HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 10 FEBRUARY 1980
ISSUE IV
Remimeo
Saint Hills	
Only
SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE
LEVEL D CHECKSHEET
HUBBARD GRADES SPECIALIST

(Cancels:
BPL 18 Mar 75R II, 	LEVEL FIVE CHECKSHEET
Rev. 25.3.77 	SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE
BPL 25 Mar 77 	SENIOR SAINT HILL SPECIAL
	BRIEFING COURSE)

NAME:	ORG:	

DATE STARTED:	 DATE COMPLETED:	

This checksheet contains the chronological development of Dianetics and Scientology technology from June 1962 to 12 December 1963. It also covers all data needed to 2WC and rehab, L&N, bypassed charge theory and Service Facs and auditing Grades III and IV.

PREREQUISITES: (1) Student Hat or PRD (2) New Era Dianetics Course (3) New Era Dianetics Interneship (4) Class IV (5) SHSBC Level A course (6) SHSBC Level B Course (7) SHSBC Level C Course.

PURPOSE: To provide the student with a background of the chronological development of tech from June 1962 - December 1963 and to teach him the skills of 2WC, rehabbing, listing and nulling.

LENGTH: 	Full time (9:00 am - 10:30 pm) - 41/2 weeks 
	Part time (9:00 am - 6:00 pm) - 61/2 weeks 
	Foundation hours = 101/2  weeks.

STUDY TECH: This course is studied per HCO PL 25 Sep 79, Issue I - IMPORTANT, SUCCESSFUL TRAINING LINEUP, with full use of study tech.
 
R-FACTOR: The Theory and Practical Sections of this course are done concurrently. The student audits daily either during his practical time or outside of course hours while continuing through the theory section of the checksheet. 

EP: Certainty you can perform the auditing actions of 2WC, rehabbing, listing and nulling, service fac handling and all grades processes up through Grade IV.

PRODUCT: An auditor who can audit rehabs, 2WCs, listing and nulling, all Grades III and IV processes and who has a background of the chronological development of tech from June 1962 to 12 December 1963.

CERTIFICATE: SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LEVEL D - HUBBARD GRADES SPECIALIST.

SHSBC LEVEL D

THEORY SECTION

INTRODUCTION

1. 	HCO PL 	7 Feb 65 	KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY 	_________
	Reiss 15.6.70		WORKING	
2. 	HCO PL 	17 Jun 70R 	TECHNICAL DEGRADES 	_________
	Rev 9.4.77
3. 	HCO PL 	14 Feb 65 	SAFEGUARDING TECHNOLOGY	_________

CHRONOLOGICAL THEORY SECTION

1. 	HCOB 	2 Jul 62 	REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS HOW TO 	
			GET THE RUDIMENTS IN	_________
2. 	DEMO: Why you never say “That still reads”.	_________
* 3. 	HCOB 	3 Jul 62 	REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING	_________
4. 	HCOB 	4 Jul 62 	BULLETIN CHANGES	_________
5. 	CLAY DEMO: The missed W/H of nothingness.	_________
6. 	HCOB 	4 Jul 62 	COACHLESS TRAINING USE OF A
			DOLL	_________
7. 	TAPE: 	6207C10 	REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS AND RE	
		SHSBC-168	PETITIVE PREPCHECKING, PART I	_________
8. 	DEMO: Why we run change.		_________
9. 	TAPE: 	6207C10 	REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS AND RE
 		SHSBC-169 	PETITIVE PREPCHECKING, PART II	_________
10. 	TAPE: 	6207C12 	METER READING 	
 		SHSBC-174		_________
11. 	TAPE: 	6207C12 	METER TRAINING 
		SHSBC-175		_________
12. 	HCO PL 	14 Jul 62 	AUDITING ALLOWED 	_________
13. 	DEMO: The perfection required of an auditor with an E-Meter.	_________
14. 	CLAY DEMO: The source of all upset and how to handle it.	_________
15. 	TAPE: 	6207C17 	E-METER READS AND ARC BREAKS 
		SHSBC-170		_________
16. 	DEMO: Formation of a bank and a universe.	_________
17. 	DEMO: The downward spiral and how it relates to ARC breaks. 	_________
18. 	HCO PL 	19 Jul 62 	CLEARING - FREE NEEDLES 	_________
19. 	TAPE: 	6207C19 	QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD
 		SHSBC-173		_________
20. 	TAPE: 	6207C26 	PREPCHECKING
 		SHSBC-179		_________
21. 	HCOB 	30 Jul 62 	A SMOOTH HGC 25 HOUR 	
			INTENSIVE	_________
22. 	DEMO: How to do the new Problems Intensive.	_________
23. 	HCOB 	2 Aug 62 	CCH ANSWERS	_________
24. 	DEMO: How to do TWC in CCHs.	_________
25. 	HCOB 	27 Aug 62 	RUNNING CCHs	_________
26. 	TAPE: 	6208C09 	CLEARING
		SHSBC-182		_________
27. 	DEMO: How someone who is sane solves problems.	_________
28. 	TAPE: 	6208C09 	GOALS LISTING
 		SHSBC-183		_________
29. 	HCOB 	10 Aug 62 	HOW IT FEELS TO GO CLEAR	_________
30. 	TAPE: 	6208C14 	WORLD CLEARING
 		SHSBC-185		_________
31. 	TAPE: 	62C8C21 	BASICS OF AUDITING
		SHSBC-188		_________
32. 	DEMO: How auditing works.	_________
33. 	DEMO: Auditing basics.		_________
34. 	HCOB 	30 Aug 62 	ORDER OF PREPCHECK BUTTONS	_________
35. 	HCOB 	31 Aug 62 	EXPANDED LINE WORDING	_________
* 36. 	HCOB 	12 Sep 62R 	SECURITY CHECKS AGAIN	_________
37. 	DEMO: Why this security check is important.	_________
38. 	HCO PL 	12 Sep 62III 	AUTHORIZED PROCESSES	_________
39. 	TAPE: 	6209C18 	DIRECTING PC’S ATTENTION
		SHSBC-189		_________
40. 	DEMO: Why you direct attention.	_________
41. 	TAPE: 	6209C19 	TIGER DRILL, PART I
		SHTVD-14A		_________
42. 	HCO PL 	27 Sep 62 	VALID PROCESSES	_________
43. 	HCOB 	27 Sep 62 	PROBLEMS INTENSIVE USE	_________
44. 	DEMO: The application of modern Problems Intensive.	_________
45. 	DEMO: The gains which can be achieved in Problems Intensive.	_________
46. 	HCOB 	2 Oct 62 	WHEN YOU NEED REASSURANCE	_________
47. 	TAPE: 	6210C04 	MODERN SECURITY CHECKING
 		SHSBC-198 		_________
48. 	DEMO: What a rock slammer is.	_________
49. 	TAPE: 	6210C09 	FUTURE ORG TRENDS
		SHSBC-200		_________
50. 	CLAY DEMO: Dissemination by giving the person a datum of 	
	comparable magnitude to Scientology.	_________
51. 	TAPE: 	6210CO9 	INSTRUCTORS’ BUGBEAR
		SHSBC-201		_________
52. 	DEMO: Standard auditing.		_________
53. 	TAPE: 	6210C11 	3GA GOALS FINDING
 		SHSBC-202		_________
54. 	HCOB 	16 Oct 62 	ROUTINE 3GA LISTING	_________
55. 	HCOB 	17 Oct 62 	AUDITOR FAILURE TO 
			UNDERSTAND	_________
56. 	CLAY DEMO: What the auditor must do when he fails to understand the 
	pc and why.			_________
57. 	TAPE: 	6210C23 	3GAXX FOLLOWING THE ROCK 
		SHSBC-203XSLAM	_________
58. 	TAPE: 	6210C25 	3GAXX
 		SHSBC-208		_________
59. 	HCOB 	29 Oct 62 	PRE-CLEARING INTENSIVE
60. 	TAPE: 	6210C30 	LISTING GOALS	_________
 		SHSBC-205
61. 	TAPE: 	6211C01 	THE MISSED MISSED WITHHOLD
		SHSBC-206		_________
62. 	DEMO: What exact moments you’re looking for when you pull MWHs.	_________
63. 	TAPE: 	6211C01 	THE ROAD TO TRUTH
		SHSBC-207		_________
64. 	ESSAY: How you will apply the Road to Truth.	_________
65. 	HCOB 	7 Nov 62 	WRONG GOALS, IMPORTANCE OF
			REPAIR OF	_________
66. 	HCOB 	7 Nov 62 II 	ROUTINE 3-21 THE TWENTY-ONE
 			STEPS FINDING GOALS	_________
67. 	HCOB 	7 Nov 62 III 	“ROLL YOUR OWN” PREHAV	_________
68. 	HCOB 	8 Nov 62R 	SOMATICS - HOW TO TELL 
			TERMINAL AND OPPOSITION 
			TERMINALS	_________
69. 	DEMO: Somatic, pain, sensation.	_________
70. 	HCOB 	12 Nov 62 	3GAXX DIRTY NEEDLES AND IN
 			COMPLETE LISTS HOW TO ASSESS	_________
71. 	TAPE: 	6211C13 	THE DIFFICULT CASE	
 		SHS8C-210		_________
72. 	TAPE: 	6211C15 	TERMINALS
 		SHSBC-212		_________
73. 	CLAY DEMO: A GPM.		_________
74. 	TAPE: 	6211C15 	CLEARING TECHNOLOGY
 		SHSBC-213		_________
75. 	TAPE: 	6211C20 	THE GPM
 		SHSBC-214		_________
76. 	TAPE: 	6211C20 	FUNDAMENTALS OF AUDITING
 		SHSBC-215		_________
77. 	CLAY DEMO: Find out what’s happening with a pc before the pc does. 	_________		
78. 	TAPE: 	6211C22 	Q & A PERIOD, PART I
 		SHSBC-216		_________
79. 	TAPE: 	6211C22 	Q & A PERIOD, PART II
 		SHSBC-217		_________
80. 	HCOB 	23 Nov 62 	ROUTINE TWO-TWELVE OPENING
			PROCEDURE BY ROCK SLAM AN 
			HPA/HCA SKILL	_________
81. 	DEMO: Why a person with a hidden standard won’t go clear.	_________
82. 	HCOB 	24 Nov 62 	ROUTINE 2-12 LIST ONE - ISSUE
 			ONE THE SCIENTOLOGY LIST	_________
83. 	HCOB 	29 Nov 62 	ROUTINE 2-12 LIST ONE -ISSUE
 			TWO THE SCIENTOLOGY LIST	_________
84. 	HCOB 	29 Nov 62 	ROUTINES 2-12, 3-21 and 3GAXX
 			TIGER DRILL FOR NULLING BY 
			MID RUDS	_________
85. 	HCO PL 	1 Dec 62 	GOALS AND PREPCHECKING	_________
86. 	HCOB 	4 Dec 62 	ROUTINE 2-12 LIST ONE -ISSUE	
 			THREE THE SCIENTOLOGY LIST	_________
87. 	HCOB 	8 Dec 62 	TRAINING X UNIT	_________
88. 	DEMO: The biggest hole in student auditing.	_________
89. 	HCOB 	9 Dec 62 	ROUTINE 2-12 LIST ONE	_________
90. 	HCOB 	15 Dec 62 	URGENT R2-12 THE FATAL ERROR	_________
91. 	HCOB 	1 Jan 63 	ACADEMY CURRICULUM HOW TO 
			TEACH AUDITING AND ROUTINE 2	_________
92. 	HCOB 	3 Jan 63 	ROUTINE 2 IMPORTANT	_________
93. 	TAPE: 	6301C08 	R2-10 AND R2-12
		SHSBC-226		_________
94. 	DEMO: Demo why mass diminishes when you give a pc a right item, or 
	why it increases if you give a wrong item.	_________
95. 	TAPE: 	6301C08 	CASE REPAIR
		SHSBC-227		_________
96. 	DEMO: Demo why a pc will have a hard time remembering right items, 
	but will remember wrong items.	_________
97. 	TAPE: 	6301C10 	HOW TO AUDIT
		SHSBC-229		_________
98. 	DEMO: Demo the relationship between boil-off, anaten, grogginess and 
	MWHs.			_________
 99. 	TAPE: 	6301C15 	NEVERS
		SHSBC-231		_________
100.	CLAY DEMO: An incomplete list, an overlisted list, a dead horse and 
	their effects on the pc.		_________
101.	TAPE: 	6301C16 	TR 0 LECTURE
		SHSBC-233		_________
102.	TAPE: 	6302C13 	TVD-16, MID RUD AND HAV
 		SHSBC-237		_________
103.	TAPE: 	6302C13 	DISCUSSION BY LRH OF TVD
 		SHSBC-238		_________
104.	HCOB 	15 Feb 63 	R2 - R3 LISTING RULES	_________
105.	TAPE: 	6302C19 	RUNDOWN ON PROCESSES
 		SHSBC-240		_________
106.	HCOB 	20 Feb 63 	ROUTINE 2 AND 3 MODEL SESSION	_________
107.	TAPE: 	6303C05 	R2 AND R3 URGENT DATA
		SHSBC-245		_________
108.	TAPE: 	6303C07 	WHEN FACED WITH THE 
		SHSBC-247	UNUSUAL, DO THE USUAL	_________
109.	DEMO: A complete list.		_________
110.	HCOB 	8 Mar 63 	USE OF THE BIG MIDDLE 
			RUDIMENTS	_________
111.	DEMO: The evolution of Bid Mid Ruds into modern prepchecking 
	procedure.			_________
112.	HCOB 	14 Mar 63 	ROUTINE 2 - ROUTINE 3 ARC 
			BREAKS, HANDLING OF 	_________
113.	DEMO: The cycle of the ARC break.	_________
* 114.	HCOB 	18 Mar 63 	R2 - R3 IMPORTANT DATA DON’T 
			FORCE THE PC	_________
115.	DEMO: How it is that when you go earlier and earlier in the bank the 
	“power” of the thetan’s mock-ups increases.	_________
116.	TAPE: 	6303C20 	RUDIMENTS AND HAVINGNESS 
 		SHTVD-18 	SESSION AND SHORT LECTURE	_________
117.	HCOB 	23 Mar 63 	CLEAR AND OT	_________
118.	BTB 	29 Mar 63 	SUMMARY OF CONFESSIONALS	_________
118A. CLAY DEMO: Grooving in a Security Checking question.	_________
119.	TAPE: 	6304C23 	GOALS PROBLEMS MASS
		SHSBC-259		_________
120.	TAPE: 	6304C25 	FINDING GOALS
		SHSBC-260		_________
121.	HCOB 	25 Apr 63 	METER READING TRs	_________
121A. DEMO: TRs for meter reading.	_________
122.	TAPE: 	6304C30 	DIRECTIVE LISTING
			SHSBC-261	_________
123.	HCOB 	29 Apr 63 	MODERNIZED TRAINING DRILLS 
			USING PERMISSIVE COACHING	_________
* 124.	HCOB 	15 May 63 	THE TIME TRACK AND ENGRAM 
			RUNNING BY CHAINS BULLETIN 1	_________
125.	CLAY DEMO: The rule “The Time Track obeys the auditor; the Time 
	Track does not obey the preclear”.	_________
126.	DRILL: Mock up a movie projector and reel of film and do the drill on 
	page one of the above HCOB (15 May 63)	_________
127.	TAPE: 	6305C16 	THE TIME TRACK
 		SHSBC-265		_________
128.	HCOB 	21 May 63 	ROUTINE 3 R3 MODEL SESSION	_________
129.	TAPE: 	6305C23 	STATE OF OT
		SHSBC-268		_________
* 130.	HCOB 	27 May 63 	CAUSE OF ARC BREAKS	_________
131.	CLAY DEMO: The rule “All ARC breaks are caused by bypassed 
	charge”.			_________
132. CLAY DEMO: The rule “To turn off an ARC break find and indicate the 
	correct bypassed charge”.		_________
133.	TAPE: 	6305C28 	HANDLING ARC BREAKS
		SHSBC-269		_________
134.	DEMO: Demo how to prevent an ARC Break in session.	_________
135.	TAPE: 	6305C29 	PROGRAMMING CASES, PART I
		SHSBC-270		_________
136.	TAPE: 	6305C30 	PROGRAMMING CASES, PART II
		SHSBC-271		_________
137.	HCOB: 	8 Jun 63 	THE TIME TRACK AND ENGRAM
 			RUNNING BY CHAINS BULLETIN II	_________
138.	CLAY DEMO: The State of Case Scale.	_________
139.	TAPE: 	6306C11 	ENGRAM CHAIN RUNNING
		SHSBC-272		_________
140.	TAPE: 	6306C12 	ARC STRAIGHTWIRE
		SHSBC-273		_________
141.	DEMO: Why Scientology aims to restore a person’s power of choice.	_________
142.	TAPE: 	6306C13 	LEVELS OF CASE
 		SHSBC-274		_________
143.	TAPE: 	6306C18 	BEINGNESS
		SHSBC-275		_________
144.	DEMO: Why a person manifests inertia in his case state.	_________
145.	TAPE: 	6306C19 	SUMMARY OF MODERN AUDITING
 		SHSBC-276		_________
146.	TAPE: 	6306C20 	HISTORY OF PSYCHOTHERAPY
		SHSBC-277 		_________
* 147.	HCOB 	24 Jun 63 	ROUTINE 3 ENGRAM RUNNING
 			BY CHAINS BULLETIN 3	_________
148.	DEMO: The 2 rules of ARC break handling.	_________
149.	DEMO: Whenever charge is missed the time track tends to group.	_________
150.	TAPE: 	6306C25 	ROUTINE 2H
		SHSBC-278		_________
151.	HCOB 	25 Jun 63 	ROUTINE 2H, ARC BREAKS BY 
			ASSESSMENT	_________
152.	HCOB 	1 Jul 63 	ROUTINE 3R BULLETIN 4 
			PRELIMINARY STEP	_________
153.	HCOB 	5 Jul 63 	CCHs REWRITTEN	_________
* 154.	HCOB 	5 Jul 63 	ALL ROUTINES, ARC BREAK 
			ASSESSMENTS	_________
155.	TAPE: 	6307C09 	THE FREE BEING
		SHSBC-281		_________
156.	HCOB 	9 Jul 63 	A TECHNICAL SUMMARY THE 
			REQUIRED SKILLS OF PROCESSING 
			AND WHY	_________
157.	DEMO: The basic skills of auditing.	_________
158.	TAPE: 	6307C10 	AUDITING SKILLS OF R-3-R
		SHSBC-282		_________
159.	TAPE: 	6307C10 	PRELIMINARY STEPS OF R-3-R
		SHSBC-284A PART I	_________
160.	TAPE: 	6307C11 	ARC BREAKS
		SHSBC-283		_________
161.	DEMO: “The source of all problems is time”.	_________
162.	CLAY DEMO: How an ARC break rekindles.	_________
163.	TAPE: 	6307C16 	TIPS ON RUNNING R-3-R 
		SHSBC-285		_________
164.	TAPE: 	6307C17 	DATING 
		SHSBC-286		_________
165.	CLAY DEMO: Why you never leave a wrong date on a case.	_________
166.	TAPE: 	6307C18 	ERRORS IN TIME
		SHSBC-287		_________
* 167.	HCOB 	22 Jul 63 	YOU CAN BE RIGHT	_________
168.	DEMO: How to rehabilitate the ability to be right.	_________
169.	HCOB 	22 Jul 63 II 	ORG TECHNICAL HGC PROCESSES 
			AND TRAINING 	_________
170.	DEMO: What is necessary to be done to get TA.	_________
171.	DEMO: The rules for programming pcs.	_________
172.	DEMO: What HGC gains depend on.	_________
172A. TAPE: 	6307C23 	BETWEEN LIVES IMPLANTS 
		SHSBC-288		_________
173.	TAPE: 	6307C24 	ARC BREAKS AND THE COMM 
		SHSBC-289	CYCLE 	_________
174.	CLAY DEMO: What happens to the pc and bank when the auditor cuts 
	the comm cycle of the pc.		_________
175. VOL 5, 	page 340 	LECTURE GRAPH FOR TAPE 290	_________
176.	TAPE: 	6307C25 	COMM CYCLES IN AUDITING 
		SHSBC-290		_________
177.	CLAY DEMO: The 5 points which indicate a process is flat, showing 
	the pc and bank.		_________
* 178.	HCOB 	28 Jul 63 	TIME AND THE TONE ARM	_________
179. DEMO: The clue to OT (and Clear).	_________
180. CLAY DEMO: The mechanics of time sense and how it relates to case 
	level.			_________
181. HCOB 	29 Jul 63 	SCIENTOLOGY REVIEW	_________
* 182. HCOB 	4 Aug 63 	ALL ROUTINES, E-METER ERRORS 	
			COMM CYCLE ERROR	_________
183. CLAY DEMO: The 6 rules listed in the HCOB.	_________
184. Vol 5, page 337 LECTURE GRAPH FOR TAPE 291	_________
185. TAPE: 	6308C06	AUDITING COMM CYCLES
		SHSBC-291		_________
186. CLAY DEMO: What a DN, stuck TA, ARC Breaks show about the 
	auditor’s comm cycle.		_________
187. VOL 5, page 343 LECTURE GRAPH FOR TAPE 292	_________
188. TAPE: 	6308C07 	R-2H FUNDAMENTALS
		SHSBC-292		_________
188A. VOL 5, page 344 LECTURE GRAPH FOR TAPE 293	_________
189. TAPE: 	6308C08 	R-2H ASSESSMENT
		SHSBC-293 		_________
190. HCOB 	9 Aug 63 	DEFINITION OF RELEASE	_________
191. DEMO: Definition of release.		_________
192. HCOB 	11 Aug 63 	ARC BREAK ASSESSMENTS 	_________
193. HCOB 	14 Aug 63 	LECTURE GRAPHS	_________
194. TAPE: 	6308C14 	AUDITING TIPS
		SHSBC-294		_________
195. DRILL: List ways of cutting an itsa line. Give examples of each and say 
	how each could have been avoided.	_________
196. TAPE: 	6308C15 	THE TONE ARM
		SHSBC-295		_________
197. CLAY DEMO: What the Tone Arm registers.	_________
* 198. HCOB 	19 Aug 63 	HOW TO DO AN ARC BREAK 
			ASSESSMENT	_________
199. DEMO: Successful handling of an ARC break.	_________
200. DEMO: Uses for ARC break assessments.	_________
201. TAPE: 	6308C20 	THE ITSA LINE 
		SHSBC-296		_________
202. CLAY DEMO: How to parallel the pc’s mind.	_________
203. CLAY DEMO: The Itsa Line.		_________
204. HCOB 	20 Aug 63 	R3R-R3N THE PRECLEAR’S 
			POSTULATES	_________
205. TAPE: 	6308C21 	THE ITSA LINE (continued)
 		SHSBC-297		_________
206. TAPE: 	6308C22 	PROJECT 80
 		SHSBC-298		_________
207. TAPE: 	6308C27 	RIGHTNESS AND WRONGNESS
 		SHSBC-299		_________
208. DEMO: Why a person “must” make himself right.	_________
209. TAPE: 	6308C28 	THE TA AND THE SERVICE 
		SHSBC-300 	FACSIMILE	_________
210. CLAY DEMO: “Case level depends on amount of overrestimulation, not 
	bank.”			_________
211. TAPE: 	6308C29 	THE SERVICE FACSIMILE
		SHSBC-301 		_________
* 212. HCOB 	1 Sep 63 	ROUTINE THREE SC	_________
213. DEMO: How to do R3SC.		_________
214. TAPE: 	6309C03 	R3SC
 		SHSBC-302A	_________
215. TAPE: 	6309C04 	HOW TO FIND A SERVICE 
		SHSBC-302	FACSIMILE	_________
216. TAPE: 	6309C05 	SERVICE FAC ASSESSMENT
		SHSBC-303		_________
217. HCOB 	6 Sep 63 	INSTRUCTING IN SCIENTOLOGY 
			AUDITING	_________
218. HCOB 	9 Sep 63 	REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS AND 
			REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING 	_________
219. DEMO: How to do repetitive rudiments.	_________
220. TAPE: 	6309C10 	DESTIMULATI0N OF A CASE
		SHSBC-304		_________
221. DEMO: The 5 sources of restimulation an auditor has to reduce.	_________
222. CLAY DEMO: Destimulation.	_________
223. TAPE: 	6309C11 	SERVICE FACS AND GPMs
		SHSBC-306		_________
224. DEMO: How a ser fac is a substitute confront.	_________
225. TAPE: 	6309C12 	SERVICE FACS
		SHSBC-305		_________
226. BTB 	12 Sep 63R 	CCHs DATA	_________
227. TAPE: 	6309C18 	ST HILL SERVICE FAC HANDLING
		SHSBC-308		_________
228. HCOB 	22 Sep 63 	PREPCHECK BUTTONS	_________
229. HCOB 	25 Sep 63 	ADEQUATE TONE ARM ACTION	_________
230. DEMO: The rule: “The less active the TA the more over-restimulation is 
	present (though restim can also be absent).”	_________
231. DEMO: A silent auditor invites itsa.	_________
232. HCOB 	8 Oct 63 	HOW TO GET TA ANALYZING 
			AUDITING	_________
233. DEMO: The data of Listen Style auditing (5 points).	_________
234. DEMO: The basic crimes of Listen Style Auditing.	_________
235. TAPE: 	6310C15 	ESSENTIALS OF AUDITING
		SHSBC-312		_________
236. TAPE: 	6310C16 	THE ITSA MAKER LINE
		SHSBC-313		_________
237. DEMO: How to keep an itsa line in.	_________
238. HCOB 	16 Oct 63 	R3SC SLOW ASSESSSENT	_________
239. TAPE: 	6310C17 	LEVELS OF AUDITING
		SHSBC-314		_________
240. BTB 	17 Oct 63R 	R-2C SLOW ASSESSMENT BY 	
	Rev & Reiss	1.8.74	DYNAMICS DIRECTIONS FOR USE 	_________
241. BTB 	17 Oct 63R 	R-2C SLOW ASSESSMENT BY 	
	Rev & Reiss	11.9.74	DYNAMICS	_________
242. TAPE: 	6310C22 	THE INTEGRATION OF AUDITING
 		SHSBC-316		_________
243. BTB 	31 Oct 63R 	R-2C SLOW ASSESSMENT BY 	
	Rev & Reiss	11.9.74	DYNAMICS	_________
244. TAPE: 	6310C23 	AUDITING THE GPM
		SHSBC-317		_________
245. TAPE: 	6311C05 	THREE ZONES OF AUDITING
		SHSBC-321		_________
245A. CLAY DEMO: Basic auditing, technique and case analysis.
246. TAPE: 	6311C07 	RELATIONSHIP OF TRAINING TO 	
		SHSBC-322	OT	_________
247.	HCOB 	19 Nov 63 	ROUTINE 3 R3 MODEL SESSION 
			REVISED	_________
* 248. HCOB 	25 Nov 63 	DIRTY NEEDLES	_________
249. DEMO: How a dirty needle is caused by the auditor.	_________
250. HCOB 	26 Nov 63 	A NEW TRIANGLE - BASIC 
			AUDITING, TECHNIQUE, CASE 
			ANALYSIS 	_________
251. DEMO: The three hats of the auditor.	_________
252. TAPE: 	6311C27 	AUDITING DEMO AND COMMENTS
		SHSBC-330 	TVD-25 BY LRH	_________
253. TAPE:  	6312C04 	BASIC AUDITING	
		SHSBC-326 	TVD-24	_________
254. TAPE: 	6312C12 	SUMMARY OF OT PROCESSES
		SHSBC-329		_________

