistent F/N dies out and the environment keys something in and continue then with the assessment of that original item or

2. 	go on with some other original item that does read and make a big clear notation in the pc’s program to come back to the original item after you have run some other original items on the case.

If you get stopped by a persistent F/N and some condition is still there, don’t use an F/N as an excuse not to come back to the original item!

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:rb 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 JULY 1978
Remimeo
All Auditors
ASSESSMENT TRs

The right way to do an assessment is to ask the pc the question in a questioning tone of voice.

In assessing, some auditors have made assessment questions into statements of fact, which of course is a cousin to evaluation.

A downcurve at the end of an assessment question contributes to making it a statement. Questions should go up at the end.

A remedy for this is to record ordinary conversation. Ask some normal questions and make some normal statements and you will find that the voice tone rises on a question and goes down on a statement.

Assessing with a statement’s tone of voice instead of a questioning tone of voice results in evaluation for the pc. The pc feels accused or evaluated for rather than assessed and an auditor can get a lot of false and protest reads.

It’s all tone of voice. Auditors have to be drilled in asking questions. Assessment questions have an upcurve at the end.

Get it?

Then drill it.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH: ifg 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 JULY 1969RB
REVISED 11 JULY 1978
Remimeo	RE-REVISED 4 SEPTEMBER 1978
Dn Course
HDG Course	
(See also HCOB 31 March 1970
Urgent - Dianetic TR Note)
(Revisions in this type style)

NEW ERA DIANETICS COMMAND TRAINING DRILLS

Upon a recent investigation it was found that the Dianetic Training Drills (101, 102, 103 & 104) as originally developed by me in 1969 had been dropped from use on the Dianetics Course.

Therefore, these drills are reissued here for full use, and the following list of HCOBs and BTBs is hereby cancelled.

BTB 10 DECEMBER 1974 ISSUE VI CANCELLATION OF BULLETINS 1969 cancels BTB 17 July 1969 Dianetic Command Training Drills 101 & 102, it also cancels BTB 21 August 1969 TR 104 Note—these cancellations are correct.

Additionally the following BTBs are now cancelled:

BTB 17 July 1969R Revised 19 Feb 1974, Reissued 3 December 1976 cancels & revises HCO BULLETIN OF 17 JULY 1969 Dianetic Command Training Drills 101 & 102.

BTB 20 May 1970 (Issued 28 March 1974 as BTB) cancels HCO BULLETIN OF 20 MAY 1970 (cancels HCOB 21 Aug 1969 and 15 Jan 1970 and 31 March 1970).

NOTE: HCOB 20 May 1970 “103, 104 RUNDOWN” remains cancelled.

HCOB 21 Aug 1969 “TR 104 NOTE” remains cancelled.

HCOB 15 Jan 1970 Issue III “TR 104” remains cancelled.

HCOB 31 March 1970 “URGENT - DIANETIC TR NOTE” is not cancelled. This HCOB was issued by myself.

TRs 101, 102, 103 & 104

The most common errors being made by student auditors are forgetting the commands during session and misusing command sequence or procedure or doing odd things because they get nervous. The following drills are added to the New Era Dianetics Course to handle this. The drills must be thoroughly done.

TR 100 AND TR 100-A

Preassessment is a vital step of the New Era Dianetics procedure.

The benefits available from New Era Dianetics require that the auditor be able to do faultless preassessments of original items from New Era Dianetics assessment sheets and rundowns.
TR 100 and TR 100-A are made part of the New Era Dianetics Course to ensure that the student can apply the preassessment procedure in... TR 104 and in his auditing.

TR 100:

NAME: 	Preassessment Procedure On A Doll

COMMANDS:	All commands of the procedure per New Era Dianetics Series 4, “Assessment and How to Get The Item,” and New Era Dianetics Series 4-1, “The Preassessment List.”

POSITION:	Student seated at a table with E-Meter and the Preassessment List. In the chair opposite the student is a doll, occupying the position of the pc.

PURPOSE:	To familiarize the student with the delivery and use of the Preassess ment List.

TRAINING	This drill is not coached. The student sets up the E-Meter and Preasses
STRESS:	sment List exactly as in a session. He starts the assessment and
	delivers a complete preassessment on the doll, keeping full admin and
	using all standard procedures of NED Series 4 to get items for
	running.

	Student uses nonsense terms or harmless ones for the original item.
	He then delivers a preassessment on that.

	Student then selects the preassessment item from the Preassessment
	List and asks:

	“What ______(preassessment item) are connected with (the original item)?”

	The drill is passed when the student can do the drill flawlessly with good assessment TRs, correct procedure and commands, without comm lags or confusion, and can maintain proper assessment admin.

TR 100-A

NAME:	Preassessing A Doll Coached

COMMANDS: 	Same as TR 100

POSITION:	Same as TR 100, with coach holding the E-Meter cans, and seated beside the student. Coach provides nonsense and harmless items for the student and squeezes the can to simulate E-Meter reads.

PURPOSE:	To train the student to deliver and use the preassessment procedure.

TRAINING	Coach provides a list of original items as from one of the New Era
STRESS:	Dianetics rundowns or assessment sheets. The student must choose
	the best reading original item and deliver the Preassessment List to
	the doll on that item. All reads on the preassessment must be cor
	rectly noted and marked. Student must then select out the correct
	preassessment item to list for a running item and ask the correct
	question.

	As the coach gives running items the student must get these down accurately with their reads. Then he must select which he would run on R3RA Quad and in what order.
	The student must reassess and extend the list of running items and use Suppress and Invalidate buttons as needed until the list is exhausted.

The student must then reassess the Preassessment List, find the next preassessment item and handle.

Flunks are given for any out TRs on the doll, any incorrectly marked reads, any missed or altered item given and any incorrect selection of an item.

Stress is on the student’s ability to make a distinction between an item which requires a preassessment and one that does not. Student must not try to run drugs, medicines, medical terms or multiple somatics.

Drill is passed when the student can do the full preassessment procedure with good TRs, proper commands, without comm lags or confusions, can maintain proper assessment admin.

TR 101

NAME:	R3RA To A Wall

COMMANDS: 	R3RA commands including earlier incident and earlier similar commands.

	Included in this drilling are the handling of bouncers, checking for erasure, and checking for postulate command actions, as well as are the handling of narrative incident commands.

POSITION:	Student seated facing a wall.

PURPOSE:	To get the student able to give all R3RA commands accurately, in correct order without hesitation or having to think what the next command should be.

TRAINING	This drill is not coached. The student sits facing a wall with a copy 
STRESS:	of the R3RA bulletin in his lap. The student gives the commands, in
	order, to the wall maintaining good TR 0 and TR 1. When the
	student falters or is uncertain of the next command he re-reads the
	commands from the bulletin then continues to give the commands to
	the wall. When the student can confidently give all the possible 
	R3RA commands accurately without any slightest comm lag, he has passed this drill.

TR 102

NAME:	Auditing A Doll

COMMANDS: 	All R3RA commands and New Era Dianetics procedures except preassessment procedure.

POSITION:	Student seated at a table with E-Meter and Auditor Report sheets. In the chair opposite the student is a doll occupying the position of the pc.

PURPOSE:	To familiarize the student with the materials of auditing and coordinate and apply the commands and procedures of New Era Dianetics in an auditing session.

TRAINING	This drill is not coached. The student sets up the E-Meter and work
STRESS:	sheets exactly as in a session. He starts the session and runs a com
	plete New Era Dianetics session on the doll keeping full session admin and using all standard procedures of New Era Dianetics.

	This 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 and can maintain proper session admin, including worksheets, Auditor’s Report Form and Summary Report.

	All the R3RA commands used in TR 101 are again used here. Admin must communicate adequately which command is being used.

TR 103

NAME:	Auditing On A Doll Coached

COMMANDS: 	All R3RA commands, situations and procedures of New Era Dianetics except the preassessment procedure.

POSITION:	Same as in TR 102 except that a coach sits beside student calling out command numbers and situations and the student following them and keeping admin and his meter.

PURPOSE:	To give the student total certainty in the use of R3RA commands despite any distraction.

TRAINING	Coach calls for commands at random by stating the letter or number
STRESS:	of the command or the situation by saying “solid,” “erasing”” “solid
	but nothing earlier.” The student addresses the right command or
	action to the doll, handles meter and admin. The coach also uses pc
	responses such as “That’s all,” “I can’t find one,” etc. These are
	called for in quick succession and in any order. Coach starts in on a
	gradient gradually getting the drill faster and becoming sharper on
	flunks for any comm lags, uncertainties, groping for commands or
	breaks in TR 0-4. If the student becomes too confused the coach
	has probably proceeded with too steep a gradient and given the
	student too many losses. In such instances have the student go through the commands in proper sequence a few times and then continue with random commands building up the drill on a gradient.
	The use of the correct command (including those for handling boun
	cers, checking for erasure, and checking for postulates, as well as
	correct narrative procedure) is required at the appropriate point.

TR 104

NAME:	R3RA Coached And Bullbaited

COMMANDS: 	All R3RA commands and procedures.

POSITION:	As for auditing on a doll (TR 102) with coach seated beside student and a bullbaiter as “pc” across from the student instead of a doll.

PURPOSE:	To train the student to deliver a standard session with correct commands and procedure and without session additives of any kind despite distractions.

TRAINING	The drill is the same as for auditing on a doll except that the “pc”
STRESS:	coach bullbaits the student auditor during the session in an attempt
	to throw the student off session while the second coach calls the
	numbers as on TR 103. Flunks are given for any improper com
	mands, procedure, comm lags, breaks in TRs or improper session
	admin. The second coach does the “Start,” the flunking or “That’s
	it.” If the student is not making the grade he is returned to the
	earlier TR that is out. This drill is coached tough and only passed when the student is totally competent, exact and correct in all commands, procedures, auditing actions and session admin with excellent TRs and no slightest variation from or additives to New Era Dianetics.

	Coach ensures the student has total certainty on the application of all R3RA commands and sequences including handling bouncers, checking for erasure, checking for postulates, and handling narrative incidents.

	Preassessment procedure must also be correctly applied exactly as in a session.

	These drills were developed by me in July 1969 when it was found that all failed sessions resulted from non-standard auditing, the main goofs being auditors’ failure to give the next command, forgetting the commands in session or giving a wrong command.

New drills were added and existing drills were revised to include drilling for the utilization of the discoveries of New Era Dianetics in 1978.

	L. RON HUBBARD
	Founder

LRH:rb.dr 
Copyright © 1969. 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 31 MARCH 1970
Remimeo
Dn Checksheet
URGENT

DIANETIC TR NOTES

(Cancels HCO B 15 January 1970,
Issue III, “TR 104”, written by another)

To avoid coach restim in doing TR 104 and TR 103 please note the following:

1. 	In TR 103 the “session” is between STUDENT and DOLL. TRs are done on the DOLL not the coach.

2. 	In TR 103 the coach is not obliged to answer all of the commands—he may or may not. If he doesn’t, the student assumes the DOLL has answered and proceeds accordingly.

3. 	In TR 103 and TR 104 NEVER give dates and durations, as a coach, in actual units of TIME—use something else. “4 Figs”, “2 potatoes”, “horsefeathers” are all perfectly good “dates” for coaching purposes or in bull-baiting.

4. 	Likewise never use real somatics in coaching or bull-baiting TR 103 and TR 104—use nonsense terms or harmless ones.

5. 	In TR 103 the coach occupies the position of a bull-baiter who interjects distractions, bull-baiting and disruptive remarks into the “session” between student and doll. He can throw in answers on behalf of the doll which the student must abide by; but the coach does not play the part of “pc”. Don’t go playing the role of “pc” on a real set of process commands!