- END OF SHSBC LEVEL D THEORY SECTION -

SHSBC LEVEL D

PRACTICAL SECTION

ARC BREAKS AND BY-PASSED CHARGE

1. 	TECH DICTIONARY - Word Clear:  (a) Charge	_________
			(b) By-passed Charge	_________
2. 	HCOB 	10 Jun 72 I 	BY-PASSED CHARGE	_________
3. 	CLAY DEMO: By-passed charge.	_________
4. 	HCOB 	27 May 63 	CAUSE OF ARC BREAKS	_________
5. 	DEMO: 	(a) How finding and indicating the correct BPC turns off an 
		     ARC break.		_________
		(b) The effect of indicating incorrect or non-specific BPC.	_________
6. 	DRILL: Indicating by-passed charge.	_________
7. 	HCOB 	19 Mar 71 	L1C	_________
8. 	DRILL: Assessing and handling an L1C.	_________
9.
10.

TWO-WAY COMM

1. 	BTB 	14 Mar 71RA	TALKING THE TA DOWN (A FLAG 
			EXPERTISE SUBJECT)	_________
2. 	HCOB 	16 Feb 72 	C/S Series 74 TALKING THE TA 
			DOWN MODIFIED	_________
3. 	HCOB 	21 Apr 70 	2-WAY COMM C/S’s	_________
4. 	DEMO: The main reasons why a Case Supervisor orders a “2-way 
	comm” C/S.			_________
5. 	DRILL: 	(a) Correctly indicating BPC on a two-way comm.	_________
		(b) 2-way come to obtain data about case progress and status.	_________
		(c) Asking pc what the auditor did in session.	_________
		     (Ref: HCOB 9 Jun 71RA I C/S Ser 41RA C/S TIPS)
		(d) Doing 2-way comm until you can do it confidently.	_________
6.
7.

REHABS

1. 	HCOB 	30 Jun 65 	RELEASE, REHABILITATION OF 
			FORMER RELEASES AND THETAN 
			EXTERIORS	_________
2. 	HCOB 	21 Jul 65 	RELEASE REHABILITATION	_________
3. 	HCOB 	2 Aug 65 	RELEASE GOOFS	_________
4. 	DEMO: Each step of doing a rehab per HCOB 30.6.65.	_________
5. 	DRILL: Rehab Procedure (“65 Style” - per HCOB 30.5.65).	_________
6. 	HCOB 	23 Sep 68 	DRUGS AND TRIPPERS	_________
7. 	BTB 	6 Dec 68 	RELEASE, REHABILITATION OF	_________
8. 	DEMO: Rehab by Counting Procedure.	_________
9. 	DRILL: Rehab by Counting Procedure.	_________
10. 	HCOB 	5 Dec 71 	IMPORTANT - END PHENOMENA	_________
11. 	DRILL: Checking to see if a pc has made an EP.	_________
12.
13.

LISTING AND NULLING

1. 	BTB 	20 Aug 70R 	TWO COMPLETE DIFFERENCES
	Rev & Reiss 	19.8.74 	ASSESSMENT LISTING AND 
			NULLING	_________
2. 	TECH DICTIONARY: Word Clear: Listing and Nulling	_________
3. 	HCOB 	20 Apr 72 II 	C/S Series 78 PRODUCT PURPOSE 
			AND WHY AND W/C ERROR 
			CORRECTION	_________
* 4. 	HCOB 	1 Aug 68 	THE LAWS OF LISTING AND 
			NULLING	_________
* 5. 	CLAY DEMO: 
(a) The difference between a repetitive process and an L&N process,    
      fully showing what happens in the pc’s bank.	_________
(b) Why the correct L&N item will BD F/N.	_________
(c) Listing and Nulling - per Tech Dictionary.	_________
(d) The indicators of an out-list.	_________
(e) The laws of L&N.		_________
6. 	DRILL: Learn the Laws of Listing and Nulling verbatim. 	_________
	(NOTE: BTB 26 Jul 63R TRAINING TECHNOLOGY
	COACHING THEORY MATERIAL, can be used.)
7. 	HCOB 	22 Aug 66 	FLOATING NEEDLES, LISTING 
			PROCESSES	_________
8. 	HCOB 	27 May 70R 	UNREADING QUESTIONS AND 
		Rev 3.12.78	ITEMS	_________
9. 	HCOB 	14 Sep 71R 	C/S Series 59R DIANETIC LIST 
			ERRORS	_________
10. 	HCOB 	9 Nov 78 	URGENT IMPORTANT L&N LISTS 
			THE ITEM “ME”	_________
11. 	HCOB 	11 Apr 77 	LIST ERRORS CORRECTION OF	_________
12. 	HCOB 	16 Oct 62 	ROUTINE 3GA LISTING	_________
13. 	DEMO: The difference between allowing the pc to give items and 
	handling a pc groping for more.	_________
14. 	HCOB 	15 Dec 68R 	L4BRA	_________
15. 	BTB 	7 Nov 72R 	Auditor Admin Series 18R Issue III 
			L&N LISTS	_________
16. 	DRILL:
(a) Clearing a Listing Question and checking for a read.	_________
(b) Handling a BD F/N item on Listing.	_________
(c) What to do when the TA is rising (L&N Law #2).	_________
(d) What to do if the needle floats while the pc is actually listing off an 
      L&N question yet no item has been found. (Ref: HCOB 22 Aug 66 
      FLOATING NEEDLES, LISTING PROCESSES)	_________
(e) Recognizing the six stages in a pc’s decline in answering a Listing 
     Question. (Ref: HCOB 16 Oct 62 ROUTINE 3GA LISTING)	_________
17. 	DRILL THE FOLLOWING SITUATIONS:
(a) No BD F/N item on listing.	_________
(b) Nothing reads on nulling.		_________
(c) Two or more items read on nulling.	_________
(d) Pc says it is a wrong item.	_________
(e) On nulling you realize that after a certain item, all subsequent items 
     are reading.		_________
(f) The pc gives the item “ME”.	_________
18. 	DRILL:
(a) Handling each line of the L4BRA.	_________
(b) What to do when a list is getting no item.	_________
     (Ref: HCOB 27 May 70R UNREADING QUESTIONS AND 
      ITEMS)
(c) Handling a violent or “total-apathy-won’t answer” session upset 
      occurring in Dianetics.		_________
(d) When to use an L4BRA (drill all situations).	_________
(e) Fully hatting a pc on L&N (using appropriate source references).	_________
19.
20.

GRADE III

1. 	BPL 	25 Jun 70RB 	EXPANDED LOWER GRADES 	
		Rev 27.4.75	CHART OF ABILITIES GAINED - 
			SECTION ON GRADE III	_________
2. 	DEMO: The Ability Gained for Grade III. 	_________
3. 	BTB 	15 Nov 76 V 	0-IV EXPANDED GRADES 
			PROCESSES - QUADS PART E 
			GRADE III PROCESSES 	_________
4. 	DRILL: Read the source references for and drill each process of 
	Expanded Grade III. It is not necessary to drill all of the processes 
	before starting your pc on Grade III, but drill each process before 
	auditing it.			_________
5.
6.

SERVICE FACSIMILES

1. 	TECH DICTIONARY - Word Clear: Computation.	_________
2. 	HCOB 	23 Aug 66 	SERVICE FACSIMILE	_________
3. 	CLAY DEMO: What a computation is.	_________
4. 	HCOB 	5 Sep 78 	ANATOMY OF A SERVICE 
			FACSIMILE	_________
5. 	HCOB 	6 Sep 78 II 	SERVICE FACSIMILES AND ROCK 
			SLAMS	_________
6. 	HCOB 	6 Sep 78 	URGENT IMPORTANT ROUTINE 
			THREE Issue III SC-A FULL SERVICE 
			FACSIMILE HANDLING UPDATED 
			WITH NEW ERA DIANETICS	_________
7. 	DRILL: The full Service Facsimile Procedure.	_________
8. 	DRILL: What to do it you get a beingness, doingness or havingness on 
	assessing for a Service Fac. (Ref: HCOB 23 Aug 66 SERVICE 
	FACSIMILE)			_________
9.
10.

GRADE IV

1. 	BPL 	25 Jun 70RB 	EXPANDED LOWER GRADES. 
		Rev 27.4.75	CHART  OF ABILITIES GAINED - 
			SECTION ON GRADE IV	_________
2. 	DEMO: The Ability Gained for Grade IV.	_________
3. 	DRILL: Read the Source reference for and drill each process of 
	Expanded Grade IV. It is not necessary to drill all of the processes 
	before starting a pc on Grade IV, but each process must be drilled before 
	auditing it.			_________
4.
5.

AUDITING REQUIREMENTS FOR SHSBC LEVEL D

1. 	Audit a pc to completion of Grade IV.	_________
2. 	Audit a pc to completeion on Grade IV.	_________
3. 	Deliver a videoed auditing session to a pass.	_________

(NOTE: The auditing and practical requirements can be started as soon as the practical section for a particular action is complete.)

(NOTE: The requirement to audit a Grade to a completion can be the auditing of Quad Grades, Expanded Grades or the completion of incomplete Grades, in accordance with the pc’s program.)

__________

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 cheeksheet data.
SUPERVISOR ATTEST:	DATE:	

I have worn my hat of “C/S as a Training Officer” and trained this student to the best of my ability and he/she has completed the auditing requirements of this checksheet and knows and can apply the checksheet data.

STUDENT C/S ATTEST:	DATE:	

B. 	STUDENT ATTEST AT C & A:

I attest: (a) I have enrolled properly on the course. (b) I have paid for the course, (c) I have studied and understand all the materials of this cheeksheet, (d) I have done all the drills on this cheeksheet, (e) I can produce the results requlred 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 to make his provisional certificate permanent he will have to be interned within one year.

QUAL SEC OR C & A:	DATE:	

D. 	CERTS AND AWARDS:

Issue Certificate of SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LEVEL D, HUBBARD GRADES SPECIALIST (Provisional).

C & A:	DATE:	

(Route this form to Course Admin for filing in Student’s folder.)

L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER

As assisted by
Melanie Seider Murray
Commodore’s Messenger 
and 
Special Compilations
Unit

for the
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
of the
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
of CALIFORNIA

BDCSC:LRH:SCU:MSM:kjm:bk 
Copyright © 1980, 1982 
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.Y., 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 14 FEBRUARY 1965
(Reissued on 7 June 1967, with the word
Remimeo                              “instructor” replaced by “supervisor”.)
All Hats
BPI
SAFEGUARDING TECHNOLOGY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	Squirreling is today destructive of a workable system. 

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

	L. RON HUBBARD 
	Founder 

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 JULY 1962
Franchise

REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS
How to Get the Rudiments In

I am in a hurry to get this bulletin to you and to get it into use for all except CCH sessions.

For a long time I’ve been urging you to get rudiments in. For the past ten days I have been working hard to analyze and resolve why you sometimes cannot.

Just as an E-Meter can go dead for the auditor in the presence of a monstrous ARC break, I have found it can go gradiently dull in the presence of out rudiments. If you fail to get one IN then the outness of the next one reads faintly. And if your TR1 is at all poor, you’ll miss the rudiment’s outness and there goes your session.

To get over these difficulties, I have developed a Model Session that can be used, in the rudiments, as a series of repetitive processes.

Then, with this, I’ve developed Repetitive Rudiments.

The auditor at first does not consult the meter, but asks the rudiments question of the pc until the pc says there is no further answer. At this point the auditor says, “I will check that on the meter.” And asks the question again. If it reads, the auditor uses the meter to steer the pc to the answer, and when the pc finds the answer, the auditor again lays the meter aside and asks the question of the pc as above until the pc has no answer. The auditor again says, “I will check that on the meter” and does so.

The cycle is repeated over and over until the meter is clean of any instant read (see HCO Bulletin of May 25, 1962 for Instant Read).

The cycle:

1. 	Run the rudiment as a repetitive process until pc has no answer.
2. 	Consult meter for a hidden answer.
3. 	If meter reads use it to steer (“that” “that” each time the meter flicks) the pc to the answer.
4. 	Lay aside the Meter and do 1 and 2 and 3.

The process is flat when there is no instant read to the question.

One does not “bridge out” or use “two more commands”. When the meter test of the question gets no instant read, the auditor says, “Do you agree that that is clean?” covertly looking at the needle as he or she says “clean”. If the question really isn’t clean, there will be an instant read on “Do you agree the question is clean?” If there is such a read, do 1, 2 and 3 again.

The trick here is the definition of “In Session”. If the pc is in session the meter will read. If the pc is partially out the meter will read poorly, and the rudiment will not register and the rudiment will get missed. But with the pc in session the meter will read well for the auditor. Thus you get the pc to talk to the auditor about his own case, the definition of “in session”, before consulting the meter by using the repetitive process.

What a relief to the pc to have his rudiments in! And goodbye ARC breaks and no auditing results!

Use this system always on the beginning rudiments for every type of session.

Use this system on the Middle Rudiments in a havingness and sometimes on the Prepcheck type of session. But seldom on a Routine 3 (goals) type of session.

Use this system always on the End Rudiments of a havingness session. Do not use it on the End Rudiments of a Prepcheck or Routine 3 type of session unless the session has been full of screaming pc (which with this system it won’t be).

Havingness Type Session:

Repetitive Rudiments System on Beginning, Middle and End Rudiments.

Prepcheck Type Session:

Repetitive Rudiments on Beginning and sometimes Middle Rudiments. Ask End Rudiments against meter as in step 2 and 3 of cycle (Fast Checking, see below).

Routine 3 Type Session:

Use Repetitive Rudiments on Beginning Rudiments. Use 2 and 3 only (Fast Checking) for Middle and End Rudiments unless Session very rough.

So that’s where Repetitive auditing processes wind up. Addressed to rudiments!

A tip—you can ARC break a session by overuse of Middle Rudiments on Routine 3 processes. Never use the Middle Rudiments just because the pc is talking about his or her own case. That’s the definition of In Session. Use Middle Rudiments in Routine 3 when you have not had any meter needle response on three goals read three times (not one goal read disturbed the needle). Then get your Middle Rudiments in and cover the first consecutive nul goal above (the three that gave no response). Don’t use Middle Ruds just because 3 goals went nul. Only if no reading of a goal disturbed the needle for three goals in a row. Also use Middle Ruds when the pc “can’t think of any more” in listing of goals or items. Don’t use every time you shift lists now. Only if the pc “can’t list more”.

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

In Prepchecking use Middle Ruds Repetitively after 3 Zero questions have each been nul on a list of Zeros and recheck those Zeros if Middle Ruds were out. Use Middle Ruds after each What question was nulled and check the What question again and rework it if alive. Also check the Zero questions if a What went nul. If a Zero advanced to a What, both What and Zero must be checked for nullness and found nul before leaving them.

One Middle Rudiments use may suffice for both unless one was found still alive after the Middle Ruds were gotten in. Repair it and recheck if so.

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

FAST CHECKING

A Fast Check on the Rudiments consists only of steps 2 and 3 of the cycle done over and over.

Watching the meter the auditor asks the question, takes up only what reads and, careful not to Q and A, clears it. One does this as many times as is necessary to get a clean needle. But one still says, “Do you agree that that is clean?” and catches up the disagreement by getting the additional answers.  When both the question and the agreement are seen to be clean, the question is left.

In using Fast Checking NEVER SAY, “THAT STILL READS.” That’s a flunk. Say, “There’s another read here.”
-----------------

You cannot easily handle a transistor type meter more sensitive than a Mark IV. The needle would be so rapid in its swings you would find it nearly impossible to keep it centred. Therefore a more sensitive meter was no answer. The TR 1 of many auditors lacks any great impingement. And this is remediable only when “altitude” can also be remedied. There had to be a better answer to getting out rudiments to read better on a Meter for all auditors and all pcs. Repetitive Rudiments is the best answer to this.

(Note: I am indebted to Mary Sue, when I was working on this problem, for calling my attention back to this system which I originally developed for Sec Checking and where it worked well.)

								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 3 JULY AD 12
Central Orgs
Franchise

REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING

As the Prepchecking we have been doing is a complicated skill and as recent rudiments developments open the door to simplified handling of overts, you may lay aside all versions of previous Prepchecking and Security Checking and substitute the following.

This is in the interests of improvement of auditing and keeping pcs from being enturbulated by unskilled auditing. The version herein is far easier to train students into as it uses the same actions as Repetitive Rudiments.

REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING

We will still use the term “Prepchecking” and do all Prepchecking by repetitive command.

We will refer to the older version as “Prepchecking by the Withhold System” and abandon it as of this date as too complicated and too susceptible to restimulation of pcs in semi-skilled hands.

THE AUDITING PROCEDURE

We handle any Zero question exactly as in repetitive rudiments, (HCO Bulletin of July 2, 1962).

The session is started exactly as per Model Session, HCO Bulletin June 23, 1962, (or as may be amended). A Mark IV Meter is used (using earlier meters on Prepchecking can mean disaster as they miss withholds).

The auditor then announces for the body of the session, that a Prepcheck will be done on such and such a subject or Form.

The auditor then takes an already prepared Form (such as Form 3, 6A, Prepcheck Mid Ruds, Goals Prepcheck Form [not yet released] ).

STEP ONE

Without now looking at the Meter, the auditor asks the Form question repetitively until the preclear says that’s all, there are no more answers.

STEP TWO

The auditor then says, “I will check that on the meter” and does so, watching for the Instant Read (HCO Bulletin May 25, 1962).

If it reads, the auditor says, “That reads. What was it?” (and steers the pc’s attention by calling each identical read that then occurs). “There... That... That . . .” until the pc spots it in his bank and gives the datum.

STEP THREE

The auditor then ignores the meter and repeats Step One above. Then goes to Step Two, etc.

STEP FOUR

When there is no read on Step Two above, the auditor says, “Do you agree that that is nul?” The auditor watches for an Instant Read on this and if there is an Instant Read on it, does Step Two above, then Step Three. This gives a double check on the flatness of a question.

This is all there is to Repetitive Prepchecking as a system. Anything added in the way of more auditor questions is destructive to the session. Be sure not to Q and A (HCO Bulletin of May 24, 1962).

Be sure your TR4 is excellent in that you understand (really, no fake) what the pc is saying and acknowledge it (really, so the pc gets it) and return the pc to session. Nothing is quite as destructive to this type of auditing as bad TR4.

THE ZERO QUESTIONS TIME LIMITER

There must be a time limit on all Zero questions. Although it says, “Have you ever stolen anything?” the auditor must preface this with a TIME LIMITER such as “In this lifetime . . .” “In auditing. . .” or whatever applies. Form 3 (the Joburg) has to be prefaced with “In this lifetime . . .” on every question. Form 6A, as it speaks of preclears, etc, is already limited in Time.

In Prepchecking the Middle Ruds, use “In auditing . . .” before each question or other appropriate limitations.

The Zero must not swing the pc down the whole track as Middle Rudiments then become unanswerable and a fruitful source of missed withholds.

MIDDLE RUDIMENTS

In Repetitive Prepchecking the Middle Rudiments can be Fast Checked (HCO Bulletin of July 2,1962), (using the package question “In this session is there anything you have suppressed, invalidated, failed to reveal or been careful of?” If one of the four reads, use it singly to clean it in the same worded question and do the remainder of the Middle Ruds singly: “In this session is there anything you have failed to reveal?”).

Use the Middle Rudiments Fast Checked every time you clean a Zero Question, whether the pc had answers for it or not.