Also, please note that the POSITION of the coach in TR 104 and TR 103 is beside the student, not across from him.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 MARCH 1975

Remimeo

EXT AND ENDING SESSION

When a pc exteriorizes on a good win in session or if the pc has a big win, usually followed by a persistent F/N, the usual action is to end session.

When ending session in these circumstances the Auditor must not do any other action, but smoothly end session.

This includes asking Say or Ask, running Havingness or anything other than smoothly ending session.

LRH:nt rd	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1975	Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 JULY 1971 R
Revised & Reissued 8 June 1974

(Only changes the 2nd last & 4th last paras.)
Remimeo
C/S Series 49R

ASSISTS

There are three types of assists.

They are:

1. 	Contact Assist

2. 	Touch Assist

3. 	Dianetic Assist.

They are quite different from each other. They are VERY effective when properly done.

A severe injury or illness case can be run on all three and SHOULD BE.

If the handling is very soon after injury, burns do not blister, breaks heal in days, bruises vanish.

But to obtain such results it is necessary that the C/S and auditor or auditor alone know and RESPECT the assist tech. It is too often a toss-off, only one kind being done and then not to EP.

Every assist must end with an F/N (at Examiner or checked on a meter).

CONTACT ASSIST

Done off meter at the physical Mest Universe location of the injury. EP - Pain Gone. Cog. F/N.

See HCO B 9 Oct 67, Assists for Injuries. [See BTB 18 Feb 74, same title.]

DIANETIC ASSIST

Done in session on the meter. EP Pain Gone. Cog. F/N.

     	See HCO Bs
12 	Mar 69 	Issue II, Physically Ill Pcs and Pre OTs
24 	Apr 69 	Dianetic Use
14 	May 69 	Sickness
20 	May 69 	Issue II, Dianetics (Dn Auditing Assists) [see BTB 10 Dec 74, VI]
23 	May 69 	Narrative Versus Somatic Chains
24 	July 69 	Seriously Ill Pcs
27 	July 69 	Antibiotics
15 	Jan 70 	The Uses of Auditing
21 	June 70 	C/S Series 9, Superficial Actions (Sick Pcs)
1 	Dec 70 	Dianetics—Triple Flow Action [now BTB I Dec 70R, same title]
5 	Jan 71 	Going Earlier in R3R (Dn Auditing Assist) [see BTB 10 Dec 74]
8 	Mar 71 	C/S Series 29, Case Actions, Off Line
15 	Mar 71 	Assists—A Flag Expertise Subject [see page 335]

TOUCH ASSIST

Done off the meter by an auditor on the pc’s body. EP Pain Gone. Cog. F/N.

See HCO Bs
9 	Oct 67 	Assists for Injuries [see BTB 18 Feb 74, same title]
5 	May 69 	Issue I, Touch Assists [cancelled, see Volume IX, page 502]
22 	July 70 	Touch Assist—An Improvement on Spinal Adjustment 
23 	Aug 70 	The Body Communication Process [cancelled by BTB 10 Dec 74] 15 	Mar 71 	Assists—A Flag Expertise Subject [see page 335]

UNCONSCIOUS PC

An unconscious pc can be audited off a meter by taking his hand and having him touch nearby things like pillow, floor, etc or body without hurting an injured part.

A person in a coma for months can be brought around by doing this daily.

One tells them a hand signal like, “Press my hand twice for ‘Yes’, once for ‘No’,” and can get through to them, asking questions and getting “Yes” and “No” hand responses. They usually respond with this, if faintly, even while unconscious.

When one has the person conscious again one can do the assists.
________

FIRST AID RULES APPLY TO INJURED PERSONS.

IN MAKING THEM TOUCH SOMETHING THAT WAS MOVING, STOP IT FIRST.

IN MAKING THEM TOUCH THINGS THAT WERE HOT, COOL THEM FIRST.

WHEN POSSIBLE MAKE THEM HOLD THE THINGS THEY WERE HOLDING, IF ANY, WHILE DOING A CONTACT ASSIST.

IF AFTER A TOUCH OR CONTACT ASSIST THEY DON’T F/N WHEN TAKEN TO OR GIVEN AN EXAM, CHECK FOR O/R AND IF NO F/N TAKE THEM AWAY AND COMPLETE THE ASSIST.

DIANETIC ASSISTS CAN BE RUN TRIPLE.
________

This is important tech. It saves pain and lives. Know it and use it.

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

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

9 OCTOBER 1967R
Remimeo
CANCELS & REVISES
HCO BULLETIN OF 9 OCTOBER 196?

ASSISTS FOR INJURIES
(Revisions are underlined)

Do not run a touch assist when the exact spot is available for a CONTACT ASSIST. (For a severe injury see HCOB 5 July 71 C/S Series 49 “Assists”.)

In a CONTACT ASSIST you take the person to the exact spot where the eccident occurred. Then have him duplicate exactly what happened at the time of the incident.

For instance, if he hit his head on a pipe, have him go through the action of putting his head against the exact spot on the pipet having the pipe also touch the exact spot on his heed. He should be duplicating the whole thing. That is, the rest of his body should be in the position it was at the time of the accident. If the object is hot, you let it cool first, if current was on you turn it off before doing the Assist.

If he had a tool in his hand, or was using one, he should be going through the same motions with it.

Have the person repeat this several times, until the somatlc occurs again. It will occur and blow off when he exactly duplicates it.

Ask him how it’s going; has the somatic occurred. End when you get this phenomena of it turning on and blowing off.

If the spot is not available, you do a TOUCH ASSIST. This is run on both sides of the body. It is run until the pain is gone, Cog, F/N. per LRH HCOB 5 JULY 71 “ASSISTS”.

It is run around the injury and especially below the injury; i.e., further from the head than the injury.

It is a good idea to have the person shift his eyes so that he is definitely looking “through” the areas of the injury in order to tell that you are touching him.

Just use a simple command like “Feel my finger. Thenk you.”

Before or after the Assist, depending on the seriousness of the injury report the injury to the Medical officer. Report also the Assist, length of time, somatics, nature of the injury, how it was run and on whom.

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

Authorised by AVU

BDCS:LRH:RS:LG:rs 	for the
Copyright © 1971, 1975 	BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
by L. Ron Hubbard 	of the 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
B O A R D   T E C H N I C A L   B U L L E T I N

7 APRIL 1972R
Revised & Reissued 23 June 1974 as BTB
(Revision in this type style)
Remimeo
CANCELS
HCO BULLETIN OF 7 APRIL 1972
SAME TITLE

TOUCH ASSISTS
CORRECT ONES

Touch Assist Bulletins are right enough as to the data in them. Many were written by others than myself.

Accordingly, to correct certain outnesses and GET REAL RESULTS EVERY TIME, I gave a correct demonstration to the Medical Officers at Flag. They were also told by someone else it needed a Case Supervisor clearance and by another that it had to be known by a Class IV Auditor. Both of these data were false and were cancelled.

Being alerted now that students learning it do it all over a doll with no idea of balance, I wish to make sure the correct data is known so this tech, very powerful when CORRECTLY DONE, is better understood as to exact use.

I know no better way of giving the real scene than publishing these correct notes by one of the Medical Officers who took notes during the demonstration.

TALK BY LRH TO FLAG MEDICAL OFFICERS ON TOUCH ASSISTS,
WITH DEMONSTRATION

On assists when you are speaking with medicos you talk to them in terms of restoring comm in blood and nerve channels.

I’ve recently observed nobody does a correct touch assist. Hence I want to show you how to get real results.

Normal errors in a touch assist are: (1) Don’t go to extremities, (2) Don’t equal balance to both sides, (3) Don’t carry through (they go to release point only), (4) Don’t repeat on following days if needed.

A guy stubs a toe, the other toe is where it is locked up.

There is a balance of the nerve energy of the body on 12 nerve channels going up and down the spine. The type of energy in the body travels at 10 ft a second.

The energy from a shock will make a standing wave in the body.

The brain is a shock cushion, that is all. It absorbs the shock from a large amount of energy. The neuron-synapse is a disconnection.

A wave one way will have a wave reacting the other way. In the sympathetic system the wave locks up on both sides of the body. So do assist thoroughly on both sides. Get both sides and unlock standing wave. The purpose of a touch assist is to unlock the standing waves that are small electronic ridges of nervous energy that is not flowing as it should.
You can unlock an impulse in the leg and it can get into spine and lock up. So this is where you get the Chiropractor fixing people. But the nerves are “telling the muscles” to hold the bone out of place.

A shock puts, via the nerves, a permanent command into a set of muscles, all different “commands” going out from the shock. The system functions through stops to try to hold that shock back. It’s actually nerve to muscle to bone.

Light massage along nerve channels will get muscles unlocked to permit bone to go in place. You unlock nerve channels.

The trick is standing waves. The wave is slowed down as it goes through body, like at each joint. There are brain cells at each joint absorbing the shock.

Inertia—when enough heavy charge goes through a nerve it stops passing the charge through and just builds it up. A touch assist will bring the flow back and the suspended pain, cold, electrical charges and muscle command will blow through.

Shock impulse goes tearing down nerve in huge volume, all accumulating nodules of standing waves all over body, trying to stop the nerve impulse. The nerve goes into apathy with the huge volume of impulse. Like 100,000 volts of electricity over a small wire, something goes.

With auditing you are bringing back the nerve “from apathy” up through the tone scale. Like getting apathy of nerve up through the pain explosion. So the touch assist is short sessioned and always balanced.

At first you might just get an awareness of the area, then maybe after the 3rd or 4th assist (third or fourth day or many more days with one done each day) there is a large jolt that will go through.

The comm cycle is not as important in the touch assist as it is with thetan auditing. But it must be present. Here we are dealing with the body. You do give the command, get an answer from the patient and acknowledge each time.

THE ASSIST DEMO done on Arthur Hubbard

(Arthur had a wound on his right foot right side at ball of foot location, wound not healing quickly.)

You want to get the guy where he is available. (Arthur was sitting on chair with legs straight and feet on LRH’s knees [one foot on each knee], and Arthur’s hands palms down on his shins. Arthur was comfortable—LRH asked about his comfort.)

The target of all this touch assist is the pain in the wound in the side of the foot. The extremity is the top end of the big toe. Both hands and especially finger tip are also extremities. It’s a sympathetic system.

On the assist you must go to corresponding extremities.

(R factor) I’m going to touch you like this (LRH touched Arthur’s foot). When you feel it well tell me, okay? Okay.

Feel my finger. Yes (Arthur). Good (LRH). This was done rapidly alternating from one side of body to other, one command and answer and ack for each touch; assist done on each toe back and forth left to right, one for one touch on one side, touch on other side. Up foot, each toe, over to hands, left hand to right hand, one touch for one. This was done for several minutes.
LRH then had Arthur bend over to get to the spine. Arthur said he had some numbness in the lower spine when LRH asked about this area. LRH then did the spine touching 3 inches from spine on one side then to three inches on the other side alternately, up the head and around the neck and head.

LRH asked, “How’s that?” Arthur said, “Better,” gave cognition on pants being same ones he had on during accident, and LRH ended off.

SPINE

Arthur during assist had numbness in kidney back area. This is the midpoint between the extremities on the sympathetic system. In the future if the assist hadn’t been done he might have had kidney trouble.

The impulse locks up in the spine, so you have to do the spine too to release that charge.

EXTREMITY

The extremity is beyond the point of the body injury. Really handling the extremity furthest from the injury, the legs, would strip the blocked energy out (if you get the extremity). (During the assist LRH did not do the legs, or arms, only toes, feet, hands, fingers and back.)