PREPCHECKING THE MIDDLE RUDIMENTS

To begin or end a series of sessions (such as an intensive), Prepcheck also the Middle Rudiments.

In such Prepchecking the Middle Ruds, for havingness sessions, the Zeros are as follows:

“Since I have been auditing you is there anything you have suppressed?” “Since I have been auditing you is there anything you have invalidated?” “Since I have been auditing you is there anything you have failed to reveal?” “Since I have been auditing you is there anything you have been careful of?”

To these standards add, in the same question form, “suggested” “failed to suggest” “revealed” “told any half truths” “told any untruths” “damaged anyone” “influenced the E-Meter” “failed to answer a question” “failed to answer a command” and “Since I have been auditing you have you shifted your attention?” Flatten off with O/W as below.

O/W ASSISTS

As a Prepcheck by form and even beginning rudiments are not calculated to handle a pc who is very distraught before the start of session by reason of upsets in life (howling PTPs accompanied by misemotion) or who is too ill physically to settle into auditing, an earlier rudiment immediately after start of session can be used. This is general O/W (Overt-Withhold):

“What have you done?” “What have you withheld?”

These are run alternately. This is never run on a terminal (i.e. What have you done to George? etc). Only the general type command is now used.

When the pc is much better, go into the usual rudiments.

(Note: This is, by the way, the best repetitive process for an assist.)

This is run to a nul needle on both questions. If either gives an Instant Read, continue to run both until both are nul, much as in steps One, Two, Three and Four of Repetitive Prepchecking.

When used to flatten off a Prepcheck on the Middle Rudiments, whether for Prepchecking or for goals type or ordinary Repetitive Prepchecking, the O/W command wording is as follows:

“Since I have been auditing you, what have you done?” “Since I have been auditing you, what have you withheld?”

Both must be nul to conclude the process. If either is found alive on the needle, run both.

When used to begin a session, or when used to Prepcheck the Middle Ruds, O/W must be followed by a Fast Check of the Mid Ruds.

SUMMARY

This type of Prepchecking—Repetitive Prepchecking—is more easily done and more thorough than Prepchecking by the Withhold System and its earlier forefather Security Checking. It replaces both of these.

In view of the fact that the same system is used for Repetitive Rudiments (HCO Bulletin of July 2, l962), by learning one, the student also learns the other, thus saving a lot of time in study and training.

Repetitive Prepchecking replaces former auditing requirements for Class IIa and is the Class II skill.

It should be thoroughly instilled in the auditor that extra doingness by the auditor is detractive from the system and that every additive is a liability, not required in the system and liable to upset the pc. It is a must that the auditor be very capable with TR4 and that the auditor makes no attempt to shut off routine pc originations as the intensity of “In Sessionness” generated by modern Model Session used with Repetitive Rudiments and Repetitive Prepchecking is such as to make the ARC breaks quite shattering to the pc if TR4 is bad.

If Repetitive Prepchecking is run right, with good metering, the only remaining source of missed withholds is the inadvertent withhold caused by bad TR4. (The pc said it but the auditor didn’t understand it.)

This bulletin culminates three years of exhaustive research into the formation of Model Session, Rudiments and the handling of overts, and overcoming the limitations of the auditor and student in handling sessions. This, coming with the broad success of Routine 3GA, rounds out auditing from raw meat to clear for all cases capable of speech. These techniques represent a data span of 13 years and a general research of 32 years.

                                        					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 4 JULY 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise

BULLETIN CHANGES

(Changes in Model Session
HCO Bulletin June 23, 1962, HCO Bulletin May 3, 1962
and HCO Bulletin July 3, 1962)

(Note: Make changes on your copies of HCO Bulletin May 3, 1962, HCO Bulletin June 23, 1962 and HCO Bulletin July 3, 1962 so that students passing these bulletins do not have to give the outdated data in their Theory Examination of HCO Bulletins May 3, 1962, June 23, 1962 and July 3, 1962. This HCO Bulletin July 4, 1962 is to be passed also in Theory as it gives Why.)

HAVINGNESS RUD

The Room Rudiment is dropped from Model Session in the Beginning Rudiments but remains in the End Rudiments.

Abolish its use in Beginning Rudiments. Retain its use in End Rudiments in all HGCs, Academies, staff auditing and the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.

The Room Rudiment spoils the evenness of Repetitive Rudiments and as often as not takes the pc’s attention out of session.

MISSED WITHHOLDS

The question: “In this Session have you thought, said or done anything I have failed to find out?” is to be used in all Model Sessions as a Random Rudiment to be used in strict accordance with HCO Bulletin May 3, 1962, “ARC Breaks—Missed Withholds”. It remains also as part of End Rudiments.

The word “about” is deleted from the end rudiment question as it is unnecessary.

Change your copy of HCO Bulletin May 3, 1962 to give the above as the standard command.

This is used whenever the pc starts to get tense or tries to explain urgently. Don’t let the pc get into a full ARC Break. See it coming. But if pc does get into a heavy ARC Break it is of course used. It means the auditor was slow observing.

Its use is always repetitive as in any other Repetitive Rudiment.

The “said” is added to prevent upset from poor TR4.

OVERT/WITHHOLD

At the start of any session, after starting the session, General O/W may be used on any pc who is feeling ill or misemotional before session beginning by reason of heavy restimulation or acute PTPs. This is run only until the pc feels better and has cycled to present time. It is not run until both questions are nul (as given in HCO Bulletin July 3, 1962).

Use the cyclic type ending on the process.

Follow this action by Repetitive asking of the Missed Withhold Rudiment above to prevent a missed withhold from occurring.

END WORDS

The E-Meter has two holes in it. It does not operate on an ARC broken pc and it can operate on the last word (thought minor) only of a question. Whereas the question (thought major) is actually nul.

A pc can be checked on the END WORDS OF RUDIMENTS QUESTIONS and the charge on those single words can be made known and the question turned around to avoid the last word’s charge.

Example: “Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?”

The word “difficulties”, said to the pc by itself gives an Instant Read. Remedy: Test “Difficulties”. If it reads as itself then change the question to: “Concerning your difficulties, are you willing to talk to me?” This will only react when the pc is unwilling to do so.

Caution: This trouble of END WORDS reading by themselves occurs mainly in the presence of weak TR1 and failure to groove in the question to a “thought major”. With good TR1, the END WORDS read only when the question is asked.

IN PRACTICE you only investigate this when the pc insists strongly that the question is nul. Then test the end word for lone reaction and turn the question about to make it end with another end word (question not to have words changed, only shifted in order). Then groove it in and test it for Instant Read. If it still reacts as a question (thought major) then of course, it is not nul and should be answered.

CLEAN

Change HCO Bulletin July 3, 1962 to read: Do not pay attention to any reaction consequent to asking “Do you agree that that is clean?”

Trying to handle a reaction to this second question is too involved for ordinary handling. If the main question reads nul, ignore a read on “Do you agree that is clean?”

DOUBLE CLEANING

“Cleaning” a rudiment that has already registered nul gives the pc a Missed Withhold of nothingness. His nothingness was not accepted. The pc has no answer. A missed no-answer then occurs. This is quite serious. Once you see a Rudiment is clean, let it go. To ask again something already nul is to leave the pc baffled—he has a missed withhold which is a nothingness.

LRH:dr.aap.cden 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1962 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 JULY 1962
Central Orgs
Tech Depts

COACHLESS TRAINING
USE OF A DOLL

As it is better in the absence of good coaches to do many drills (but not TR0, 1, 2, 3, 4) with the student solo, mocking up the session as he goes, we are using this at Saint Hill.

A student, many of whom feel the emptiness of the empty chair he or she is facing, should make or buy and use a doll.

The doll need not be elaborate but should be at least a foot tall, preferably two feet.

The drills of spitting out rapidly Model Session Repetitive Rudiments, Fast Rudiments, Listing, Nulling, etc, are at this time being done Coachless and great progress is being made.

But the empty chair “gets” some auditors. Therefore the doll. Dolls were used in training first in 1957.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:gl.cden 
Copyright © 1962 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6207C10 SHSpec-168  Repetitive Rudiments and Repetitive Prepchecking (Part I)

[See HCOB 2Jul62 “Repetitive Rudiments...” and HCOB 3Ju162 “Repetitive Prepchecking”, relating to this tape and the next.]

We are back to basics today in auditing.  The forerunners of practically everything done today can be found in DMSMH and Dianetics: The Original Thesis.  Suddenly, also, we are back to repetitive processes, which auditors have always had success with, except for the question of whether the process is flat.  In the 17th ACC, LRH had just lectured on comm lags.  The next day, he asked how you could tell whether the process was flat.  No one could answer!  The difficulty is solved with this method of using repetitive questions.  They are flat at a precise point. One’s troubles can come only from not reading the meter or not believing it. Either will bring about an upset PC.

Model session, repetitive, per HCOB 4Jul62 “Bulletin Changes”, [Significant change is havingness, or the room rudiment, being dropped from beginning rudiments, although retained in end ruds.  See also HCOB 23jun62 “Model Session Revised”.] has all ruds    (except havingness) as auditing questions to be handled repetitively.  You would think that slugging the PC with this many processes in one session would be catastrophic.  It is, if done poorly.  If you overrun by one question, the PC is in the soup.  Likewise, if you ask one question too few, you get missed withholds.  So either never ask for O/W or do it right.  You can’t avoid the fact of missing withholds, no matter what you try.  You can miss a withhold just by walking in the room.  So you can’t just not ask questions, and if you ask a question, you must ask exactly the right number of questions.  Some cases -- one in twelve -- even think you should know everything they are thinking.  In these cases, any question you ask shows that you didn’t know, so you miss the withhold.  [See HCOB 12Jul62 “ Motivatorish Cases”.  This is the “theetie-weetie” case.] The way someone got in that state was too much pretended knowingness on the part of others, plus overts against questions.

If this type of person exists, or if many people get into this state, and they do, and if Man keeps being active while being secretive, which he will, then it is inevitable that you will miss withholds an people.  So you must learn to run O/W and repetitive processes perfectly, not just fairly well.  It is rather easy to do repetitive ruds and repetitive prepchecking perfectly. The only problem is that, with some cases, you have to add “to another” to the “done” question.  Otherwise the PC will give motivatorish answers, which spins him in, and the question will never clear.

Auditing is as successful as it is predictable to the PC.  Auditors get spoiled by a howling success following an unusual solution.  This includes LRH.  Such a success can hang an auditor up and get him stuck in the win.  The more we learn about the mind, the fewer unusual solutions we need and the more textbook the solutions become.  This is a measure of an auditor’s understanding of what he is doing.  If he wins with an unusual solution, it won’t give consistent wins.  As time goes by, he may get so many loses that he ultimately stops auditing.

The closer we get to clearing, the fewer unusual solutions we look for. To clear everybody, you have to know how everybody’s mind works.  We’ve got that.  At this point, we only need to modify the tech to make the result easier for all auditors to get.  Two things monitor our tech:

1. The results.

2. The ease with which auditors can be trained up to where they can obtain the results.  The ease of application of the processes.

The problems are these: A PC is built like a universe.  There is a pride postulate, on top of which mass accumulated.  human being is determined to be such merely by having a human body.  A doll has the same kind of bank as a human.  “The PC’s bank is not native to the corporeal self he is packing around as an identification card.” Incidentally, doll bodies Rot drunk by inhaling alcohol vapors.  Actually drinking would wreck the machinery.  We dramatize this nowadays with the brandy snifter.  Any mass accumulated to the PC accumulates on his prime postulate.  The prime postulate is the basic purpose or goal of a person.  There can be a secondary “prime” postulate in any lifetime.  It is the alteration of the prime postulate that occurs in the course of trying to put it into effect that causes mass to accumulate, from the shift of attention and direction that inhibits the person’s ability to as-is.  Change of attention is change and energy is change.

There is a lot to be understood about how mass evolves out of alter-isness.  If something goes from point A to point B with no change, point A must be point B.  By introducing space, you introduce a via.  Space is a via that causes and necessitates change in or of anything occurring within it. That is one of the first things that happens in the course of building a universe.

Once you have time, shift of attention causes motionlessness in time, accumulation, dissipation, interchanges of masses, dislocations in space, etc.  After awhile, we get an individual who obsessively changes.

There are two things wrong with human personality:

1. Too much constancy.

2. Too much inconstancy.  

Auditors do these two things: they “resist change, even when it is sensible, and they obsessively introduce change when it is not required.  Constancy, without understanding, without reason, is simply a characteristic of MEST.” So is change.  One should understand why one is being constant before being constant.  One should also understand what he is undertaking before he introduces alteration.

Unlike life, oddly enough, auditing does not necessarily bring about its own track and its own mass, because it is short track and it is singularly deprived of duress.  It is not something to worry about, unless done in a knuckleheaded fashion which puts a person beyond help.  That would be a crime.  You could audit someone badly enough -- it would probably take auditing him on the wrong goal -- to kill him, perhaps.  But it would take some doing.

In prepchecking we had a problem.  There is a problem of alteration and a problem of too great a constancy.  One of the problems is that an inconstancy of approach by the auditor causes more trouble than an unusual solution heals.  Buttons can be wonderful in the right circumstances, but if the auditor is inventing them, intuiting what is needed, they can improve the PC’s case, but they lower his confidence, because he can’t predict what the auditor will say next.  The PC keeps coming out of session with his attention on the auditor.  This violates the definition of in-sessionness.  If you have a constancy that works:  the four mid-ruds, that takes a lot of edge off the case.  There could be more, but what you are trying to do with model session is to make the PC auditable, and to cause him to continue to be auditable. The virtue of model session lies, not in its processing value, but in its predictability value, and in the fact that it “takes the edge off the things most likely to distract the PC.”

Hidden in any case is a basic purpose, a prime postulate and earlier prime postulates.  It is amazing that we even have processes like model session and prepchecking that do something for the case over the top of those goals.  It is incredible that these processes make the PC feel better.  All the auditor wants them to do is to smooth out the needle so that he can find the PC’s goal.  The conflict of goals is the senior aberration on the case. Any alteration of a goal adds mass to it and the bank.  It is amazing that you can handle handle case phenomena with other processes, assists, etc.  But you can’t solve the case permanently without recourse to goals.   

It is difficult and sometimes impossible to help someone who has overts against that which is trying to help him.  You have to set the PC up by getting them off.  Don’t get spoiled by having good luck with one PC.  Most require set-up.

The other problem is metering.  You can ruin an E-meter’s effectiveness on a gradient by not quite really cleaning ruds as you hit them, by neglecting instant reads.  An inexperienced auditor who overlooks the tiny reads that occur on ruds questions can easily and shortly get the PC into a barely readable meter, which only reads on the greatest of greats.  The auditor misses withholds from there on out.  That is the problem: ending cycle too soon on ruds because of missing reads.

The other problem is being too careful and cleaning ruds that are already clean.  Model session, run strictly by the book, is still not a muzzled session.  The auditor still must maintain 2WC with the PC and can make sure the PC is content the rud is clean.  Too many auditors withdraw from the session, leaving model session to do the job and the PC wondering whether we are alive at all.

An advantage of repetitive rudiments is that only one skill is needed for repetitive ruds and repetitive prepchecking.  One of the problems is teaching a number of technologies or procedures.  It is better to have one done superlatively than ten done indifferently.  Repetitive ruds and repetitive prepchecking tend to get the PC talking to you cheerfully and happily, blowing things and feeling better.  If they don’t, you are probably doing something unusual with them.  

6207C10 SHSpec-169  Repetitive Rudiments and Repetitive Prepchecking (Part II)

A repetitive process is one that is run over and over, with the PC answering and the auditor acknowledging.  It is run to a precise flat point. When used with ruds and prepchecking, you run it to a clean needle and no further.  Beginning ruds would always he done repetitive.  Early in auditing, you would also do middle and end rudiments repetitively.  It is kind of a prepcheck in disguise.  Thereafter, you would run middle and end ruds as fast ruds.  You would normally run the random rudiment (missed withhold) as a fast rudiment, not as a repetitive rudiment.  You may have to fish around for it. Be very sure you get it answered.

The repetitive rud approach was first used in sec checking, where it was quite successful.  Prepchecking using the withhold system -- running chains -- was too hard to teach auditors.  Also, this system is hard to use with a poorly reading, ARC breaky PC.  It is not as successful as repetitive prepchecking.  The average auditor gets more done with repetitive prepchecking, and the PC gets into session better with this method.  Don’t use more rudiments than you find in model session, though you can make them understandable, e.g. to a child.  If you seem to need more rudiments, you still have the solution: the ARC breaky PC comes to pieces on O/W.

So O/W is added to model session.  It can be used when the PC is so involved in some upset that he can’t pay any attention to the rest of the session.  His attention is so fixated that any change of his attention will lead to ARC breaks and upsets.  The other time O/W is used is when a PC is seriously ill -- too ill to be audited.  This situation is handled with general O/W as the first rudiment.

General O/W goes into model session right after start of session.  The commands are “What have you done to another / withheld from another?” It is not run against the meter; it is run against the PC.  It can get his TA moving. Some pcs with a highly automatic bank, with everything grouped and all in motion, will give you a multiple picture reaction when you ask them one question.  The PC goes all over the time track.  This is not very common, but when you run into it, it is hard to control the PC, and they can’t run well on anything -- except O/W.  The PC who complains of no auditing result is likely to have an automatic bank.  You will find this out if you ask what is happening when you give the PC a command.  However, these pcs will respond to O/W and get excellent TA.

So if you notice that you had gotten good TA on O/W, just move it into the body of the session.  Otherwise, run it until the PC feels much better and then do the ruds.  If you notice that you had gotten TA on O/W when you never had much on Anything else, resume the O/W.  You can’t really run the TA out of it because of the breadth of the question.

If the PC comes into session ARC broken, all that would happen if you asked, “Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?” would be screams and snarls, letting the PC commit overts against the auditor.  You don’t ask, “What have you done to me?”, etc., because you may be allergic on his terminal line.  Besides, this would be putting the PC’s attention on the auditor.  But you can run general O/W.  If the PC seems to be withholding things and having a hard time, you can use missed withhold as a random rudiment (That’s what “random” means: “can be used at any time”.), checked against the meter.

So you can use O/W and the PC will eventually settle down and look calmer.  Then go into your ruds.  If one of the questions may have read when you checked it, and you are not sure, don’t pretend.  Give the PC the R-factor that the read is equivocal and recheck.  Ideally, your metering should be so good that you use the TA to control the needle so that it is sitting exactly at “set” exactly at the end of your question, not still bouncing back from somewhere else.  Never try to read a needle on a fast rise; always distrust fast rises.  A goal doesn’t have enough impulse to read down against a fast rise.  It will show up as a tiny slow, if you see it read at all.  The needle that is flying around has inertia, and a slight read can get missed.  So be suspicious and don’t hesitate to call a read “equivocal” and recheck.  Be sure it is clean before you call it clean, or the PC will know that he is getting by the meter and will read less and less on the meter.  You will then have to go back over all your earlier zero questions and see that one gave a tiny read.  Don’t miss it this time!  Clean them all up, and you will build the case back to reading well.

The only time, in rudiments, that you ask a PC to amplify or reneat his answer is when you didn’t understand it.  If you fake an understanding, you are disturbing the knowingness button.  This button is the most serious one you can push in a case.  Don’t fail to understand the PC while acting as though you do.  The onus of understanding and of making something understood is on the auditor.  TR-4 is not a Q and A; you are asking for a comprehension so that an as-isness can take place.   

You Ask a rudiment question until the PC has no more answers, without checking the meter.  If you get a read on checking the question, you use it to guide the PC, who doesn’t know what it was, into seeing what was still there. After getting the PC’s answer, you then leave the meter until the PC says, “No” again, because he will now give you all the locks.  When it is clean, ask, “Do you agree that was clean?” and TR-4 whatever he says.  Don’t go back to the rudiment if he says he doesn’t agree.

The exact same procedure is used for repetitive prepchecking.  It depends on the mechanism of cycling on the track to pick up the basic.  Pcs will stay in session quite cheerily with this.  It takes longer than using the withhold system, but it is much easier and more certain.  As long as you clean all the reads you get, the PC will be cheerful and easy to audit.  If you miss a few, the PC will become nattery and hard to audit by virtue of not reading well.

If you make the opposite mistake of asking the question again after it was clean, Hell hath no ARC breaks like the one you have thereby set up.  This is because a thetan is closest to nothing and you have given him a nothingness withhold [a missed withhold of nothing].  That is very upsetting to a thetan because:

1. There is nothing there, so he can’t spot it or as-is it.

2. He is closest to a nothing himself, so he feels as if he himself has been missed.  “You didn’t buy ‘nothing’, so ‘nothing’ is unacknowledged.  So therefore he is unacknowledged.”  So don’t try to clean a read that is not there.

This system of repetitive rudiments and prepchecking has a liability: it pulls the PC thoroughly into session and builds up fantastic ARC between the auditor and the PC.  Then, if the auditor speaks his mind inopportunely or goes on automatic, the ARC break will be magnitudinous, just because of the degree to which the PC is in session.

This system was invented because, due to the fact that pcs were not well in session, auditors were having trouble getting pcs to read on the meter. Auditor TR-1 also contributed to the problem.  Commonly, and in a social context, a meter is inoperative.  The PC has to be in session to some degree for the meter to react at all.  Social conversation won’t activate a meter. The better ARC you have with the PC, the better the meter reads.  Meters are not like lie detectors.  A lie detector reads because of terror; an E-meter reads on ARC.  The PC knows that it doesn’t matter what overt he gets off. You are not going to turn him in.  If you miss reads, they operate as missed withholds and the PC ceases to read well.  The repetitive system gets the PC talking about his case before you read the meter, so it will work where nothing else does. 

6207C12 SHSpec-174  Meter Reading

Scientific research follows certain laws, and we have been rigorous in following those laws in scientology.  When you can get a research problem down to one variable: Voila!  You are there!  During the last couple of months, having observed that auditors weren’t uniformly getting unvarying results, LRH took every variable out of technology that he could, stripping it down and testing it, to the point where we now have model session and repetitive prepchecking.  The meter, once developed, had to be refined, and it was.  Yet pcs were still wobbly at times.   

So last night, LRH watched three auditors to see what they were doing and found the one variable: the meter read.  It works out this way.  All you have to do to louse up a session is:

1. Clean one thing that is clean.

or 

2. Miss cleaning something that reacts.  There is little to choose as to which is the most serious.

A person has a certain knowingness, no matter how occluded and packed in he is.  [The thetan always knows.] There is a instinct, as intuitiveness.  He knows.  You can’t fool a PC.  An auditor who tries is misguided.  A PC knows when a question is hot, even if he doesn’t know the answer.  He also knows when a question is cold.  He has a something-nothing sensitivity.  He requires help to know what is there, or to get a high degree of certainty that there is nothing there.  His intuitive feelingness is not articulate and there is a need to transfer it over into an analytical knowingness.

When you invalidate the knowingness of a thetan, you will get trouble. The thetan can put up with this, but he doesn’t have to like it.  He doesn’t like it, even though he is used to it and has put up with a got of it and been overwhelmed by it.  He has used it as a pitch on others and to overwhelm others.

A PC’s ARC breaks with his auditor are much more serious than his ARC breaks with others.  You have heightened the PC’s intuitive feelingness by putting him in session.  Now if you tell him a rud is out when it is in or in when he knows it is out, he has a long way to fall from his heightened in-session awareness and elevated tone level.  It is a severe shock, and he gets an ARC break.  He is now out of agreement with the auditor to the degree that he was formerly in agreement.  “If you’ve got an agreement that’s built as high as the Empire State building, the first scrap of disagreement will appear as high as [that].” The PC will feel awful.  He is finally on the road to truth after all the trillenia, and here is a falsity.  It is very upsetting.  Cleaning a clean is the mistake that is most mysterious, because the PC can’t find what is wrong, because it is nothing.

You can flub once on TR’s and still have the session going OK, but if you leave one flubbed read, your session will go to pot.  If you are accustomed to auditing with sloppy metering, you have a completely different idea of what auditing is like.  The things that are supposed to be in a session aren’t there, and auditing is basically a protest, not letting the auditor get too close.  Auditing is as fast as a PC is in session, since the more he is in session, the more easily he blows things.

A PC is there to be audited and is very persistent, as a thetan.  A thetan can he squashed and overwhelmed.  Yet he never stops trying.  This is very noticeable in handling children.  A thetan will keep reaching, using disabilities to do so if all else fails.

If you set up a perfect session and then and a wild wrongness at some point, you catch the PC off-balance and he goes into action reactively.  He is powerless to stop himself from acting.  It is as if you had the bank all stretched out like a rubber band and someone suddenly let go of one end.  He is in a mess; he gets overwhelmed and starts dramatizing whatever is handy -- namely, one of thousands of instances where he is still trying.  He will take such an incident and use it against the auditor.  This can get rather subtle. The PC can convince the auditor that he has obtained results, but then let someone else see that he hasn’t made any progress.  He does this in such a way that the auditor will find out about it.   

It is good to know that meter reading is all that is wrong.  Auditors have learned TR’s, model session, and repetitive prepchecking fine.  And we have taken havingness out of beginning ruds to eliminate that source of difficulty, when we found that havingness takes the PC’s attention off the bank and extroverts him, which isn’t good for putting the PC in session.  It is better to use O/W to get his havingness up.  This also puts his attention on the bank.  Your problems with pcs are the same old things:  communication, control, keeping the PC’s attention on what he is doing, getting your question answered, etc.  You have mastered these things, then sometimes had them deteriorate, at which point you have been persuaded into unusual solutions, Q and A, doing something else, getting anxious, etc.  The PC is out of session. It’s baffling.  What happens to cause this out-of-sessionness?  You missed a meter read.

This wrongness may be missed by all the instructors and supervisors, who see all the wrongnesses that follow from it and correct them, to no result. Lots of other wrongnesses may get located, but they aren’t really what wrecks the session.  The ultimate session wrecker is the mis-read meter.  This ARC breaks the PC all to Hell.  He will start reading on ARC breaks, not reading because of ARC breaks, etc., and you wind up with a dog’s breakfast.  This results from the calling of reads that aren’t there and missing the ones that are there: the missed withholds and the missed withholds of nothing.

If this goes on for many sessions, the PC goes on a self-audit, because he doesn’t trust the meter.  The PC can’t have an auditor because he can’t have the meter, so he audits himself.  He gets anxious.  He keeps his own rudiments in, like a gopher sitting at the edge of his hole, ready to duck. The PC is running the session on himself purely because of bad meter calls.

So metering, above all, must be perfect.  There is no tolerance whatever in it.  You must not miss a single read.  Meter reading must be perfect, or you become a dangerous auditor.  A dangerous auditor is one who might miss a read -- just one -- in a session.  If a read is equivocal, say so and check again. 

6207C12 SHSpec-175  Meter Training

Auditors make mistakes reading meters.  While the basic reason for this is in their banks, poor metering can be countered educationally.  The first requirement for accurate reading of a meter is good eyesight.  The first thing we find wrong is that the auditor can’t see.  It may he necessary for him to wear glasses, unpopular though that is amongst scientologists.  When a case assessment form on a new PC, we should take something with extremely small print, like a railway timetable or the stock market report in the newspaper and hold it as far from the PC’s face as a meter would be and have him read it.  If he can read it, make a note on the assessment form that his eyesight is good -- with glasses, if that is true.  If he can’t read it, put down, “eyesight poor.” This will make D’s of P and D’s of T aware that his metering may be suspect when he starts to audit.  Check eyesight again when doing practical sections on auditing courses.  Since a person’s eyesight changes with auditing, recheck the eyesight if, as an auditor, he gets crammed for a GAE.  Let’s assume that all auditors who goof have something wrong with metering.   

How wide is present time?  This is the next area to look into.  One could have an awareness of present time as much as ten minutes wide.  LRH has this, at least for movie and TV plots.  A clear can tell, fifty to a hundred feet before an intersection, whether there is anything coming; he may find himself “seeing” the truck coming around the corner before it does.  He is not looking around corners.  He may think that it is a new “linear” perception, but it is not.  It’s just that PT has gotten a bit wider than the instant that most people perceive.  He has a wider fringe of knowingness.  A really sharp athlete also has a wider PT.  For instance, Sam Snead can look from the point of driving the ball to the point where it lands and know where it lands as he hits it.  Great athletes control both ends of a broadened PT, so you get a hole-in-one, a perfectly placed serve, etc.  They are always exterior, and the axioms seem very obvious to them.  They don’t think of their present time as continued motion.  Motion doesn’t happen randomly in their PT.  They think of it as continued control.  When they are doing something, they are controlling all the motion in that present time, because they are in that present time and they have the width of that present time to decide.  It is as if at the end of two seconds they could undecide what they decided at the beginning of the two seconds, so they have tremendous judgment.  They know which decision is right, because they saw it happen.  They can perceive both motion and stillness as a total is-ness.

Then there’s the guy whose PT is one thousandth of a second wide.  He is in continuous anxiety and regret.  It is always all wrong.  That is a crazy man’s present time.  He doesn’t even know if the bed will continue to sit on the floor.  You only get the idea of continuance by perceiving across a span of time, not by comparing different times.  The less PT a person has, the more trouble he has with the perception of motion and stillness.  So you can run, “Look around here and tell me something you are absolutely certain will be here in one second,” and keep increasing the time-span.  You could drill the person’s perception into a broadening of PT.  You could also run, “Look around here and find something that’s having an effect on an effect,” or “Look around this room and find something that’s having an effect on something else.” The latter will occasionally turn on a very widened PT.  Such processes are really drills rather than processes.  An auditor needs to have a broader PT than most if he is to be able to spot a speeded rise, for instance.  Reading a meter is spotting motion, no-motion, and change of rate of motion, when it exists.

This is beyond perception.  It is a matter of consecutive awareness. There are three moments that must be perceived to find out if a needle is still:

1. The moment before.  (It wasn’t moving.)

2. The moment it is still. (It isn’t moving.)

3. The moment after.  (It will not move.)  

You need comparison.  You are not just looking at one moment.  A moving needle requires only two observations, two moments of awareness.  Thus it is easier to read than a still needle.  For instance, a sitting pheasant is harder to see than a moving pheasant, not because motion attracts the eye or some such reason, but because motion requires only two observations to perceive, while stillness requires three.  “Motion takes part of the responsibility for directing attention, whereas stillness takes no responsibility for directing attention.”   

In perceiving motion, all you have to do is to observe that something was in place A and is now in place E.  How narrowly can Places A and B be spaced and still have perceptible motion between them? One tenth of the width of the tip of the needle apart.

The next question is, “What section of the present time you are in do you require to perceive an action or an inaction?” This opens the door to the solution of this problem.  Broadening PT is best done by clearing, but it wouldn’t work to insist that auditors must be clear before they can clear someone.  Actually, clear raw meat, with no comprehension or reality on what has happened is enormously inferior to someone who has the data and goes clear.  Training gives a subjective reality on what it is like to wrestle with the problems of clearing someone; trained individuals have a capability to understand people, while clear raw meat is likely to be very impatient with people.  A raw clear will also ask the damndest questions.  He is very oddball and unpredictable.  This guy has been launched into the atmosphere and expected to fly without knowing that he is in a plane.  It is better to go clear with the data.  You get more comprehending people that way.

Because it takes more time to see a stillness, an individual has less tolerance for it.  Hence a person is impatient with observing stillnesses. His “continuance” has to be too great.  Stillnesses absorb time.  They give a sense of foreverness.  Something that moves does not have to have such a continuance.