	“The way you run the touch assist is
       		give the command
		then touch.
	“Do not touch and then give the command as it’s backwards.
	“This requires a drill
		‘Feel my finger.’
       		Then touch a point”

                      	LRH

SCHOOLS OF HEALING

The thing that’s wrong with each school of healing is that it says it can do the job totally. It can’t. An example of this is a Swedish masseur saying he can cure a person. But in addition to massage, let us say, the person doesn’t eat. It’s not part of the cure, so doesn’t cure.

The doctor’s bug is diagnosis. He is even setting up a computer system in the country to figure out what is with the person. But they don’t have logic or the Data Series to program from so they won’t make it.

There is a big hole in Adele Davis’s book on dieting. She doesn’t talk enough about iodine on diets, but that is what activates thyroid which burns up the food. So her reducing diets don’t always reduce.

If you block out the fields of knowledge you won’t get anywhere.

To cure things a doctor should use a number of things (schools of healing) and do each one right.

Regard body with a question mark in your mind.

There is a “brain” at each joint. This is why acupuncture works. One can paralyze a whole body area with it by touching these minor “brains” with a needle. It can do other things as well if you know how.

MESMERISM

Mesmerism is no relation to hypnotism at all. Mesmerism is animal magnetism. It’s a physiological rapport. Not a concentration on mental but on mental-physiological.

To have rapport with something you can be it.

Hypnotism is the reduction and absorption of mental power of the person. In hypnotism one takes over the person. The subject has no control.

When doing physical healing, if you stroke sympathetically (both sides) alternately inducing a rhythmic motion which is monotonous, you can mesmerize a person.

In Mesmerism there is an imposition on feeling. If you mesmerize a person and pinch your back, he will get red in the same place and feel the pain of the pinch. This is physiological rapport. No words are said during mesmerism.

In assists you don’t want rapport; avoid a rhythm; on stroking in massages keep person talking; keep him saying Yes and you acking in an assist. Keep him in comm with you. That is why you use the comm cycle, or else all feeling can go out of the body. The comm cycle prevents a mesmeric trance occurring that would leave the patient in rapport.

Rapport is mutual feelingness.

In an assist (1) Keep talking, (2) Break rhythms, (3) End off. This is important.

Mesmerism is the transfer of the feeling and fault of operator to patient. A woman doing massages quietly and rhythmically could be giving her patient her disjointed hip. A doctor with bad eyesight can make his patients worse or vice versa possibly, if he had good eyesight, patient could get good eyesight.

                                    	Notes of Flag Medical Officer

	Amended & Reissued as BTB by 
	Flag Mission 1234

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

	Authorized by AVU 
	for the 
	BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
	of the 
	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

BDCS:SW:AL:MH:JD:mes.mh.rd 
Copyright © 1972, 1974 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 APRIL 1969
Revised 14 May 1969
Remimeo

DIANETIC ASSISTS

(Include in Medical Series)
The Use of Dianetics to the Medical Doctor

There is everything to be said for correct medical treatment in the handling of the sick and insane.

“Insanity” is most often the suppressed agony of actual physical illness and injury.

To “treat” this agony with shock and “brain operations” is a Nuremberg type offense and is indictable as mayhem or manslaughter.

The medical treatment of “insanity” requires sure awareness by the patient of his whereabouts and present time. These are usually quite unbearable so he has sunk into the past to escape the agony of the present.

The TOUCH ASSIST given to such injured persons permits healing to occur by restoring the person to the present and his whereabouts to some degree.

Healing after medical treatment might not occur rapidly if the “insane” or chronically ill person remains in the past, unable to confront the present.

Thus the touch assist speeds and often permits healing after medical treatment and sometimes in minor injuries and illness permits the doctor to accomplish healing without further treatment.

There is the TOUCH ASSIST, the CONTACT ASSIST and the AUDITING ASSIST.

The touch assist done as described elsewhere brings the patient’s attention to injured or affected body areas. When attention is withdrawn from them, so is circulation, nerve flows and energy which for one thing limits nutrition to the area and for another prevents the drain of waste products. Some ancient healers attributed remarkable flows and qualities to the “laying on of hands”. Probably the workable element in this was simply heightening awareness of the affected area and restoring the physical communication factors.

The CONTACT ASSIST is remarkable when it can be done. The patient is taken to the area where the injury occurred and makes the injured member gently contact it several times. A sudden pain will fly off and the injury if minor lessens or vanishes. This is again a physical communication factor. The body member seems to have withdrawn from that exact spot in the physical universe.

The restoration of awareness is often necessary before healing can occur.

The prolongation of a chronic injury occurs in the absence of physical communication with the affected area or with the location of the spot of injury in the physical universe.

The AUDITING ASSIST is done by a trained auditor using an E-Meter.

It consists of “running out” the physically painful experience the person has just undergone, accident, illness, operation or emotional shock. This erases the “psychic trauma” and speeds healing to a remarkable degree if done properly.

In addition to assists there is Dianetic auditing of an acutely ill person which handles the current and past illnesses and injuries by erasing the “physical trauma”.

The last is a skilled activity. Practitioners who have the idea such things do not have causes will of course fail to locate the causes.

A sickness can be composed, let us say, of a headache, a nausea, apathy and weariness.

Such a sickness may be bizarre, without medical reason.

By first getting the patient to find and say what shock occurred when the sickness began, getting when, and getting it recounted, the “illness” will lessen, the emotional state will alter—called a “release of affect”.

By then finding an earlier similar instance and getting that one dated and recounted a further release of affect may occur.

If the good indicators, smiles, etc, do not occur in the patient, one again asks for an earlier incident, dates it and gets it recounted.

The phenomena of “floating needle” on the E-Meter should not be bypassed on a physically sick person. If it occurs, regardless of when, and the patient is smiling and suddenly free from symptoms, one at once desists with further auditing on that subject and at that time.

If no floating needle and a full release of symptoms occur, one then traces back the remaining symptoms. Let us say the headache is now gone due to recounting times of emotional duress. But the patient is still slightly nauseous. One traces the nausea to earlier or other incidents. It will vanish when found and dated.

The apathy vanished somewhere along the way but weariness remains. One traces the weariness to another or other incidents.

In short one handles each manifestation of the bizarre illness until all symptoms are gone and the patient is happy and cheerful.

Needless to say all this requires a skilled auditor but the skill can be acquired in a Dianetic training course.

The important thing is not to tell the patient what caused it, but to let him tell you. Otherwise the symptom suppresses.

The approach in any of these assists is quiet, gentle, permissive, never forcing the patient, speaking only the words required to do the process.

The temporarily insane by reason of emotional shock, where no medical illness exists, should be permitted rest and should then be handled by an assist as above or normal Dianetic auditing. Most often, rest and no further harassment result in a return to sanity in a short time such as a few days, but not in a terror atmosphere such as a psychiatric asylum where the patient is in the risk of being hurt or killed. Electric shock prolongs the condition and brain surgery is of course not treatment but murder as at best it deprives the person of his coordination and at worst shortens his life. The occasional and rare brain tumour is of course an exception but this is a medical not a psychiatric matter, no matter what manifestations the person exhibits. Most medically ill people do exhibit symptoms of mental derangement at some stage of their illness.

The acceleration of healing of medical illness or injury such as broken bones or the after effects of delivery or operations can be accomplished by the Dianetic auditing of the resulting trauma soon after full medical treatment or attention. The improvement factor is about 1/3 the normal time of recovery by some thousands of test cases.

Such auditing is done by a usual Dianetic procedure.

In addition to the above assists there is regular Dianetic auditing which handles chronic discomforts and prevents future illness as well as improving the state of well-being of a person.

The mechanisms of the mind revealed in Dianetics are of great use to the field of medicine.

They are easy and quick to apply.

About one month’s training is all that is necessary to acquaint an otherwise educated and intelligent person with the fundamentals and skills necessary to assists.

Considerably more time of course is necessary to train a skilled Scientology auditor, but this is not the subject of this paper.

There is no conflict of interest between any healing profession and Dianetics. Dianetic materials and papers are fully available.

There is a conflict between Dianetics and political practices such as psychiatry since electric shock, brain operations and general degradation of the person may prevent the patient’s recovery by Dianetics.

As answers exist now for insanity there is no reason to continue Medieval or Fascist solutions to the problem of the psychosomatically ill or the insane and we are doing everything in our power against fantastic opposition to end the torture and killing of the insane regardless of the politically “desirable” ends envisioned by some groups.

Dianetics, like any other true treatment, like aspirin or penicillin, was originally designed to handle the apparent basic cause of psychosomatic illness. The first research was intended to help allied prisoners of war degraded by the Japanese and Chinese prison camps and who after VJ day were transferred to Oak Knoll Naval Hospital. Later, in 1954, in a much more advanced state of development, Dianetics was successfully employed to eradicate the results of allied prisoners of the Korean war who had been subjected to Russian brainwashing. The subject has been improved, made easier to teach and apply and its results bettered continually over a total period of 29 years. It has in 1969 been fully updated as Standard Dianetics. It is very successful and is in very broad use over the world.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 APRIL 1969
Issue II
Remimeo
Usual Dn Dist
Dian Checksheet
AOs
SOMATICS AND OTS

If a preclear or pre OT has physical difficulties, bad perception trouble, illness or physical disability HE HAS NO BUSINESS GETTING GRADES POWER CLEARING OR OT LEVELS.
HE
NEEDS
DIANETICS

Once that is completely understood it will end any and all “failures”.

The Dianetics he needs is fully contained in the new Dianetics checksheet.

Using Scn auditing and grades to handle common Dianetic problems is to audit a pc over a Present Time Problem.

The big PTPs a thetan has are his body.

A thetan is a thetan and he wants spiritual freedom and ability.

A body is a body.

Scientology = thetan rehabilitation.

Dianetics = body improvement.

All Dianeticists and Scientologists, all pcs and pre OTs should be informed of this.

Using Scn to help the body and Dianetics to help the thetan is a mix of practices and the misuse of both.

Even the applications are different.

In Scn you handle PTPs, ARC Breaks, Missed Withholds that occur in sessions.

In Dianetics you erase the session or incident in which they occurred.

Dianetic processing uses a Meter, R3R and assists and TRs. It also uses an understanding of what the subject is for. It erases locks, secondaries and engrams or their chains. That’s exactly what it does and what is done with it. The mental image picture is the source of continued pain, somatics, bad perception or illness. This subject has to be DONE, actually used These data in this paragraph are the total essentials of Dianetics. It is taught, case supervised and used as Dianetics.

The thetan, scales, ARC, exteriorization, ability, freedom, the grades, clearing, and OT levels are the sole province of Scientology.
Earlier writings tend to overlap and intermingle the two subjects.

Because one was not permitted to heal, that being frowned on in some countries, Dianetics tended to be suppressed and was lost sight of. Scientology began to be made to try to do Dianetic work.

We can now cleanly separate the two and so obtain enormously increased case gains.

LRH:jc.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 14 MAY 1969
Remimeo
Dn Checksheet
SICKNESS

It will sometimes happen that a pc has a session and then three or four days later becomes physically ill.

The auditor may feel that auditing did it. It didn’t. The auditing given would have to be non-standard for this to happen, but the auditing is not to blame.

According to my friend Dr. Stanley Lief, over a century ago Hahnemann developed a healing technology known as homeopathy which administered minute doses of medicine. The original theory seems to have been that the disease or illness was still in the body and would be released. The person would be wildly ill again and then permanently recover. This is probably a poor statement of the whole subject of homeopathy and its basic techniques may have worked well but have been lost.

In any event, the phenomenon has application here.

We would say that the mental image picture of the incident was stopped at a “stuck point” and that it would “run out” of itself if it were unstabilized.

A touch assist can do this. The person may become wildly ill after one and then recover.

What apparently happens is that the chain of incidents becomes unsettled and the same incident on the chain in which the person has been stuck for a long while runs out physically. It completes itself, which is to say, it finishes its cycle of action.

At a hospital where I studied, this was part of the things I observed.

Medicine sometimes will not work on a patient. It works on others but not on a particular one.

If that particular one is given mental attention even as mild as brief Freudian analysis, it will be found that medicine will now work on the person.

This formed one of the first application discoveries I made. From it I inferred that function monitors structure and proceeded to investigate mental actions and reactions in the field of illness. From this came Dianetics some years later.

Mental therapy prior to 1945 was so ineffective, consisting only of 19th Century psychoanalysis and Russian and East European psychiatry, that no one else seems to have observed, then or now, that “mental blocks” are able to obstruct medical treatment of a real physical nature.

The proof is that when one even reduces the mental block slightly, medicines such as antibiotics or hormones will now be effective when they were previously ineffective on some patients.

It is this factor which gives purely medical treatment a somewhat random appearance. The patient is “stuck” at some point in time. Even inadequate handling of him mentally (such as a touch assist or a poorly or partially done session or even a “bad” session) “unsticks” the person from the frozen or fixed “stuck” point.
One of three things can now happen:

1. 	The person can be treated medically for his illness with greater effect.

2. 	The person in two or three days gets apparently sick or sicker but eventually recovers and is not subject to that exact sickness again—(it “ran out”).

3. 	No further result is noted.

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

These data are very useful to a Dianetic auditor or a medical doctor. A person can be ill and the illness not surrendering to the usual treatment. Brief mild Dianetic auditing can be done. The medicine may now work.

An auditor who specializes in keying out locks at the first F/N will find occasionally that his preclear becomes ill in two or three days from some occasional but longstanding illness which then “runs out” and doesn’t appear again.

An auditor who gives a non-standard, very poor session may find a preclear occasionally becoming ill within the next three or four days. The auditor and others blame the auditing.

Any auditing is better than no auditing.

Standard Dianetics is much more powerful than old Dianetics and should only be done by auditors trained to do it exactly.

Sessions which are non-standard should be corrected as soon as possible, certainly within two days or you may find the preclear beginning to go through an illness cycle.

The cycle was waiting to complete itself for a long time. The auditing unsettled it. It “ran out” physically because the pc was moved in time in the incident in which he has been “stuck”.

An understanding of this phenomena is necessary. It is useful data. Audit a pc badly, audit a pc too much to F/Ns on locks only, give a pc too many touch assists and you will find now and then that the occasional pc becomes physically ill, runs a temperature, etc. Before blaming yourself too much, realize the pc has often been ill in the past, that the mental cause of it has been loosened up and manifests itself and runs out physically. It is not fatal. That illness won’t recur again as it has in the past.

However, that it is not fatal to the pc is no excuse not to do a good STANDARD job of auditing.

If Standard Dianetics is used WITH NO DEPARTURE from its technology and procedure the phenomenon will not occur and no pcs experience a physical aftermath.

STANDARD DIANETICS taught precisely, done precisely, only makes people well.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH :an.ei.rd 
Copyright © 1969 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 MARCH 1969
Issue II
Remimeo
Class VIII
Tech Secs
Qual Secs

PHYSICALLY ILL PCS
AND PRE OTS
(with a note on Drugs)

One can very easily go to extremes on mental illness vs physical illness.

One school says all trouble comes from physical illness.

Another says it all comes from mental illness.

The psychiatrist mixes the two and says all mental illness is physical.

It is time every auditor, particularly Class VIIIs, took a hard look at this area.

The body is capable of having physical illness, acute (momentary) or chronic (continual). Broken bones, pinched nerves, diseases can any of them occur to a body independent of any mental or spiritual action.

The mind or spirit can predispose the illness or injury. By this is meant a person can be distraught and have an accident, or decide to die and get a disease.

But the disease or injury when he’s got it is a body circumstance and responds best to skilled medical (ordinary usual, put on a tourniquet, set a bone, give a shot) treatment.

On a sick or injured person, you can reduce the time of healing or recovery by removing the spiritual or mental upset, providing the person can be audited, but usually after effective physical treatment. The facts are real enough. Auditing a person with a broken leg after it is set and he is comfortable, to remove the engram of the accident or treatment and the earlier “reason” he or she was distraught or had the accident, can improve the bone knitting time by as much as 2/3rds by actual test. This would be six weeks down to two weeks.

But the bone has to be set!

A body is a biological object. It has all manner of internal communication systems and organized interrelated functions.

Now if you tried to audit a preclear when he was acutely ill, you would find him hard to audit, confused and distracted and unable to follow commands. He may become overwhelmed easily. He certainly is not likely to respond properly. Because the body is sending all sorts of pain or discomfort messages and confusions, it is very much in his way. Two things are going on at the same time—his case as a spiritual being, his body as a distracting pain or sensation object.

The pc assigns the body to his case or his case to his body.

You have to get the body out of the attention area to some degree before anything helpful usually occurs by way of auditing.

Now let us take the pc with a long term illness. He has been sick with something since the age of 8. He really doesn’t know he’s sick physically. He blames it all on his own case.

In a lot of cases we audit him and he has enough relief to then get physically well. For he was mentally or spiritually suppressing his body.

These successes (and they are numerous) could cause us to do an all mental concentration and lead some to insist all illness was from the mind. This makes some make the mistake of omitting physical examination and treatment in all cases. Certain schools of healing in the past got the entire field in disrepute by assuming and stating and acting on just that.

When you find a pc who does not easily respond, whether he answers up to 7 cases “Physically ill” or not, you sure better get him to the nearest clinic for a thorough physical examination including head and spine X-rays and get him examined pathologically. For you will usually find he is physically ill, in suppressed pain or discomfort. There are cures for a lot of these things now and not requiring “exploratory” operations either.

Don’t throw away all the grades of auditing on him. He’s sick. Physically.

That’s why you do a White Form. A long history of accident and illness should prepare you to be alert and to send him to a clinic if his response to auditing is the least bit poor.

Then when you have the physical side of it in hand, audit him at assist level.

When he is well give him his grades.

Don’t force auditing into physical healing. It works much of the time. Special types of auditing (running out injuries, etc) assist healing markedly. That doesn’t mean you should avoid all medical treatment!

“Failed cases” are medically ill or injured cases. Without exception. So why fail. There are medical doctors and clinics. There are standard, usual treatments. You don’t have to buy “exploratories” and questionable actions. These are done only when the medical doctor can’t find out either. When this impasse occurs, start doing assists or look for engrams.

There are some bizarre or strange postoperative (after operation) or post injury (after injury) conditions which do surrender miraculously to auditing. A suppurating incision (operation cut that remains open and unhealing), a bone that will not heal after having a plate put on it, such things usually surrender to auditing. These facts should be used but they do not contradict that medical treatment was needed in the first place.

The psychiatrist is an example of the other extreme to spiritual healing. Instead of “all mind” he is saying “all physical”.

Holding either extreme produces failures.

The psychiatrist got into his “all physical” by a sensing that insanity symptoms seemed to resemble persons in pain or delirium.

In these cases the stress of physical suffering is pouring back into and overwhelming the mind.

After considerable study on this, I realized that an error could have been made out of a statement “all insanity is physical”.

This is probably the case in the large percentage of the insane. But from this one cannot then say “all mental trouble is physical” because that can be demonstrated as not true. We see it as easily as in a case of a person falling ill on the receipt of bad news, who then gets good news and gets well. The great Voltaire, on his deathbed, received news that he had been awarded the Legion of Honor, after a lifetime of being scorned by Authority. He promptly got up, put on his clothes and went down to receive the award.

In the case of insanity having physical causes, one could discover this, say it and be promptly misunderstood in this way. The sufferer is in a general agony from a nerve long ago crushed. This actual pain is distributed from its point of concentration to the whole of the nervous system. The person cannot think, looks dazed, cannot work or act. An operation removes the pressure causing the condition. The person is then “sane” in that he can perform the actions of life.

After a few successes of this nature, the psychiatrist leaps to the conclusion all mental trouble is physical. He teaches some student saying “all mental trouble is physical”. The student goes off, tries to figure it out, dreams up a special insanity virus or “genes” or a special illness called “insanity”. He then resorts to all manner of odd and often brutal treatments. By cutting or shocking a nerve channel one can stop the pain messages but such actions lay in new complications which usually terminate in premature if not immediate death or injury.

This tells one why tranquilizers (psychotropic drugs) make a patient rational or at least able to function for a short while. They too have their side effects. Usually all they do is, like aspirin, reduce the pain.

Patients do not always know they hurt. They suppress the pain or sensation. It seems normal to them or “life”. When they receive a distressing experience or have an accident they cease to suppress and may go “insane”, which is to say, become continuously overwhelmed by pain or unwanted sensation. They cannot think or act rationally. They may even be insane only during periods of the day or month that coincide with the time of the accident. But they are in physical distress.

As they cannot eat or sleep, their condition worsens by exhaustion and they may go into various states including a deathlike motionlessness or actually die.

The CORRECT ACTION ON AN INSANE PATIENT IS A FULL SEARCHING CLINICAL EXAMINATION BY A COMPETENT MEDICAL DOCTOR.

He may find disease, fractures, concussion, tumours, or ANY COMMON ILLNESS which has escaped treatment and has become chronic (perpetual). He should keep looking until he finds it. For it is there. NOT some “insane germ” but some ordinary recognizable illness or physical malfunction.

The WRONG THING is to cut nerves or subject the person to more pain. Electricity can force a nerve channel to flow or paralyze it. That is probably why it seems to work sometimes. But it cures nothing and more often confirms the insane condition and certainly fills the patient with dread and terror, injures him and shortens life.

The problem in insanity is often how do you keep the patient from injuring himself or starving or dying before he can be examined by a competent medical doctor in a properly equipt clinic.

This is done by rest, security, feeding, under drugs if necessary.

A patient can be “built up” by various biochemical compounds, diathermy and other mild means that add to his stamina.

Treatment of what really troubles him such as continual sensation from a once broken leg which was never set, a broken spinal disc or such pathological ills as disease, can then be treated properly and corrected.

Recovered from the treatment, the patient will be found not to be “insane” any longer.

Auditing can then occur, any and all engrams (traumas) erased and the person’s recovery will be greatly accelerated.

Of course the real target of auditing is the improvement of the ability to handle life, greater intelligence, reaction time and other benefits.

Like the spiritual healer of another age who said all was mind and forbade physical healing, the practitioner who says all is body and scorns mental healing is an extremist.

Each of these is at the opposite ends of “Aristotle’s Pendulum”. Each has seen with his own eyes a few remarkable cures. Thus each is confirmed in his belief and will hotly argue and even attack others who do not share his or her extreme view.

The truth, as is usually found, lies in between.

There is no “insanity virus”. Even heredity remains unproven since families perform similar actions, are prone to similar physical ills and they also mentally pattern or copy each other. Either physical or mental facts can similarly prove that “insanity runs in the family” when it seems to do so. Thus “hereditary insanity” is an apparency which gives rise to the folk tale.

There is the spiritual identity of man, the mind, the thetan, call it what you will.

There is the physical body of man and that, even if cellular, is still material or physical or whatever you call that.

Proponents of both extreme illnesses are likely then to go off on an erratic course of search and research as the truth includes both and when you do include both you then begin to add up successes toward the desirable 100% of the physical sciences in result.

One cannot call either extreme more than an art. And the proponent of the purely physical does not have a “science” just because sciences are also physical.

One has a science only when one can predict and attain uniform results by the application of its technology.