However, the period of time required to perceive motion or stillness can be shortened until the person can observe, in the tiniest, narrowest PT, three moments (stillness) or two moments (motion) of time.  You do this by practice and drill.  If a person’s span of PT is a twentieth of a second long, he would need to be able to perceive an instant of time that is no longer than a sixtieth of a second, in order to be able to observe three moments in time in his PT, and therefore to be able to perceive that the needle is still.  He “must be able to perceive an is-ness that is only a sixtieth of a second long.”

The amount of PT someone can observe can be tested with a camera.  You could set the lens wide open and vary exposure time.

The less PT span they can observe, the smaller the diameter of lens that they will be able to perceive at a given speed.

A suitable target would be to get to where we can perceive an is-ness in a hundred and twenty-fifth of a second.  People can be drilled to get up to this speed, without broadening their PT.

You could do it gradiently by flashing, say, a slide of a chair for one second, over and over, until the students can actually tell you all about the chair.  Then cut it down to half a second, a quarter of a second, etc., until you reach a hundred and twenty-fifth of a second.  The student will gradiently improve until he can get everything in the slide in a hundred and twenty-fifth of a second.  “The name for the viewing device is “a variable speed tachistoscope”.  The Navy used this system during world War II for an aircraft identification drill.  It is now being used to teach reading and to improve reading speed.

Even without these devices, you can learn to read a meter.

This is necessary, and now we know that it will he done.  The result of the training should be an auditor who can tell that a still needle is present, given only a twentieth to a sixtieth of a second’s observation time.  The old saw about the eye having a “shutter speed” of about a twenty-fifth of a second is a stupid lie.  There is a thetan in back of the eye “who has a width of PT and who tends to fixate on what he considers an observable moment.”

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 JULY 1962

Sthil Students 
CenOCon 
All Sthil Grads
URGENT

AUDITING ALLOWED

I want every auditor auditing to be perfect on a meter. To be otherwise can be catastrophic.

By perfect is meant:

1. 	Auditor never tries to clean a clean read;

2. 	Auditor never misses a read that is reacting.

One mistake on M.S. or TRs may not ruin a session. One mistake on a meter read can ruin a session. That gives you the order of importance of accurate never-miss meter reading.

All bad auditing results have now been traced to inaccuracy in meter reading. Other aspects of a session should be perfect. But if the session, even vaguely following a pattern session, comes to grief, IT IS ONLY METER READING ACCURACY THAT IS AT FAULT.

I have carefully ferreted this fact out. There is only one constant error in sessions that produce no results or poor results; inaccurate meter reading. This is also true for student and veteran auditors alike.

When an auditor starts using unusual solutions, he or she was driven to them by the usual solution not working. The usual solution always works unless the meter needle reading is inaccurate.

If an auditor is using unusual solutions, then THAT AUDITOR’S METER READING IS INACCURATE. Given this, consequent ARC breaks and failures drive the auditor to unusual solutions.

A D of P who has to dish out unusual solutions has auditors who are missing meter reads.

Meter reading must be perfect every session. What is perfect?

1. 	Never try to clean a read that is already clean.

2. 	Never miss an instant reaction of the needle.

If you try to clean a clean rudiment, the pc has the missed withhold of nothingness. The auditor won’t accept the origination or reply of nothingness. This can cause a huge ARC break, worse than missing a somethingness. A nothingness is closer to a thetan than somethingness.

If you miss an instant reaction you hang the pc with a missed withhold and the results can be catastrophic.

If you fumble and have to ask two or three times, the read damps out, the meter can become inoperative on that pc for the session.

If you miss on one rudiment, the next even if really hot can seem to be nul by reason of ARC break.

A meter goes nul on a gradient scale of misses by the auditor. The more misses, the less the meter reads.

Meter perfection means only accurate reading of the needle on instant reads. It is easily attained.

An auditor should never miss on a needle reaction. To do so is the basis of all unsuccessful sessions. Whatever else was wrong with the session, it began with bad meter reading.

Other auditing actions are important and must be done well. But they can all be overthrown by one mistake in metering.

1. 	Never clean a clean needle.

2. 	Never miss a read.

Unless metering perfection is attained by an auditor, he or she will continue to have trouble with preclears.

The source of all upset is the missed withhold.

The most fruitful source of missed withholds is poor metering.

The worst TR 4 is failure to see that there is nothing there or failing to find the something that is there on an E-Meter.

This is important: Field Auditors, Academies and HGCs are all being deprived of the full benefit of processing results by the one read missed out of the 200 that were not missed. It is that critical!

A good pro, by actual inspection, is at this moment missing about eight or nine reads per session, calling one that is clean a read and failing to note a read that read.

This is the 5 to 1 ratio noted between HGC auditing and my auditing. They miss a few. I don’t. If I don’t miss meter reads, and don’t have ARC breaky pcs, why should you? With modern session pattern and processes well learned, all you have to acquire is the ability to never miss on reading a needle. If I can do it you can.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

6207C17 SHSpec-170 E-Meter Reads and ARC Breaks

Meter reading has been exposed as the one point that must be done perfectly.  There is a TR-4 phenomenon connected with the meter.  The meter, read wrong at all, operates to throw TR-4 out in the session.  The PC has an answer which the meter hasn’t acknowledged, as far as the PC can tell, so he gets mad -- at the meter, really, but, not knowing what to get mad at, he misassigns the blame and his anger to something else.  The PC has had a withhold missed.  Or the auditor cleans a clean; he calls a read where there isn’t one, and the meter starts reacting on the PC’s ARC break.

Incidentally, the wording of listing lines has been amended.  [See p. 259 for original wording.] On “Want/not want”, the wording has to use the exact warding of the goal, [e.g. “to catch cats”, not “the goal to catch cats”] , and on “Oppose/not oppose”, it has to be the participial form [e.g. “catching cats’].  Precise English is very junior in importance to wording it as given by the PC.

In the metering errors mentioned above, only one thing is occurring.  You are violating an old, overlooked law that you mustn’t acknowledge a lie or accept a lie as truth.  What is this about?  It is about prime postulate. [See the discussion of the first four postulates] 3GA demonstrates the similarity of construction between a reactive bank and a universe.  A universe is formed by a prime postulate which then, alter-ised, makes matter, energy, space. and time. The PC has a basic purpose or goal, indistinguishable from a prime postulate.  Therefore prime postulate, or the PC’s basic goal or purpose, is the basic building block of the reactive bank. The prime-prime postulate would be the basic-basic of the goal or purpose on which all else would be stuck. [Cf. Expanded Dianetics.] You won’t get it on the first try.  You can’t just date it on the meter and have it blow, because it has occurred earlier and has gotten mingled in with later occurrences.  So don’t worry about it.  Just take what you get on a goals list.

The keynote of the reactive bank, with all its masses, spaces, and everything else in it, is alter-is , which suppresses down into a not-is. This forms the MEST that is contained in the bank.  The same mechanism exactly applies to the formation of the physical universe.  Thus the field of the mind is parallel to that of the physical universe.  But the mind came first and thus formed the universe.  It is fantastic for a being to discover this, because this discovery is in violation of [the principle behind the formation of] matter, space, etc.  This discovery reverses the downward spiral.  What starts the downward spiral and makes it denser is acceptance of alter-is as fact.  “This is something every thetan knows, ‘way down deep, he must not do and what every thetan that ever got in trouble has done.” A thetan gets nervous when he starts to suspect that he has been accepting alter-is as fact.  If he accepts too many alter is-es as fact, he goes into an overwhelm. He is overwhelmed by lies.

The priests of Muggy Muggy (a god made out of mud) can make lots of converts using this principle.  If everyone protests Muggy Muggy (the lie) enough, and if the priests can collect to themselves enough motivators, in other words, if they can can get the people to commit enough overts against Muggy Muggy, Muggy Muggy overwhelms the people. This is how you get zealots, fanatics and atheists.  They all form a chaotic mess, resulting from fighting an alter-is of the facts.  Religious mechanisms have    been the most powerful source of alter-isness of mind and forms.  They get protested against most strongly, and thetans get overwhelmed by them most easily.  The biggest alter-is you could make is the mis-assignment of source of creation, or alter-is of thought.  These exist in the seventh and eighth dynamics.  The most fruitful source of lies and commotion is anything that has to do with creation.  A false assignment of the source of creation produces randomity all out of proportion to the Act of making the false assignment. This act is, in itself, the father of all chaos.  Being Almost on the truth makes it very bad.  The most powerful protests follow the most extreme alter-isnesses.  Hence the violence of religious wars.

If you mis-assign the source of any part of a cycle of action, in fact, you will get a grossly disproportionate upset.  Try going to a museum during an exhibition of Rembrandt and pointing out all the “Picassos”.  People will argue with you and get very misemotional, etc.  Any chaos in the universe will be found to exist by reason of a misassignment of who created it.  For instance, George Washington is thought to be one of the sources of of the U.S. government, yet the fact that he actually tore up the minutes of the constitutional convention is virtually unknown.  This is what is wrong with the U.S. There is a lot of missing data concerning its source.  We don’t know what the basic purpose of the founding fathers was.

“Basic purpose, alter-ised, creates mass [and] a degeneration of tone.” People who think LRH has alter-ised scientology and dianetics don’t realize that we are operating on a backwards track, cutting into the most fundamental fundamental we can cut into, regardless of the forward progress of time.  We are swimming against the time-stream.  Suddenly, on isolation of importances, we are back in the early fifties, with basic purpose and prime postulate. This is all Book One stuff [See p. 270, above.] We’ve gone down some blind alleys, like 3DXX.  If you do a 3DXX line or a pre-hav line, you are listing wrong things, which just adds more alter-is to the bank.  3DXX was the ridge that LRH found before prime purpose.  3DXX was alter-ising the PC’s goal.

We have gone forward on the time track and, at the same time, we have run the fundamentals back.  Now we are at a fundamental that runs out everything that we have put on the time track.  Unless you follow some such pattern as this pattern of scientology research, you can’t backtrack the complexity of structure of a mind or a universe to a simplicity sufficient to do something about it.  That’s what we have done, and we find, to our great surprise, that what is wrong with the PC is his prime postulate, his goal.  That’s unexpected.  That’s weird.  A complete whizzer.  George Washington is not what is right with the U.S.; he is what is wrong with the U.S.  Similarly, a PC’s goal is what is wrong with the PC.

“If the individual is no longer able to adequately do something, it’s probably his goal....  it’ll be the one thing that kinda makes you sigh and that you retreat from.” A goal itself isn’t really what is wrong with the person.  It is really the alter-is of his goal, departures from his goal line, his inabilities to commit this goal to action -- that is what gives him his bank.  If he never altered his goal, he would probably he all right.  The PC’s goal “was a self-postulated truth” that “never got acknowledged, but all around him lies got acknowledged, and this baffled him.”
That’s really all the thetan is protesting. “Truth never gets acknowledged and lies always get acknowledged.” That’s the basis of a thetan’s misemotions.  All thetans operate on these same buttons.  So when you make it clear, in session, that you are not acknowledging or taking up a truth, the PC gets upset.  That’s cleaning a clean read.  When you say he has something he hasn’t got, he gets upset.  He also gets upset when you say he hasn’t got something that he has got.  Cleaning a clean or missing a read is an alter-is and an acknowledgment of a lie.  Nothing upsets a PC or a thetan more than this.  So misreading the meter is a betrayal that strikes at the heart of his thetanesque soul.  He will try, from then on, to get the truth of the matter across to you.  You don’t have a PC anymore.  You have a crusader for truth, armed and mounted.

We mustn’t have more alter-is than we’ve already dot, because that is how we got in this mess in the first place.  An ARC break is an abandonment of truth and an acknowledgment of lies.  In a session, you are running extreme truth and the PC knows it.  He can feel it.  Every time you misread a meter, you have entered a lie into the session.  This is the thetan’s favorite bogey-man.  You have just hit on the issue of the whole construction and destruction of universes and of his bank, and he doesn’t like it being that way.  You have made the session agree with all the slave tricks that have ever been pulled on him, when he thought you were his friend getting him untrapped.  So put in a lie (misread the meter), and all Hell breaks loose. That’s why it is essential to read a meter correctly, every time.  It is do-able, so don’t worry about not being able to learn how.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 JULY 1962

Sthil Students
CenOCon
CLEARING—FREE NEEDLES

Any auditor running a Routine 3 process and obtaining a free needle on an E-Meter should, on the Saint Hill course, have an Instructor observe and verify that condition and in a Central Organization should have it observed by an HCO Area Secretary.

Any auditor obtaining a free needle on all lines continuously (the state of a first goal clear) should, on the Saint Hill course, demonstrate that condition to an Instructor and, in a Central Organization, to an HCO Area Secretary.

An Instructor or HCO Area Secretary should make a statement on the auditing report testifying to the fact and existence of the free needle.

In short, there are two stages of observation—the first free needle obtained on one line and the state of continuous free needle on all lines.

No verbal statement by an auditor, not otherwise confirmed as above is to be given credence or be used to establish the condition of a case.

The early observation on one line being difficult to maintain for observation is not mandatory, but if not verified as above may not be claimed.

The state of a “first goal clear” is established by:

1. 	A free needle on each line ]listed from the goal.

2. 	No reaction of the goal on the meter after a final prepcheck on that goal as per HCO Policy Letter 15 July 1962.

3. 	Tone Arm near Clear Read.

A free needle is not a stage 4 needle or an inverted stage 4. It is floating and free.

In Routine 3GA we have actual, lasting clearing. It is accomplished by expert and exact auditing. There is no reason to fake the condition or rumour that someone is clear when he or she is not, or to tell someone he or she is clear when they are not.

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

We are on solid ground with technology and procedure. Let’s keep it that way. The goal has been sought on Earth for 2,500 years. We have achieved 8 first goal clears on the Saint Hill course in the last two months. People, with reason, trust a clear. We have attained the state of clear in Man. We must not upset that Trust.

LRH :gl.cden 						L. RON HUBBARD 
Copyright © 1962 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Tape: 6207C19 SHSBC 173
QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD
is not currently available

The Editor

6207C26 SHSpec-179  Prepchecking

[Some of the data in this lecture is found also in HCOB 30Ju162 “A Smooth HGC 25 Hour Intensive”.]

“I’ve just found a way to use middle rudiments and make them double in brass and get the job done much better, in prepchecking.” Suppress, suggest, careful of, invalidate, and fail to reveal are powerful prepcheck buttons. They should be used in the above order.  Used in this order, you have the mid-ruds as a complete prepcheck.  The middle rudiments were carefully sorted out of a great number of buttons that could be used.  You could add another fifteen or twenty buttons.  The Chart of Attitudes [See Handbook for Preclears] has a lot of them.  Ruds are buttons that consist of just those things that can keep one of the other buttons from reading and which, if present, can keep a goal or item from reading.  They are pretty powerful:     

SUPPRESS:  If you got suppress off the case, nearly everything would blow.  If suppress is alive, you don’t get a read on the remainder of the buttons, so run suppress before adding another series of anything.

SUGGEST:  This button could be and sometimes has to be translated as “Is-ness”.  That is evaluation, per the Auditor’s Code (No. 1).  It says that something is.  It is a powerful button, because you say something is, it will now read, even though it wasn’t reading before.  You say something reads which doesn’t, and the PC can jam on it, and it will now read.  It will at least read on disagreement. “Suggest needn’t be used in mid-ruds, since auditors don’t do it much.  Save it for prepchecks.”     

INVALIDATE: If a goal or item is invalidated, it will read, even when it is not the goal or item.  Get the inval off and it will no longer read.  Suppress on top of inval keeps the inval from showing up.  That is why suppress goes first as a button.     

FAIL TO REVEAL:  This button is off the line.  It gives you the dirty needle, a minute rockslam.     

CAREFUL OF: This is another suppress, with an added characteristic: After the person has been having something a little off-beat done for a little while, he can hang up in the thing, if he becomes too careful of something or other.  He can also make an item read by a reverse suppression, by carefully not suppressing it, i.e. by making sure it reads.  

The order of the buttons would be:
 
Suppress

Suggest

Careful of

Invalidate

Fail to reveal.  

This is an optimum arrangement.  That puts the most important button last, as far as session foul-ups are concerned.  This also gives you two cracks at suppression.

If these buttons are so strong, they must have some value.  They make great prepcheck zero questions, as LRH found more or less by accident, while cleaning up a PC who had been feeling poorly.

The procedure for the Problems Intensive is as follows [See also p. 134 above and HCOB 9Nov61 “The Problems Intensive -- Use of the Prior Confusion”, as well as the current HCOB of 30Jul62].

1. Sort out the chief self-determined change the PC has made, using assessment by elimination or greatest read.  For purposes of assessment, each change should be expressed in a few words plus a date.  

2. Get the confusion that preceded the change and date it.  Keep the PC to the just prior confusion.  This should be anywhere from five minutes to two weeks earlier.  Don’t let the PC go “way back on the    track.  

3. Go a month earlier, in case he didn’t remember the overt that started the confusion.
 
4. Prepcheck “Since (the above date)....”  When you use the above procedure, PCs are very willing to tell you things they have suppressed.  Somatics come off also.  Don’t also check mid-ruds on the period you are prepchecking!   

You might think that you wouldn’t reach basic on any chain by using the above method of prepchecking, but since you are taking up the buttons in this sequence and they seem like such innocent buttons, they clear away a lot of track without your having to worry about fundamentals and basic.  Omitting the withhold system left us with no way to get to basic.  It appears that, with this system, you don’t have to bother.  You could start in all over again, if the PC had given It a shallow pass on the first time through, and pick up deeper fundamentals.  However, the hazard in doing so is that you might be cleaning a clean.  Also, be very sure not to leave a question unflat.  That is very important, since in so doing you could give him missed withholds, and he could blow or create a big storm and feel terrible.

For a fifty-hour intensive, you could also do a prepcheck “In this lifetime....”

This system gets the PC’s withholds easily and voluntarily.  Just be sure to follow the rules.  And don’t be an idiot: make sure the PC understands the question!  To audit a small child, you might have to reword it to get it to communicate.  On any PC, you want to be sure to communicate.  Know what you are trying to communicate.  If you find the PC unable to answer or with very few answers, don’t blame it on the PC’s caginess or unwillingness.  You have to more the communication so it does bite.  If you do that, the prepcheck will unstack the bank in its natural sequence, which is always desirable in sec checking and prepchecking.  It is a very repetitive action.

There is another way to use repetitive prepchecking:

1. Sort out by assessment the person’s self-determined decisions.  Get the most charged, old-time Problems Intensive style.  Make sure it is self-determined.  

2. Date the problem.  

3. Date the confusion prior to the decision found in (1).  The PC will    slide away from the prior confusion if You don’t keep him looking for it.  Don’t let him find one five years before.  It is a just-prior confusion.  

4. Date the beginning of the prior confusion and go a month earlier.  

5. Prepcheck it “Since (date found in (4)....” 

A PC tends to see himself as a pawn on the board of life.  The liability of taking an other-determined chain is that you will get into a chain of engrams.  This system doesn’t handle engrams, so watch it!  It is ok, however, to get sometimes coming off.  On dating the prior confusion if you let the date he a few years earlier, you will Miss it.  The prior confusion is the period when he was creating the problem for which the decision is a solution. The sequence for this  this mechanism is:

1. The PC commits overts all over the place and has withholds missed on him like mad.  

2. This causes a problem for him.  

3. He makes a decision to solve the problem.  This is the self-determined change. 

All this is part of an effort to make prepchecking beefier and more effective and far-reaching.  You might feel shy of doing a prepcheck if you weren’t pretty sure of getting a good result.  Somatics and conditions like post-partum depression will blow, without your having to run engrams and getting the PC stuck in the incident. The success you will have will depend on the excellence of your meter reading, how thoroughly the PC is in session, and how well you clean up each question. Prepchecking is a relatively permissive system that gradiently lets the PC get himself into confrontable soup.  It doesn’t overwhump the PC, but it must be metered right. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 JULY 1962
Franchise

A SMOOTH HGC 25 HOUR INTENSIVE

Here is the pattern for a new Problems Intensive that can be given by HGC or field auditors and which will get them marvellous results on new or old pcs.

This arrangement makes prepchecking come into its own, for if it is well done then the pc is fairly well set up for having his goal found.

This intensive is amazingly easy to run providing that the auditor does it pretty well muzzled and does not violate repetitive prepchecking drill. Of course if the auditor’s meter reading is not perfect and if the auditor is not cognizant of recent HCO Bulletins on the meter and if the auditor misses as many as two reads in a session, this whole result can wind up in a fiasco. If the pc doesn’t feel better on this one then the auditor just didn’t read the meter or miserably flubbed current drill. Of these two the D of P had better suspect the meter readings if anything goes wrong.

The first thing to do is complete the old case assessment form. We do this in Model Session and check after each small section of it as to whether we’ve missed a withhold on the pc.

We then assess the self-determined change list (and don’t goof and put other determined changes on the pc’s change list, or we’ll be assessing engrams).

We find the most important, most reacting change in the pc’s life by the largest read. This can also be done by elimination.

We then locate the prior confusion to that change. In no case will it be earlier than two weeks from the incident. These confusions, so often missed by the auditor, take place from two weeks to five minutes before the actual decision to change.

Having located the time of the prior confusion, but not done anything else about it, no lists of names or anything like that, we then go one month earlier in date.

This gives us an exact date for our questions. Let us say the self-determined change was June 1, 1955. The prior confusion was May 20, 1955, and the arbitrary month earlier was April 20, 1955. We get the pc to spot this arbitrary date more or less to his own satisfaction.

We now form a question as follows: “Since (date) is there anything you have.......?”

The endings are in this order: Suppressed, Suggested, Been careful of, Invalidated and Failed to reveal.

The question with one end is completely cleaned by Repetitive Prepchecking. One asks it off the meter until the pc says there is no more. Then one checks it on the meter and steers the pc with any read, and then continues the question off the meter, etc, etc.

In turn we clean each one of the buttons above. This will take many hours in most cases. It is vital not to clean anything that’s clean or to miss cleaning a read that reacts. In other words, do a clean meter job of it all the way at sensitivity 16.

When we have in turn cleaned each of the buttons above, we do a new assessment of the change list and get us a new time just as before and handle that just as before.

When the second area is clean we assess for a third.

Frequently, particularly if the needle gets dirty, we ask for missed withholds. Indeed one can use all the Middle Rudiments at least once each session.

With expert needle reading that intensive will give the pc more gain per hour of auditing than anything else short of Routine 3GA.

I wish you lots of success with it. Remember, the more variables you introduce into such a system the less confidence the pc will have in you.

Good hunting.

								L. RON HUBBARD 
LRH: dr.rd 
Copyright © 1962 
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 7 AUGUST 1962
Sthil Students
Course
Franchise

RUNNING CCHs

CCHs being run terribly wrong.

Correct version follows: Run a CCH only so long as it produces change in the pc’s general aspect.

If no change in aspect for three commands, with the pc actually doing the commands, go on to next CCH.

If CCH producing change do not go on but flatten that CCH.

Then when for three commands executed by the pc it produces no change go on to next CCH.

Run CCHs One Two Three Four, One Two Three Four, One etc.

Use only right hand on One.

The CCHs are run alternated with Prepchecking session by session depending upon whether or not the pc has had a win on either and whether the CCHs in the CCH Session were not left with the pc stuck in one CCH which was producing terrific change and thusly very unflat as a process.

CCHs are not run in Model Session, nor run on the E-Meter, nor are goals set. The reality factor is established before the first command is given.

It is code break clause thirteen to run a CCH that is producing no change or to not flatten in same or subsequent session a CCH that is producing change.

Some pcs get no reaction at first on any CCH; therefore run each one as above, CCH One Two Three Four, One etc, and with Prepchecking being given in alternate sessions, or as stated above in case one of the CCHs has to be flattened off in another session on the CCHs.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

6208C09 SHSpec-182 Clearing

What are you, as an auditor, trying to do? You are trying to clear people!  You should recognize that all processes are subordinate to this end. To be clearable, a person has to be auditable.  If someone can’t talk, listen, or respond, he is unauditable.  You aren’t concerned with states of [“insanity”], as defined by kraepelin.  This is a subject that is subordinate to scientology.  We have used the words “sanity” and “insanity” for PR purposes, but actually we have nothing to do with either.  There is not a person on earth who is sane.  They are all batty, Or they wouldn’t be here! Someone who is sane is someone who resolves problems for the greatest good of the greatest number of dynamics.  That is sane action and a definition of sanity.  Very few people apply that rule.

People fall into a gradient scale of auditability.  That is what you should study, if you are concerned with states of Man.  A person who isn’t clear won’t resolve things for the greatest good of the greatest number of dynamics.  Even a first goal clear won’t, ordinarily.  There is no processing short of clearing that is worth long, arduous hours, now that we have 3GA.  So we become interested in auditability.  The trick at the moment is to clear someone while he is clearing someone else.  The struggle for LRH is not to clear people.  It is to get people to clear people. People in the ruds and havingness group are there, not because they are unauditable, but because they are not able to audit well enough to receive auditing.

A person, to be unauditable, has to be pretty bad off.  His auditability is determined by how many overts he is secretly committing while being audited.  The lowest level of auditability is the person who can be cleaned up, who will keep his snoot clean long enough for you to clean up his needle. Below that level is the PC who will never tell you, who won’t cooperate or be frank with you.  At this point auditing ceases to the degree that the auditor can’t get the PC to communicate.  It isn’t that the meter won’t read, though that would also debar auditing.

Almost anybody, if not auditable, is “preparable”.  He is still auditable on CCH’s and thus he can be “prepared” for auditing.  This would also apply to someone who is bleeding to death or in a coma.  The unauditable case will get a new body, sooner or later, so you can get him later, if the technology is still there.  The only case that can’t be reached is the one that isn’t there and will never hear of scientology.

Don’t spend more time than necessary to get the goals.  Any case that can be forced into a groove can be audited.  The case that breaks your heart, though, is the one that appears auditable, but is not really preparable.  We don’t have the tools to handle such a case at present.  The auditability of people depends in large measure on the sphere of influence of the scientologist.  The sphere of action that will do the world the most good is that of auditable cases.  They may be nutty, amnesic, spin-bin cases, but if they are auditable, they can be straightened out.  Some people have a nutty idea and know it is nutty.  Others don’t know.  The one who has some hope, who knows he can get better, can be audited.  The one who knows no one can be helped and that it is all someone else’s fault, etc., may be a lot harder to Audit.  The bugginess of their ideas makes no difference. A person’s goal could make him sound batty, but they could still be audited.

There is nothing wrong with somebody, except that he has upped and got himself a basic purpose for reasons that are unknown to him.  Then, when his basic purpose is disobeyed or blocked off, you get a bank developed.  At this point, a lot of other purposes he doesn’t want get hooked on to the first, and he follows those, and he doesn’t know who he is, and he gets a body, etc., etc.  It is incredible that a clearing process to unsnarl all this was developed.  Previous efforts at clearing peeled the guy away from the GPM, but it was still there.  So no matter how good the PC felt, the chance was there that it could key in again.

The PC’s goal is a random, chance factor for instance in running repetitive processes, e.g. help processes, communication processes, etc.  The goal could be “never to communicate to anyone” or “never to help anyone”.  The index of how much good it will do to find and clear the PC’s goal is the amount of case gain you can get on a person who has had a wrong goal found. If you sit down with him on a meter and handle that goal with the “to be a tiger” drill [Reference: HCOB 29Nov62 “Routines 2-i2, 3-21, and 3GAXX -- Tiger Drill for Nulling by Mid-Ruds”.  See Fig. 10.], clean it until all sensation and pain have gone gone off it, you will see more case gain than you have seen for some time.  What is happening is that finding the wrong goal did a key-in of what was there anyway.  It could have keyed in at any time.  Now you clean it up and it has no further effect on him.

This could lead to a wild Problems Intensive:

1. Have the PC write a list of all the problems that he has had this lifetime.  

2. Ask him, “What decision would have solved the first, second, third problem, etc., etc.?” Don’t date them.  They are really goals. 

3. Dust them off lightly with the tiger drill.  It is a little chunk of doing a goals list, and the PC will get phenomenal relief.  Not that you would necessarily do this on someone.  It is workable because of the value of a decision.  The bank is a basic decision, or purpose, which has on top of it a concatenation of purposes. So every time he makes a decision, he adds a look.

It is simpler, though, to just do 3GA in the first place.  And this is also faster and more to the point.  If you can clear somebody, there is no reason to do anything else.

What this means for this planet is quite amazing.  Three-quarters of Asia became civilized just because of a hope that this could be done.   

THE TIGER DRILL  

Small tiger uses:  Suppress
Big tiger uses small tiger buttons.

Invalidated      Plus:  Nearly found out
Suggested
Protest
Fail to reveal
Anxious about
Mistake
Careful  

Procedure:

A) If the goal reads, check inval, etc., until null; then checksuppress repetitively to null.

Recheck goal.

B) If the goal doesn’t read, check suppress.  

Patter:

A: To be a tiger.

C: Null.

A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?

C: Read.

A: That reads. What was it? ... Thank you.

On this goal has anything been suppressed?

C: Null.

A: To be a tiger.

C: Read.

A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?

C: Null.

A: On this goal has anything been suggested?

C: Read.

A: That reads. what was it? ... Thank you.

On this goal has anything been suggested?

C: Null.

A: To be a tiger.

C: Null.

A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?

C: Null.

A: To be a tiger.

C: Null.

A: Thank you.  That is out.

****

A: To be a tiger.

C: Read.

A: On this goal has anything been invalidated?

C: Null.

A: On this goal has anything been suggested?

C: Null.

A: On this goal is there anything you have failed to reveal?

C: Null.

A: On this goal has any mistake been made?

C: Null.

A: On this goal has anything been suppressed?

C: Null.

A: To be a tiger.

C: Read.

A: To be a tiger.

C: Read.

A: To be a tiger.

C: Read.  This goal is now ready to be checked out.   

Once upon a time there was a thetan, and he couldn’t go forwards or backwards.  He had to stay there and he mustn’t stay there.  The result was that he was overwhelmed.  He got further orders to evacuate, then to advance, then to stay there.  Then he caught the barrage.  His own artillery shelled him.  He decided then to evacuate, but couldn’t carry out the orders. He is there now, in a highly charged agitation, rockslamming.

A rock slam is a “can’t go, can’t stay, can’t come, can’t leave, mustn’t be”.  It is a highly charged agitation.  Originally, while addressing goals on the twentieth ACC, this was such a strong phenomenon that Ron used it in assessing to go down the chain to find the Rock, hence the name.

A dirty needle is a tiny, persistent rock slam.  LRH has been spending the past week or so studying rock slams in depth.  He happened to get a criminal on the meter, one with known overts against him.  He saw a rock slam turn on and off on this one fact.  This was very interesting.  Of course the criminal was trapped too. In this case, however, it wasn’t a goals phenomenon.

LRH found that you can clean a rock slam off a missed withhold on someone and end up with a dirty needle.  This is because the PC’s attention is on the large overt -- the rock slam -- not on the auditor.  It takes superb TR-1 to get past the no-read that results from the PC’s elsewhereness.  This was the first evidence that a rock slam and a dirty needle are signs of overts.  Until the overt is handled, the needle won’t register.