It was very natural for the psychiatrist to think he had a foe in Scientology as all he had to hear was “spirit” and he was off. Since that has been his opposite “foe” for a long time.

To heal Man one has to realize he is dealing with two things—the spirit and the body. When a preclear comes to us because he wishes to be physically cured of a real current illness or malfunction, we do not serve him well if when we see he does not respond to auditing we do not require a full physical clinical study of his body until a real illness is found and treated.

If we already know he is ill we should call in the doctor. And we should limit auditing to assists.

This is also a case of crossed purposes. We are trying to give him greater capability and freedom. He is only trying to stop hurting.

Go ahead, sign them up. But at the first smallest clue (like the White Form) that he is being audited only to get well, we should have in good contact a medical doctor or clinic who is friendly and does not do unusual things to people and get the preclear diagnosed to really find what is wrong with him, get it cured if it is medically feasible and then, with a physically well pc, give him his auditing.
If this is done routinely, another benefit will also occur. The preclear so audited will not again become ill easily and will retain his very real auditing gains when he has these.

We are good enough to often get by. The ability of the body to get well often asserts itself when a preclear is given auditing, since the source of perpetuation (continuance) is removed from the illness and it changes.

Letting a pc, who has a badly set continually painful bone go on up the grades is doing him a disservice. He probably will not attain or retain his gains.

The stable datum on which I operate as a case supervisor is that if a pc does not get good gains quickly I want to know (and will find) what is physically injured or ill about him before I go on letting him be audited. The X-ray machine and other clinical actions become a must. For he is in suppressed pain and each time he gets a change, he puts on full stops as it started to hurt. He won’t get the same gain again and tomorrow the same process or type of process won’t work. He stops the pain if it starts to hurt and puts a new stop on his case. This is true of those cases who really have a physical illness.

Slow gain, poor result is a physically ill pc.

The exercise of these points requires judgement for a person can be given treatments which will not heal him. Where this is the case, and the treatment seems too damaging or uncertain, treat the pc on this routine:

       	1. 	Rest

       	2. 	No harassment

       	3. 	Food

	4. 	Mild sedatives.

When the person seems well, audit him.

The truth of the above definition of “insanity” can be experienced easily with no great stress. To have a headache or toothache is sometimes quite distressing and distracting, making one gloomy or inactive. Taking an aspirin cheers one up and he can work.

That is in fact the basic mechanism. It is why tranquilizers work.

This is why old-timers thought they had to cut nerves to “cure” the insane. But that’s like fixing the telephone exchange by throwing a hand grenade into the switchboard. You may get no more complaints but you sure don’t have a telephone any more. Which, I suppose, is the basic way to stop all complaints. Nobody can ring up even if the house were on fire!

Drugs such as marijuana are craved only when the being “needs them” to stop undesirable physical pain or sensation. Then they backfire, causing more distress than they cure.

Some pcs, taken off marijuana for a few weeks, can be audited. Some can’t. Those who then can’t be audited are in pain whether they consciously realize it or not. In their “unconscious mind” (below their self-suppression) they hurt.

So those who can’t be audited well when taken off some drug like marijuana should be gotten to a good clinic and given “the works”. A competent medical doctor will find the broken bone, the disease, the diabetes. Give it a medical cure.

Then audit the pc by Standard Tech, checking resistive case lists, etc all over again.

Pcs don’t always know they’re ill.

Mental upset aggravates physical discomfort. Physical discomfort aggravates mental unrest.

So play it safe.

A slow case who doesn’t respond well to very usual approaches has something else wrong with him physically.

Don’t be an extremist.

Your job after all is to do the most you can for the pc.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

LRH:nt.ldm.ei.rd 
Copyright © 1969 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 JULY 1970
(Corrected and Reissued 25 Nov 1970)
Remimeo	
Dianetic Auditor
Dianetic Checksheets
UNRESOLVED PAINS

It occasionally happens that a pc’s certain pain does not resolve on Dianetics.

There are two reasons for this:

1. 	NOT ENOUGH AUDITING ON ENOUGH CHAINS.

Sooner or later the exact small piece of an engram “already run” shows up on another chain later.

Example: Pain in an area of an operation occurs now and then again weeks, months or years after the operation has been run out as an engram. Sooner or later just on general auditing the missing bit of the operation shows up, blows. Voila! Pain gone forever.

This is peculiar especially to abdominal operations like an appendectomy. The operation was run out. The scar stays puffy. The pc is occasionally ill from it. Pc’s conclusion is that Dianetics hasn’t worked on it. More auditing on other somatics (just general Dianetics) is given. One day the remaining bit of the operation, hidden from view, apparently erased, shows up, blows. Pc now fine.

A reason for this is “overburden” in that the incident was too charged in one place to be confronted. As the whole case is unburdened, confront comes up. The piece that was missing (and giving the pain) blows.

There is no way of forcing it. In fact it would be fatal to try.

The other reason for it is that the missing bit causing the pain is a different somatic like “a Chest Compression”. This bit of the operation had another basic than the one run.

The answer to a persistent or recurring somatic in an injured area is always more Dianetic Auditing of the standard type, just addressed to the bank not the special somatic. Just keep doing the usual and one day it all straightens out.

2. 	SYMPATHETIC NERVOUS SYSTEM PAINS.

There are two sides to the body. As you learn in touch assists, if the right hand is injured you include also the left hand.

Body nerves conduct pain. The two sides of the body interlock. Pain gets stopped in the nerves.

If the right elbow is hurt the LEFT elbow will have echoed the pain.

Example, you find a pc with a pain in the left elbow. You try to audit a left elbow chain. It doesn’t fully resolve.

If you ran injuries to the RIGHT elbow, suddenly there’s a somatic going through the left elbow! It gets well.
This is the sympathetic nervous system. The right ear, injured, also gets echoes with a somatic in the left ear. You audit the right ear only. Pc comes up with a sore left ear!

You can actually direct a pc’s attention to it (non-standard but a research technique) and he can find where the uninjured ear echoed the injured ear.

Where you can’t fully repair a crippled left leg, don’t be surprised to find it was the right leg that was hurt.

You audit the left leg somatic in vain. If you do, start auditing somatics in the OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE BODY.

TOOTHACHE

The mystery of toothache is resolved in both 1 and 2 above, especially 2.

The pain is concentrated on the left upper molar. You audit it in vain. Toothache persists.

Look at the pc’s mouth. Has the RIGHT upper molar ever been pulled or injured? Yes. That’s how the left molar began to decay. The right upper molar was pulled. The pain (especially under the painkiller on the right side only) backed up and stopped on the opposite side. Eventually the left upper molar, under that stress, a year or ten later, caves in and aches.

Mysterious as it wasn’t injured. Mysterious as the opposite molar is long gone, doesn’t hurt anymore.

When a toothache does not resolve in auditing, audit the opposite tooth on the other side. You can actually do it by count of teeth.

It’s sort of auditing a no-somatic.

Pc in misery with right upper molar. No pain on left side. Audit an injury he had on the left side (it will read on the meter also). Voila! The toothache that wouldn’t go away eases up!

The fellow who has the exact opposite teeth pulled (upper right wisdom, upper left wisdom) is in for it as there is a constant cross-play. Makes the mouth odd and pressury. Both sides are reacting to the other side!

Dentists often note the strange pressure, “bursting feelings”, a patient has when a tooth “needs pulling”. This is the stress in the nerves from an injury which occurred on the opposite side!

An auditor can audit a right side tooth in vain unless he knows enough to audit THE OTHER SIDE.

For a pc with a toothache, on the right side, you can list for feelings on the left side of the mouth and get “numbness”, “no feeling”, etc. Audit that list and suddenly magically the toothache on the opposite side not being audited eases up.

As toothaches sometimes give a Dianetic auditor a failure, he should know about the sympathetic factor as above. The failure becomes a success.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 JULY 1973
Remimeo

ASSIST SUMMARY

	REFERENCE:
	HCO PL  7 Aug 71	Interne Okay to Audit Checksheet,
	Issue II		Assists Pack
           	HCO B 5 July 71 		C/S Series 49, Assists
           	HCO B 23 July 71 	Assists, A Flag Expertise Subject
           	HCO B 12 Mar 69 	Physically Ill Pcs and Pre OTs
                  	Issue II
           	HCO B 24 Apr 69 	Dianetic Use
           	HCO B 14 May 69 	Sickness
           	HCO B 23 May 69 	Auditing out Sessions,
                          			Narrative Versus Somatic Chains
           	HCO B 24 July 69 	Seriously Ill Pcs
           	HCO B 27 July 69 	Antibiotics
           	HCO B 15 Jan 70 		The Uses of Auditing
           	HCO B 1 Dec 70 		Dianetics—Triple Flow Action
           	HCO B 5 Jan 71 		Going Earlier in R3-R
                          			and Exteriorization Intensives
           	HCO B 9 Oct 67 		Assists for Injuries
           	HCO B 22 July 70 	Touch Assist
           	HCO B 5 May 69 		Touch Assists
           	HCO B 2 Jan 71 		Illegal Auditing
           	HCO B 15 July 70 	Unresolved Pains
           	(Reissued 25 Nov 70)
           	HCO B 7 Apr 72 		Touch Assists, Correct Ones

Injuries, operations, delivery of babies, severe illnesses and periods of intense emotional shock all deserve to be handled with thorough and complete assists.

Medical examination and diagnosis should be sought where needed, and where treatment is routinely successful, medical treatment should be obtained. As an assist can at times cover up an actual injury or broken bone, no chances should be taken, especially if the condition does not easily respond. In other words where something is merely thought to be a slight sprain, to be on the safe side an X-ray should be obtained, particularly if it does not at once respond. An assist is not a substitute for medical treatment but is complementary to it. It is even doubtful if full healing can be accomplished by medical treatment alone and it is certain that an assist greatly speeds recovery. In short, one should realize that physical healing does not take into account the being and the repercussion on the spiritual beingness of the person.

Injury and illness are PREDISPOSED by the spiritual state of the person. They are PRECIPITATED by the being himself as a manifestation of his current spiritual condition. And they are PROLONGED by any failure to fully handle the spiritual factors associated with them.

The causes of PREDISPOSITION, PRECIPITATION and PROLONGATION are basically the following:

1. 	Postulates.
2. 	Engrams.
3. 	Secondaries.
4. 	ARC Breaks with the environment, situations, others or the body part.
5. 	Problems.
6. 	Overt Acts.
7. 	Withholds.
8. 	Out of communicationness.

The purely physical facts of injuries, illnesses and stresses are themselves incapacitating and do themselves often require physical analysis and treatment by a doctor or nutritionist. These could be briefly catalogued as:

A. 	Physical damage to structure. 
B. 	Disease of a pathological nature. 
C. 	Inadequacies of structure. 
D. 	Excessive structure. 
E. 	Nutritional errors. 
F. 	Nutritional inadequacies. 
G. 	Vitamin and bio-compound excesses. 
H. 	Vitamin and bio-compound deficiencies. 
I. 	Mineral excesses. 
J. 	Mineral deficiencies. 
K. 	Structural malfunction. 
L. 	Erroneous examination. 
M. 	Erroneous diagnosis. 
N. 	Erroneous structural treatment. 
O. 	Erroneous medication.

There is another group which belongs to both the spiritual and physical divisions. These are:
i. 	Allergies. 
ii. 	Addictions. 
iii. 	Habits.
iv. 	Neglect. 
v. 	Decay.

Any of these things in any of the three groups can be a cause of non-optimum personal existence.

We are not discussing here the full handling of any of these groups or what optimum state can be attained or maintained. But it should be obvious that there is a level below which life is not very tolerable. How well a person can be or how efficient or how active is another subject entirely.

Certainly life is not very tolerable to a person who has been injured or ill, to a woman who has just delivered a baby, to a person who has just suffered a heavy emotional shock. And there is no reason a person should remain in such a low state, particularly for weeks, months or years when he or she, could be remarkably ASSISTED to recover in hours, days or weeks.

It is in fact a sort of practised cruelty to insist by neglect that a person continue on in such a state when one can learn and practise and obtain relief for such a person.

We are mainly concerned with the first group, 1-8. The group is not listed in the order that it is done but in the order that it has influence upon the being.

The idea has grown that one handles injuries with touch assists only. This is true for someone who as an auditor has only a smattering of Scientology. It is true for someone in such pain or state of case (which would have to be pretty bad) that he cannot respond to actual auditing.

But a Scientologist really has no business “having only a smattering” of auditing skills that could save his or the lives of others. And the case is very rare who cannot experience proper auditing.

The actual cause of not handling such conditions is, then, to be found as iv. NEGLECT. And where there is Neglect, v. DECAY is very likely to follow.

One does not have to be a medical doctor to take someone to a medical doctor. And one does not have to be a medical doctor to observe that medical treatment may not be helping the patient. And one does not have to be a medical doctor to handle things caused spiritually by the being himself.

Just as there are two sides to healing—the spiritual and the structural or physical, there are also two states that can be spiritually attained. The first of these states might be classified as “humanly tolerable”. Assists come under this heading. The second is spiritually improved. Grade auditing comes under this second heading.

Any minister (and this has been true as long as there has been a subject called religion) is bound to relieve his fellow being of anguish. There are many ways a minister can do this.

An assist is not engaging in healing. It is certainly not engaging in treatment. What it is doing is ASSISTING THE INDIVIDUAL TO HEAL HIMSELF OR BE HEALED BY ANOTHER AGENCY BY REMOVING HIS REASONS FOR PRECIPITATING, AND PROLONGING HIS CONDITION AND LESSENING HIS PREDISPOSITION TO FURTHER INJURE HIMSELF OR REMAIN IN AN INTOLERABLE CONDITION.

This is entirely outside the field of “healing” as envisioned by the medical doctor and by actual records of results is very, very far beyond the capability of psychology, psychiatry and “mental treatment” as practised by them.

In short, the assist is strictly and entirely in the field of the spirit and is the traditional province of religion.

A minister should realize the power which lies in his hands and his potential skills when trained. He has this to give in the presence of suffering: he can make life tolerable. He can also shorten a term of recovery and may even make recovery possible when it might not be otherwise.

When a minister confronts someone who has been injured or ill, operated upon or who has suffered a grave emotional shock, he should be equipped to do and should do the following:

A CONTACT ASSIST where possible and where indicated until the person has reestablished his communication with the physical universe site. To FN.

A TOUCH ASSIST until the person has reestablished communication with the physical part or parts affected. To FN.

HANDLE ANY ARC BREAK that might have existed at the time a) with the environment, b) with another, c) with others, d) with himself, e) with the body part or the body, and f) with any failure to recover at once. Each to FN.

HANDLE ANY PROBLEM the person may have had a) at the time of illness or injury, b) subsequently due to his or her condition. Each to FN.

HANDLE ANY OVERT ACT the person may feel he or she committed a) to self, b) to the body, c) to another, and d) to others. Each to FN.
HANDLE ANY WITHHOLD a) the person might have had at the time, b) any subsequent withhold, and c) any having to withhold the body from work or others or the environment due to being physically unable to approach it.

HANDLE ANY SECONDARY, which is to say emotional reactions, before, during or after the situation. This must be run from the first intimation something was wrong or going to happen or being told something had happened. This is by chain to FN. And then Flow 2 to FN and then Flow 3 to FN.

HANDLE ANY ENGRAM of actual physical duress. Run Flow 1 by chain to FN. Then Flow 2 to FN. Then Flow 3 to FN. It is understood here that Flow One was the physical incident itself, not necessarily something done to the person but as something that happened to him or her.

POSTULATE TWO-WAY COMM. This is two-way comm on the subject of “any decision to be hurt” or some such wording. This is done only if the person has not already discovered that he had decisions connected to the incident. It is carried to FN. One must be careful not to invalidate the person.

Where a person is injured, given a contact or touch assist and then medical examination and treatment, he is given the remainder as soon as he is able to be audited. The drug “five days” does not need to apply. But where the person has been given an assist over drugs, one must later come back to the case when he is off drugs and run the drug part out or at least make sure that nothing was submerged by the drugs. It is not uncommon for a person to be oblivious of certain parts of a treatment or operation at the time of initial auditing, only to have a missing piece of the incident pop up days, months or even years later. THIS is the reason injuries or operations occasionally seem to persist despite a full assist: a piece of it was left unhandled due to a drugged condition during the operation; such bits may come off unexpectedly in routine auditing on some other apparently disrelated chain.

It can happen that a person is in the midst of some grade auditing at the time of an injury or illness or receiving an emotional shock. The question arises as to whether or not to disrupt the grade auditing to handle the situation. It is a difficult question. But certainly the person cannot go on with grade auditing while upset or ill. The usual. answer is to give a full assist and repair the case to bridge it back into the grade auditing. The question however may be complicated in that some error in the grade auditing is also sitting there, not to cause the illness or accident but to complicate the assist. This question is handled fully only by study of the case by a competent Case Supervisor. The point is not to let the person go on suffering while time is consumed making a decision.

SUMMARY

Religion exists in no small part to handle the upsets and anguish of life. These include spiritual duress by reason of physical conditions.

Ministers long before the Apostles had as a part of their duties the ministering to the spiritual anguish of their people. They have concentrated upon spiritual uplift and betterment. But where physical suffering impeded this course, they have acted. To devote themselves only to the alleviation of physical duress is of course to attest that the physical body is more important than the spiritual beingness of the person which, of course, it is not. But physical anguish can so distract a being that he deserts any aspirations of betterment and begins to seek some cessation of his suffering. The specialty of the medical doctor is the curing of physical disease or non-optimum physical conditions. In some instances he can do so. It is no invasion of his province to assist the patient to greater healing potential. And ills that are solely spiritual in nature are not medical.

The “psych-iatrist” and “psych-ologist” on the other hand took their very names from religion since “psyche” means soul. They, by actual statistics, are not as successful as priests in relieving mental anguish. But they modernly seek to do so by using drugs or hypnotism or physical means. They damage more than they help.

The minister has a responsibility to his people and those about him to relieve suffering. He has many ways to do this. He is quite successful in doing so and he does not need or use drugs or hypnotism or shock or surgery or violence. Until his people are at a level where they have no need of physical things, he has as a duty preventing their spiritual or physical decay by relieving where he can their suffering.

His primary method of doing so is the ASSIST.

As the knowledge of how to do them exists and as the skill is easily acquired, he actually has no right to neglect those for whose well-being he is responsible, as only then can he lead them to higher levels of spiritual attainment.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 APRIL 1971 RA

Remimeo	(REVISED 28 JAN 1974)
DnChkshts	(REVISED 8 MARCH 1974)
Int RD Chkshts
Class IV and
above.	I M P O R T A N T

L3RD

DIANETICS AND INT RD REPAIR LIST

This list includes the most frequent Dianetic errors.

A high or low TA and a bogged case can result from failures to erase a chain of incidents.

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO REPAIR A CHAIN OR ENGRAM WITHOUT USING THIS LIST as it can have different or several errors.

REMEMBER TO CLEAR EACH WORD ON THIS LIST. IF A QUESTION READS AND THE PC SAYS HE DOESN’T UNDERSTAND IT, CLEAR IT AND REASSESS (don’t explain it and take it as it read on a misunderstood not on a fact).

RUNNING PCS ON DIANETICS WITHOUT A FULL AND COMPLETE DN C/S 1 INDOCTRINATION IS A FOOLISH ACTION.

TAKE ANY READ FOUND TO F/N BY FULL REPAIR OF IT PER THE INSTRUCTIONS.

1. 	There was an Earlier Similar incident.	_________
	Indicate it, flatten the chain.

2. 	There was no Earlier Similar incident.	_________
	Indicate it. Determine if the chain is flat or if the last incident 
	needs to be run through again. Complete the chain to F/N by 
	indication or D/L if needed, or by flattening it.

3. 	There was an earlier beginning.	_________
	Indicate it. Handle with R3R and complete the chain.

4. 	There was no earlier beginning.	_________
	Indicate it. Complete the chain with R3R ABCD on last incident 
	if unflat.

5. 	An F/N was indicated too soon.	_________
	Indicate it. Flatten the last incident.

6. 	An F/N was indicated too late.	_________
	Indicate it. Spot the flat point, indicate the overrun, D/L if 
	necessary.

7. 	An F/N was not indicated at all.	_________
	Indicate it. Spot the flat point, indicate the overrun, D/L if 
	necessary.
8. 	There was no charge on an item in the first place.	_________
	Indicate it, and that it shouldn’t have been run, D/L if necessary.

9. 	Jumped chains.	_________
	Indicate it. Reorient to the original chain, spot flat point and indicate 
	the overrun, D/L if necessary, or flatten the chain.
10. 	Flubbed commands.	_________
	Indicate it, E/S to F/N.

11. 	Didn’t have a command.	_________
	Indicate it, E/S to F/N.

12. 	Misunderstood on the command.	_________
	Find it and clear it.

13. 	Incident should be run through one more time.	_________
	Indicate it. ABCD on the incident, flatten the chain.

14. 	Too late on the chain.	_________
   	Indicate it. Get the Earlier Similar incident and complete the
	chain with R3R.

15. 	Incident gone more solid.	_________
   	Indicate it. Check for earlier incident or earlier beginning and
	complete the chain.

16. 	Stopped running an incident that was erasing.	_________
	Indicate it. ABCD on the incident and erase it.

17. 	Went past basic on a chain.	_________
	Indicate it, D/L if necessary.

18. 	An earlier misrun incident restimulated.	_________
	Indicate it. Find out what it was and do an L-3RD on it.

19. 	Two or more incidents got confused.	_________
	Indicate it, sort it out with an L-3RD on it.

20. 	An implant was restimulated.	_________
   	Indicate it, if no joy do an L-3RD on the time of the
	restimulation.

21. 	The incident was really an implant.	_________
	Indicate it, D/L if necessary or L-3RD on it.

22. 	Wrong Item.	_________
   	Indicate it was a wrong item and that all other actions
   	connected with it were wrong. If it is from an L&N list or if
	any question or difficulty, L-4BR.

23. 	Not your item.	_________
	Indicate it, E/S to F/N.

24. 	Not your incident.	_________
	Indicate it, E/S to F/N. L-3RD if any trouble.

25. 	Same thing run twice.	_________
   	Indicate it. Spot the first flat point, indicate the overrun, D/L
	if necessary.

26. 	There was a wrong date.	_________
   	Indicate it. Get the correct date and flatten the incident if
	unflat.

27. 	There was no date for the incident.	_________
	Indicate it. Get the date and flatten the incident if unflat.

28. 	It was a false date. 	_________
	Indicate it. Get the correct date and flatten the incident if unflat.
29. 	There was an incorrect duration. 	_________
	Indicate it. Get the correct duration and flatten the incident if 
	unflat.

30.	 No duration was found for the incident. 	_________
	Indicate it. Get the duration and flatten the incident if unflat.

31. 	There was a false duration. 	_________
	Indicate it. Get the correct duration and flatten the incident if 
	unflat.

32. 	An earlier Dianetic upset was restimulated. 	_________
	Locate what it was, indicate it. Sort it out with an L-3RD if 
	necessary.

33. 	An earlier ARC Break on engrams was restimulated. 	_________
	Indicate it. Sort it out with an L-3RD, ARCU CDEINR or an 
	L-1C as applicable.

34. 	There was an ARC Break in the incident. 	_________
	Indicate it. Flatten the incident if unflat. ARCU CDEINR at that 
	time if necessary.

35. 	You were protesting. 	_________
	Indicate it, clean it up E/S to F/N.

36. 	Auditor demanded more than you could see. 	_________
	Indicate it, E/S to F/N. L-1C if necessary.

37. 	Auditor refused to accept what you were saying. 	_________
	Indicate it, E/S to F/N. L-1C if necessary.

38. 	You were prevented from running an incident. 	_________
	Indicate it, E/S to F/N. Flatten the incident if unflat. L-1C if 
	necessary.

39. 	You were distracted while running an incident. 	_________
	Indicate it, E/S to F/N. Flatten the incident if unflat. L-1C if 
	necessary.

40. 	Audited over an 	ARC Brk	_________
                     	Problem	_________
		Withhold. 	_________
	Indicate it and handle the out rud. Do not pull W/Hs before the 
	engram or chain is repaired or it will mush engrams.
41. 	An item was suppressed. 	_________
	Indicate it. Get the suppress off E/S to F/N, then run or flatten 
	the item.

42. 	An item was invalidated. 	_________
	Indicate it. Get the inval off E/S to F/N, then run or flatten the 
	item.

43. 	An item was abandoned. 	_________
	Indicate it, get the item back and run or flatten it.

44. 	The wording of the item was changed.	_________
	Indicate it. Get the correct wording and give it to him. Flatten it 
	if unflat.

45. 	Stuck picture.	_________
	Indicate it. Do an L3-RD on it. You can also unstick it by having 
	him recall a time before it and recall a time after it. D/L if necessary.
46. 	All black.	_________
	Spot the black field or picture. Get the correct duration. If no go, 
	L-3RD on it.

47. 	Invisible.	_________
	Spot the invisible field or picture. L-3RD on it.

48. 	Constantly changing pictures.	_________
	Indicate there was a misassessment and a wrong item was 
	taken off the list. Get the correct item and run it, or L-3RD 
	on that session.

49. 	There was a persistent mass.	_________
	L-3RD on it, or D/L.

50. 	There was trouble with a pressure item or pressure on an item.	_________
	L-3RD on it, or D/L.

51. 	You went exterior.	_________
	Indicate it, D/L if necessary or rehab. If TA high as a result of 
	this do an Int RD Correction List or send to the C/S if pc hasn’t 
	had Int RD.

52. 	Your Int RD was messed up.	_________
   	Indicate it, Int RD Corr List if TA high. If TA OK, 2wc “going
   	into things” or clear up any misunderstoods on Int, Ext, etc.

53. 	Audited over Drugs or Medicine.	_________
	Indicate it. L-3RD on that time, then verify all chains to ensure 
	they erased.

54. 	A past death restimulated.	_________
	Indicate it, if it doesn’t blow run it out.

55. 	There was nothing wrong in the first place.	_________
	Indicate it. Continue the action you were on.

56. 	The real reason was missed.	_________
	Indicate it. Locate the real reason and handle or do a GF.
57. 	Something else wrong.	_________
	Locate what it is and sort it out or do a GF M5 and handle.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 3 JULY 1971
Remimeo
Franchise
All Auditors
Level III Checksheets
Replaces HCO Bs 22 May 65 and 23 Apr 64,
and cancels HCO B 27 July 65 all on the
same subject.

SCIENTOLOGY III

AUDITING BY LISTS REVISED

(Note: We now F/N everything. We do NOT tell the pc what the meter is doing. This changes “Auditing By Lists” in both respects. We do not say to the pc, “That’s clean” or “That reads”.)

AUDITING BY LISTS

(Reference: HCO B 14 Mar 71, “F/N Everything”)

Use any authorized, published LIST. (Green Form for general review, L1C for ARC Brks, L4B for listed items list errors.)

METHOD 3

Use meter at a sensitivity so meter needle is loose but it is easy to keep needle at “Set”. If sensitivity is too high the needle will be in constant motion as one tries to set the TA. If too low, the instant read will not be visible. 5 is usual for upper grade cases. 16 is usual for lower grade or Dianetic cases.

Have your meter in a position (line of sight) so you can see the list and the needle or you can see the needle and the pc. The meter position is important.

Hold the mimeoed list close beside the meter. Have your worksheet more to the right. Keep record on your worksheet. Mark the pc’s name and date on it. Mark what list it is on the W/S with Time. It remains in the folder stapled to the W/S.

Read the question on the list, note if it reads. Do NOT read it while looking at the pc, do NOT read it to yourself and then say it while looking at the pc. These are the L10 actions and are called Method 6, not Method 3. It is more important to see the pc’s cans than his face as can fiddle can fake or upset reads.

TR 1 must be good so the pc clearly hears it.

You are looking for an INSTANT READ that occurs at the end of the exact last syllable of the question.

If it does not read, mark the list X. If the list is being done through an F/N and the F/N just continues, mark the Question F/N.

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

Take down the pc’s remarks in shortened form on the W/S. Note any TA changes on the W/S.

If the pc’s answer results in an F/N (Cog VGIs sometimes follow, GIs always accompany a real F/N), mark it rapidly on the W/S and say, “Thank you. I would like to indicate your needle is floating.”

Do NOT wait endlessly for the pc to say more. If you do he will go into doubt and find more, also do NOT chop what he is saying. Both are TR errors that are very bad.

If there is no F/N, at the first pause that looks like the pc thinks he has said it, ask for an Earlier Similar_____whatever the question concerned. Do NOT change the Q. Do NOT fail to repeat what the Question is. “Was there an Earlier Similar Restimulation of ‘rejected affinity’?” This is the “E/S” part of it. You do not leave such a Question merely “clean”.

It does not matter now if you look at the pc when you say it or not. But you can look at the pc when you say it.

The pc will answer. If he comes to a “looks like he thinks he said it” and no F/N, you ask the same Q as above.

You ask this Q “Was there an earlier similar______” until you finally get an F/N and GIs. You indicate the F/N.

That is the last of that particular question.

You mark “F/N” on the list and call the next question on the list. You call this and other questions without looking at the pc.

Those that do not read, you X as out.

The next question that reads, you mark it on the list, transfer the question number to the W/S.

Take the pc’s answer.

Follow the above E/S procedure as needed until you get an F/N and GIs for the question. Ack. Indicate and return to the mimeoed list.

You keep this up until you have done the whole list in this fashion.

If you got no read on the list Question but the pc volunteers some answer to an unreading question, do NOT take it up. Just ack and carry on with your mimeoed list.

BELIEVE YOUR METER. Do not take up things that don’t read. Don’t get “hunches”. Don’t let the pc run his own case by answering non-reading items and then the auditor taking them up. Also don’t let a pc “fiddle the cans” to get a false read or to obscure a real one. (Very rare but these two actions have happened.)

BIG WIN
If half way down a prepared list (the last part not yet done) the pc on some question gets a wide F/N, big Cog, VGIs, the auditor is justified in calling the list complete and going to the next C/S action or ending the session.

There are two reasons for this—one, the F/N will usually just persist and can’t be read through and further action will tend to invalidate the win.

The auditor can also carry on to the end of the prepared list if he thinks there may be something else on it.

GF AND METHOD 3

When a GF is taken up Method 3 (item by item, one at a time and F/Ned) it can occur that the TA will go suddenly high. The pc feels he is being repaired, that the clearing up of the first item on the GF handled it and protests. It is the protest that sends the TA up.

This is not true of any other list.

Thus a GF is best done by Method 5 (once through for reads, then the reads handled).

L1C and L4B, L7 and other such lists are best done by Method 3.

The above steps and actions are exactly how you do Auditing by List today. Any earlier data contrary to this is cancelled. Only 2 points change—we F/N everything that reads by E/S or a process to handle (L3B requires processes, not E/S to get an FIN) and we never tell the pc that it read or didn’t read, thus putting his attention on the meter.

We still indicate F/Ns to the pc as a form of completion.

L1C and Method 3 are NOT used on high or very low TAs to get them down or up.

The purpose of these lists is to clean up by-passed charge.

________

An auditor also indicates when he has finished with the list.

An auditor should dummy drill this action both on a doll and bullbait.

________

The action is very successful when precisely done.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 OCTOBER 1973

Remimeo
C/S Series 87

NULLING AND F/Ning PREPARED LISTS

A prepared list is one which is issued in an HCOB and is used to correct cases. There are many of these. Notable amongst them is C/S 53 and its corrections.

It is customary for the auditor to be required to F/N such a list. This means on calling it that the whole list item by item is to F/N.

Now and then you get the extreme oddity of a list selected to exactly remedy the case not reading but not F/Ning.

Of course this might happen if the list did not apply to the case (such as an OT prepared list being used on a Grade IV, heaven forbid). In the case of lists to correct listing, and in particular the C/S 53 series, it is nearly impossible for this situation to occur.

A C/S will very often see that the auditor has assessed the list on the pc, has gotten no reads, and the list did not F/N.

A “reasonable” C/S (heaven forbid) lets this go by.

Yet he has before him first-class evidence that the auditor

1. 	Has out-TRs in general,

2. 	Has no impingement whatever with TR-1,

3. 	Is placing his meter in the wrong position in the auditing session so that he cannot see it, the pc and his worksheet,

4. 	That the auditor’s eyesight is bad.

One or more of these conditions certainly exist.

To do nothing about it is to ask for catastrophe after catastrophe with pcs and to have one’s confidence in one’s own C/Sing deteriorate badly.

An amazing number of auditors cannot make a prepared list read for one of the above reasons.

Putting in suppress, invalidation or misunderstood words on the list will either get a read or the list will F/N.

The moral of this is that prepared lists that do not read F/N. When prepared lists that do not read do not F/N or when the auditor cannot get a prepared list to F/N, serious auditing errors are present which will defeat a C/S.

In the interest of obtaining results and being merciful on pcs, the wise C/S never lets this situation go by without finding what it is all about.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 24 JULY 1978
Remimeo
All Auditors	(Cancels and replaces BTB 3
All C/Ses	Oct 69R DIANETIC REMEDIES)

DIANETIC REMEDIES

The remedies given here will handle pcs who go anaten or dope off in session even though they are well rested beforehand. They will also handle high TAs caused by chains left in restimulation by reason of not taking them to a full Dianetic EP.

WORD CLEARING

One of the beginning pc’s first steps in auditing is a thorough and complete CS-I. This is given as ACTION SEVEN on New Era Dianetics Series 2, FULL PC PROGRAM OUTLINE. It must be done until the pc well understands the commands of R3RA and knows what is expected of him as a pc. (Ref: HCOB 9 Jul 78, DIANETIC CS-I.)

DO NOT attempt to run R3RA on a pc who is not properly indoctrinated. Clear the commands. Clear the list words and clear the procedures with him. It is the auditor’s responsibility to ensure the pc understands the commands and the procedure he is being run on.

So the first remedy given here is WORD CLEARING. A pc who does not understand R3RA commands, assessment procedures, etc. will only restimulate masses in Dianetic sessions, he will not be able to erase them.

If there is any doubt that your pc understands the commands and procedures of R3RA, you clear these up immediately.

There are uniformly two things that prevent pcs from running engrams. They are the failure to fully clear all the commands and procedures of R3RA as we have covered above, and unhandled drugs.

Hence, the following remedies are to be done in their correct sequence on the pc’s Dianetic program, after a full and complete drug handling per New Era Dianetics Series 99 DRUG HANDLING. (Ref: New Era Dianetics Series 2, FULL PC PROGRAM OUTLINE.)

PICTURES OR MASSES

The following remedy is ordered by the C/S when the pc has no misunderstood words but still goes anaten in session, even when assessment and R3RA procedure are correctly done and the pc has had sufficient sleep, with no unflat chains evident by folder inspection but has a very high or low TA.

The auditor asks: “What pictures or masses have you touched on in life or in auditing that have been left unhandled?”

The most obvious remedy is simply to take the best reading picture that was left unflat in auditing and simply finish the chain. If the pc had only run it single flow at the time then finish it single flow for certain and check the other flows to see if they read and run them if they do. The question one checks is Step One narrative or Step One regular R3RA. One uses narrative when it is simply an incident and regular R3RA when he remembers what somatic he was running at the time.

The essence of this is simply to complete something that was already started and wasn’t completed.

If it was a picture which simply appeared in life, one can treat it as an original item per the Assessment HCOB and carry on from there.

Caution should be observed in running a pc on Quad who hitherto had only been run on single or triple flows. One can get onto the subject of bypassed charge when he suddenly runs a new flow (like Flow 0) that has never been run before on a new item. What happens is the pc, audited on single or triple on other items in previous auditing, collides with some of the unrun charge of previously unhandled chains of that flow and can get quite upset. The best handling of this sort of thing is called “Quading up a pc” as contained in HCOB 7 March 71R, USE OF QUADRUPLE DIANETICS.

Masses are handled simply by treating them as an original item as in the Assessment HCOB.

In pictures or masses remedies, one is best off following New Era Dianetics Series 4. Just treat the picture or mass as an original item. Therefore, when the pc gives you a list of pictures or masses that have been touched on in life or auditing he is really giving you a list of original items so far as handling is concerned. The auditor takes the best reading item from that list and does a preassessment on it.

“Are/is (preassessment item) connected with (item)?” is the preassessment question.

The auditor then follows the procedure outlined in HCOB 18 June 1978 New Era Dianetics Series 4, doing a full preassessment and runs out R3RA Quad all reading items with pc interest.

When this action is correctly performed the TA of the pc will be back in range, and the pc will be bright.

AUTOMATICITY OF PICTURES

There are some pcs who keep talking about “this huge automaticity of pictures coming in, faster and faster.” They also dope off in session and they are somewhat hard to get an F/N on.

The thing which is really wrong with the pc is instability. He can’t hold things still.

A C/S could order HCO Training Bulletin of 6 Feb 1957 (Technical Volume III) — “Hold It Still.”

Objectives are also indicated, particularly SCS, as the pc can’t control things.

After flattening Objectives it will be found that the pc’s bank is more stable.

As the multipictures may also have keyed something in a C/S, after Objectives are flat, could order the following:

“Ask the pc ‘What pictures have you seen in life or auditing?’ and treat the best reading items in the resulting list as original items, handling them per New Era Dianetics Series 4.”

The phenomenon of automatic pictures is also called “an avalanche” and data on it is available in the Technical Bulletins Volume II, page 39, Volume VIII, page 106. The above section is the best handling.
OVERTS

When the pc goes anaten in session but there is no evidence of unflat chains, the C/S issues this C/S:

“Assess for: Overts on unconscious people Overts on anaten people Overts on asleep people Overts on sick people.

“Run each reading item with interest R3RA Narrative Quad, running F2 first.”

The C/S could vary the assessment list, adding items if necessary in accordance with what the pc was motivating from.

IMAGINARY INCIDENTS

Sometimes a pc cannot confront the actual incidents that are keyed-in by life or auditing. Such a pc will not go backtrack. In this case the running of imaginary incidents is quite productive. Sometimes the preclear will run them, quite astonishingly, with somatics. But he is not being required to face any reality about them and the auditor is not insisting that any reality exists concerning them. In a surprisingly high percentage of times, however, he will be running actual incidents. So long as he does not have to admit that these incidents are actual he can do something about them.

It should be understood that no amount of imaginary incidents can supplant the running of real incidents. The first value that this technique has—the invitation to the preclear to run avowedly imaginary incidents in his past—is to build up, the preclear’s confidence in the auditor. The preclear begins to feel that he will not be censured for indulging in fantasy.

When the preclear discovers that he has an auditor who not only will listen to imagination but who encourages it, the affinity level rises and the preclear’s ability to differentiate in terms of reality will itself rise.

The auditor must never, after the incident has been run, then insist that the incident was real. This would be a break of faith. He and the preclear have entered into a contract that what is being run is pure imagination, and the auditor must not break his contract.

To run imaginary incidents, the auditor discusses with the pc how they will be running imaginary incidents and gets the pc’s agreement to do so.

The auditor then asks, “What imaginary incidents or pictures have you touched on?”

All the pc’s responses to this question, with their meter reads are noted by the auditor. He then takes up the best reading incident or picture and runs it out R3RA Narrative Quad, first checking interest. Lesser reading items are then taken up.

This action is done until the pc is brighter and more able to confront actual incidents as they come up in auditing.

In doing this remedy be certain the pc understands R3RA procedure and has NO MISUNDERSTOODS.

	L. RON HUBBARD
	Founder
LRH:lfg
Copyright © 1978
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 JANUARY 1975

Remimeo
Dn & Ex Dn C/Ses
IV and VI C/Ses
Class VIII C/S	
PAST LIFE REMEDIE

There are many remedies and considerable tech developed over the years on the subject of pcs unable to go earlier than this life. There was no full coverage bulletin which gave the full story on this.

The earliest was getting the pc to locate and run imaginary incidents. This is fully covered in Science of Survival, especially Book Two, Chapter Nine, “Imaginary Incidents”. The auditor clears the idea of imaginary incidents and running them, then persuades the pc to run them without forcing him.

Delusion tends to run off but the real incidents move into view as well. These imaginary incidents can be run R3R narrative or done as part of R3R procedure and running usual items and somatics. It can be incorporated into the AESPs run on the Past Life Remedy as part of the action of grooving in the pc.

One of the early Dianetic Remedies was simply “What Attitudes would make one unwilling to go Earlier than this life?” R3R Triple exhaust the list then do Emotions Sensations and Pains separately.

Where the pc is afraid of going earlier or seeing the pictures, AESPs that would make you not want to look at earlier lives can be listed separately and run.

Often the pc won’t go backtrack because he’s a druggie.

What has happened here is that he restimulated past lives with drugs, got into frightening pictures that he didn’t understand and now backs off from ANY bank content except drugs. That is handled with a full Drug R/D, including a full battery of Objectives and all reading items run including “no interest” items. The standard approach on any pc is to get a full Drug R/D done first.

Another reason could be the pc is in recent shock of having died. Such a case is overburdened and is destimulated with general auditing and then gets a Past Life Remedy if he hasn’t gone backtrack. You could even do a Prior Assessment to this life.

The subject of invalidation of past lives and people talking about them out of session or claiming to be famous people invalidates past lives for a pc and is actually related to suppression and PTS phenomena. If you suspect this you could ask “Has anyone been talking to you about past lives or famous people?” From this question possible suppression in the environment can be located and used in a PTS R/D, HCO B 9 Dec 71R, Revised 21 Oct 74.

CHILDREN

Children are usually very burdened cases and can be hard to C/S on Dianetics as it hits this life only which will leave the pc wide open to key-in and at the age of 20 be found all keyed in “with all grades run”.

I find they are jammed into fiction stories, education, books and movies and run these like Engrams. These children speak of “remembering” all the time. They say they can’t go backtrack “because they don’t remember”. They don’t seem to take it from pictures. Contrary to psychology theories and popular belief I find children in very rough case shape, nervous, frightened, griefy, etc. They get stuck in the books and movies they see.

I have handled this in various ways. The easiest way to unburden cases is by Objectives (contact processes) and Recall (ARC S/W, Self Analysis). That is a general approach. You can list for mental image pictures pc has seen in life in movies or books then get the AESPs of the best reading one and R3R triple or quad. Unwanted feelings, attitudes, emotions, sensations and pains as a child can also be listed and run to unburden the case.

A direct approach is to ask “What book or movie were you particularly interested in?” You’ll usually find that the person had a stuck picture on it. Then ask “Did you ever have anything to do with that sort of thing?” Then they go into it because you’re asking for an E/S. You could then run out the earlier incident R3R triple or quad and you’d be away.

Where the pc is stuck in upsetting incidents from movies or books you can list for “Bad incidents you’ve seen or read about”, take the best reading one and R3R its reading AESPs. Be sure to accept stories, TV, movies or books as these are fully valid to run.

REVIEW

A Scientology Review action that can be done is to assess Auditors Auditing Past Lives Dianetics Scientology Time Preclears and Erasure. Then prepcheck in order of reads, reassess and prepcheck. This is a valuable action to do before ARC S/W triple and often by itself will handle those unable to go past track.

A further Scientology approach would be to assess the Past, Memory Pictures, Past Lives and prepcheck in order of reads. Then L & N “Who or what would have no future?” then L & N “Who or what would it have been awful to have been?” These items can be checked and used in a PTS R/D or can have their intentions listed and run as part of Ex Dn handling.

SUMMARY

The technology on past lives is important for a C/S to know, especially the Dianetics C/S.

The subject usually resolves with a Drug R/D and general auditing but when it doesn’t you have these remedies to use.

Use them well.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

LRH:rs.rd 
Copyright © 1975 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MAY 1969
Remimeo
Dian Checksheet

AUDITING OUT SESSIONS
NARRATIVE VERSUS SOMATIC CHAINS

Now and then it is necessary to audit out the last session or an auditing session.

One does this by R-3-R but there is a slight change in wording when asking the pc to go earlier. One asks for an EARLIER SIMILAR INCIDENT. “Is there an earlier similar incident?” A session, when audited, does not always erase. Instead it has become part of a chain. Therefore one has to run R-3-R on it and get an earlier similar incident.

The chain may go back vast amounts of time.

Whereas the pc may only have been in Scientology 3 days, before Scientology there were other types of “sessions” such as psychoanalysis. And before that, in Rome and Greece, dream therapy in which one was “visited by a God”. And before that—well, the chain can have a very far back basic. One does not of course suggest ever what the earlier incident may be. There is no telling what the pc may confuse with a session.

If one asked the pc to “locate an earlier incident with a similar feeling” one would be on another chain entirely. Hence one asks, simply, “Is there an earlier similar incident?” when running a session out.

Running a session out has the liability that one is running a NARRATIVE CHAIN, a similar experience rather than a similar somatic.

One of the major 1969 breakthroughs was that chains are held together mainly by somatics. The body condition or somatic is what keeps the chain in association.

One can of course run “narrative incidents” by which one means similar EXPERIENCES. “Locate an earlier time your mother spanked you.” “Locate an earlier wreck.” These will run and sometimes even get to and erase a basic. BUT they are LONG and sometimes don’t ever get to basic at all and the chain may not erase. Running only narrative incidents is what made early Dianetics run up such fabulous numbers of hours in processing.

Somatic chains go quickly to basic and are the important chains.

Thus when we erase a chain of sessions we sometimes run into a very long chain. Sometimes the TA goes up to 4 or 5 (particularly if the auditor grinds). Using a wrong go-earlier command is a primary reason for trouble.

Usually if you ask simply for an earlier similar incident the pc goes back to something that will erase and the chain blows.

But remember, asking for similar types of experience can cause trouble in that it gets very long and basic may not appear for some time.

You can get away with running out sessions in most cases, enough to make it a worthwhile action. But only if you ask for “an earlier similar incident”. This phrase is a workhorse phrase of auditing anyway.
The best thing to do is goof no assessments or sessions in the first place.

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