The mechanics of a “failed to reveal” is the still point following a confusion.  You should audit the confusion.  You could only get a stuck picture to move by asking, “What about that picture could you take responsibility for?” This works because responsibility takes care of the overt.  Stills do not exist without prior confusions, except in the case of goals postulates.  For this reason, you can also unstick a stuck picture by spotting the prior confusion and the overt the person did.  The person usually settled the confusion with an overt.

A culture will get stuck and fixed following a good confusion, too.  A PC will get a chronic somatic following an overt, or more likely, a series of overts that involve motion.  These overts were a way of settling a confusion.

Politics is an aberration caused by the collective overts of the citizenry.  You can forecast the next governmental form by looking at the overts the citizens are committing, because the government will try to bake those overts legal, thus lessening the overt.  For instance, a criminal has come to the conclusion that property belongs to nobody.  He has to come to this conclusion.  Before the 1917 Russian Revolution, the crime rate was very high.  So the Russian government legalized the idea that property belongs to nobody. Weekness, or omitted participation, would be the prior overt in a socialized state, because in such a state, weakness is legal and rewarded.  In politics, there is only opinion and aberration, no wisdom.

In research, what usually happens is that LRH falls over something for awhile he bumps into it until a way to use it occurs.  Auditors have learned to go to “failed to reveal” when a dirty needle shows up.  Failed to reveal is subsequent to an overt.  There is little to gain by asking for overts, though.  It is too strong.  But the “failed to reveal” skims the top.   

Tiger drill is effective until you run into a persistent rock slam or dirty needle.  O/W has been put in to remedy this.  It works as long as you get your question answered.  When it doesn’t work, it is because the PC is doing something else with the answers.  If he is technically answering but not giving overts, keep clearing the commands.  The PC may be trying to solve a problem with the auditing question.

LRH found that he could turn on a rock slam at will in anyone on a goals chain.  3GA as it exists is totally workable and will do the job.  The only problem is doing it faster. We have already cleared a first-goal clear who had a wild rock slam.  Goals got picked off the top of the GPM to the point where the rock slam showed up.  This guy has gotten caught in the front lines with a bunch of overts, and he is sitting in a ridge that has enough confusion and enough overts behind it to make him unable to move anyplace.  So there he is.

It would be faster to find the first goal if you could just bypass the first three goals of the GPM and only have four or five to deal with.  That is the proposed speed-up.  We have run people to an F/N on a goal and found that they had a rock slam underlying the F/N.  If you overlist for fifteen or twenty minutes beyond the F/N, you get a rock slam, as the PC goes on down the goals chain.

The track is laid out in cycles, made up of series of lives or types of lives associated and allied, highly variable in their time element.  It is a prime postulate, a new goal, that starts a cycle.  This is not a solution, but a new game.  The PC goes along with this.  Eventually, the steam goes out of it and the thetan finds himself with no interest and no ability to get into trouble.  He goes out the bottom, then perks up a bit and goes off with a new basic postulate.  Any further postulate is a solution to problems caused by the first one.  That is a cycle.  Those are pieces of GPM, with an interrelationship.  If you can get the earliest you can find cleaned up, the later ones blow easily, since the thetan had less power to make them.  For this reason, it is worthwhile to get as early a goal as you can find that still reads and has some reality for the PC, and which he can still run.

If a goal will rocket read, you can list it.  After you have tiger drilled it clean, if it rocket reads, you can list it through to F/N, then find another, etc., etc., as you go further back.  It would be easy to find later goals, but useful to find earlier ones.

A thetan never gets so messed up that he fails to leave a flag out on his points of aberration. In early work, it was noticed that the key engram of the PC’s current life leaves out a tag.  The tag is an innocent-seeming and seemingly meaningless picture that the PC is frequently aware of.  For instance, it may be a picture of Grandfather’s rocking chair.  When you explore this, you find the key engram.  Similarly, the key goal has a rock slam left on it.  One way of finding out what subject it is on is by nulling several hundred goals, culling the rock slams, writing them down, And seeing what the subject matter is.  Test “overts on ...” and see the rock slam turn on.  The rock slam may wear out on some of these subjects.  Those are the locks.  The real goal will have a rock slam that won’t weer out.  The charge manifested by the rock slam can be imparted to associated subjects that won’t hold up and that will confuse you. Any branch of the tree looks like the trunk. Eventually you will find the trunk.   

You can use the rock slam to find the goals channel by assessing the eight dynamics to find one that has a rock slam or a dirty needle.  If there is no dirty needle at first, you can cause one by having the PC think of overts against each dynamic and picking out the dirtiest needle.  You have to be clever to ask these questions without causing missed withholds.  Get the PC to tell you a few overts on the dynamic that reads dirtiest.  Ask him what would represent that dynamic, and get a list of items.  Assess by elimination, looking for a rock slam or the hottest item.  It is ok if, at this point, you don’t get a rock slam.  Take that item and get the PC to list, “What goal might you have that would be an overt against (e.g., the government?” Write down any pain or sensation on the list.  Keep listing as long as there is needle action.  When the needle smooths out, the PC’s goal is on the list, if you are lucky.  If you are unlucky, you will get nothing but pain, sensation, and a stuck needle.  If so, start with a new dynamic assessment.  If you are getting cognitions, that is a good sign.

On some PC’s, this could be the only way to run goals.  On most, it would be a shortcut. 

GOALS LISTING

A lecture given on
9 August 1962

Thank you.

Well, this is lecture two, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, 9 August . . . What’s the year?

Audience: 1962. A.D. 12.

A.D. 12. All right, thank you.

What I’m going to talk to you about is technically just listing. Listing: How to list.

In the beginning, there was the Model Session.

Now, what do you do in listing that is different than any other auditing?

Well, you prepcheck the object of and the lines of the auditing command every session beginning with a fast check. Got it? And I think if you do that, your number of items that you need to list out a goal will materially diminish. I think you’ll find it saves its time over and over and over and over.

So let’s put in the rudiments—the beginning rudiments—bangetybangety-bang, and say the PC’s goal, and to-be-a-tiger it. In other words, get the middle ruds in on it fast. Get it to firing if we can. Of course, we go just so far, this thing is going to start firing latent, and it’s going to expire one way or the other. But after all, it is our target. And to run somebody endlessly with his goal suppressed and invalidated and all that sort of thing is liable to require a large number of additional items and all kinds of other things in the session, don’t you see? Other things might go wrong. You might even waste a whole session and not even recognize that you have wasted one.

All right. Now, the auditing command, of course, is the who-what lines, of which there are four.

Now, I’m not going to try to give you a wording of the who-what lines and say that it will forever and always be true.

First you have finding the goal, in 3GA, and proving it out, and then you get to listing. And in actual fact, the first step of listing is to find lines that fit the goal.

Now, you’ve got a picture that you must comply with. And the picture is an outflow arrow and an inflow arrow—arrows pointing at one another. Draw a circle for the PC and then draw a line going out from him and then the arrow-ends, and then draw another line extending that one, but its arrow-ends are in toward the first arrow.

And then you have the retarding arrow of the first line, and then you have the retarding arrow of the second line, and they’re just arrows alongside the other two arrows—going the opposite direction. In other words, you got four arrows here: One is going out from the PC and one is going in toward the PC.
 
And then you’ve got the other pair of arrows further out; the first one is in toward the PC and the other one is out away from the PC.

Now, the auditing command that you want simply matches up the four basic flows. Now, you see, there could be 16 flows listed, there could be 32 flows listed, there could be 128 flows listed. Don’t you see? You could list and list—oh, wow! But staying with four is the most economical, as far as we know at this particular time. But those four must be meaningful to the PC; they’ve got to make sense to the PC.

Now, we want to know—the first line is. “Who or what would have it?” “Want it,” “have it”—I don’t care which one you use. That’s as far as the goal is concerned. Then “Who or what would oppose it?” See, that’s your outer arrow pointing in toward the first arrow. “Who or what would oppose it?”

Now we’ve got to have specifically “Who or what would keep you from performing it?” or “doing it?” You see? And then we’ve got to find out “Who or what would oppose its being opposed?”

Now, how you get these words to go together is remarkable, and so forth, but they must fire.

Now, the goal has a rocket read, and then so must the lines. You’ve got to have a read on those lines. And the read on these lines must exist not because you’ve made a mistake on the line. You recognize that you could write the wrong line, and so forth.

Do you know, to date we have had three people, one of whose clearing was held up and two that was loused up, right here at Saint Hill, because nobody paid enough attention to the wording and value of the wording of lines? So this is not a light subject. This is a very important subject. And it is the auditor’s responsibility, not the Training Director or somebody else’s responsibility. This is the auditor’s responsibility. Those lines are there and they’ve got to fire.

In other words, when you read this line, “Who or what would want to catch catfish?” that thing has got to fire on that, not because the goal is on the end, but the line as a major thought has got to fire. That’s got to fire.

Now, remember that the whole rash of free needles that we got out earlier this summer were all listed on this simplicity. (I’ll show you how simple it can be.) Line one: “Who or what would want to catch catfish?” (Let’s say this is the goal.) Line two: “Who or what would oppose catching catfish?” Line three: “Who or what would not oppose catching catfish?” Line four: “Who or what would not want to catch catfish?”

Now, those are the exact lines—the verb form changing on two of the lines to an -ing. And look, even though they were reaching madly and having an awful time on line four, and scrambling around on it most horribly, they still made it, see? Now, it was only when, on one (and I’m not saying this just to be mean, although the person who is going to hear it in a moment will swear that I said it just to be mean)—the introduction of “your” into the line (unreported by the auditor)—into one of the lines prevented that line from ever going to free needle. Till one day I caught the thing up and found out that this extra word existed in the line, knocked the extra word out, had it prepchecked a little bit, and wham, all four lines went to free needle.

See, there was one line in there—I’ve forgotten which line it was, but it was something on the order of “Who or what would oppose your catching catfish?” Not “Who or what would oppose catching catfish?” See? Just the introduction of that “your” on one of the four lines. See, it wasn’t on the other three. And yet this was listed this way by three auditors, see? And the first auditor was completely exonerated on the matter because nobody had formulated the lines at that time to amount to anything and we were just at the beginning of this level, and this auditor put them together as kind of what the PC thought they might be, you see? And there was a “your” in it. And that prevented those things from going to free needle. So, in other words, the wording Of the line can prevent or achieve a free needle for that line. It is the wording of the line.

Now, our more modern version seems to hit people much closer. And we have had at least one goal not go clear on the old four lines, but be much easier to run, and is running much more easily—and actually on the original four lines just went up to 6.0 as the TA, and stuck. Right goal, but it just went up and stuck because these lines were not adequate to describe the situation, you see, and started moving again the moment the wording was changed to these lines which we are now using.

Line one: “Who or what would want to catch catfish?” Line two: “Who or what would oppose catching catfish?” Line three: “Who or what would retard” (or “pull back”) “opposition to catching catfish?” And line four: “Who or what would pull back” (what is it?) “ . . . from catching catfish?”

Audience: “Someone or something.”

Oh, “someone or something from catching catfish?” Now, “someone or something” could of course be on at least two of the lines, or on more of the lines, you understand. But there is the pattern which we are using now. It’s “pull back” and “pull back,” or “retard” and “pull back,” on lines three and four.

But the point is, the line has got to fire. You read the goal, “To catch catfish,” bang! “To catch catfish,” bang! “To catch catfish,” bang!

All right. That read transfers over onto all four lines. And it is not true that it transfers onto just three of the lines and the other one isn’t hot just now. See, it’s because that line that is not firing is not quite right. See? You should be able to put these four lines together and get them all to fire. You say, “To catch catfish,” bang! “To catch catfish,” bang! “To catch catfish,” bang! “Who or what would want to catch catfish?” Bang! See? They’ve all got to fire that way.

Now, there are various oddball wordings which haven’t worked. We run into the problem of the negative goal. Let’s take the goal “not to talk.” “Who or what would want not to talk?” That’s perfectly fine, isn’t it? “Who or what would oppose not to talk?” That’s good, isn’t it? That’s fine. We’re just going along fine there. Now let’s get to line three on the old wording. “Who or what would not oppose not to talk?” Double negative. Enterprising auditor, shift the double negative, of course, change it around so you don’t have a double negative, that’d make it “much better”—she never goes clear. And line four, “Who or what would not want not to talk?” That’s really becoming garbage as far as the auditor can see. Pretty gruesome.

But what do you know! Interestingly enough, it’s perfectly comprehensible to the PC. Double negative—so what? Doesn’t mean anything to the PC. The line means something to the PC, but that it isn’t grammatically something or other was not a thing. So that first wording was perfectly okay and was all right to remain just as it was, if you had a negative goal.

But this wording didn’t work, see—double negative, that’s all right, doesn’t matter. But this wording didn’t work: “Who or what would want the goal ‘not to talk’?” “Who or what would oppose the goal ‘not to tally’?” “Who or what would not oppose the goal ‘not to talk’?” For some cockeyed reason it ceases to make sense very soon, see? “The goal...” “the goal...” “the goal . . .” Makes it grammatical, but apparently makes it unworkable.

Now we’ll get another one: Let’s take the wing out of it. “Who or what would oppose catching catfish?” See? “Who or what would oppose the goal ‘to catch catfish’?” Now, this one is important for you to know about, because PCs will try to steer you into it. It hasn’t the least bearing on the situation. It doesn’t go clear. Apparently this one lays an egg. But a PC tells you that’s real hot. The PC will tell you “That’s real good.” And apparently it is for the birds. See the difference? It’s a different meaning. “Who or what would oppose the goal ‘to catch catfish’?” of course is just dandy. That sounds good, doesn’t it? Well, it isn’t the same meaning that you want on your list line.

We don’t care about opposing the goal. To hell with the goal—why keep it in that realm? We want to know who would oppose catching catfish, not oppose the goal “to catch catfish.” It’s “Who or what would oppose catching catfish?” that clears the PC. See, that’s the opposition. It’s the opposition to action. Because remember, these are flow lines. When anybody tries to steer you away from a wording which you think is proper and so forth, in arguing it out with a PC, or figuring it out yourself or something, just remember this: These are actions. These are actions.

Now, of course, we get “want the goal”: that’s a kind of an inflow, isn’t it? And that has always kind of loused me up. I don’t know quite why an inflow word like want works as an outflow action of the goal. But it apparently keeps the goal in the item’s head that has got it. See? But hale, as far as I know— although I don’t have too much data on this—have apparently works equally well. Apparently.

But it’s what fires that counts. But what fires has got to be actions of the goal. It’s got to be action. Because you’re listing flow lines.

So this would be dead wrong: “Who or what would oppose people who had the goal to catch catfish?” That’s dead wrong. You want to know who or what would oppose people. Well, that’s not the goal.

All right. Let’s go a little bit further afield here. It’s after all catfish, isn’t it? All right, so “Who or what would oppose catfish?” You’re practically listing two lines at once. That’s what messes up there. Because anybody who’s trying to catch catfish is opposing catfish too. And anybody who’s opposing catfish is also opposing catfish, and you’ve got no opposition anyplace. So you might as well just do the one line for the two; don’t you see?

And there we come into the liability of listing lines. Now, believe me, this is quite a problem, because you’re liable to make this horrible mistake, unless forewarned: The PC is given four commands but actually only lists three lines. Now, look at the mess this gets him into. He lists twice as many items on one line and he lists no items on another line, and an equal number on the remaining two lines.

In other words, he overlists one line and doesn’t list another line at all. And the PC is going to go round the bend. See, he’s really going to get cooked with this one. Next thing you know, your tone arm is stuck, and you’ll be saying it’s the wrong goal, and everything is all upset. Well, the PC, through his own interpretation, can do this just fine. So the best way to handle this is have PCs draw you pictures.

Now, you want to draw the PC a picture of the one I just gave you and present this as a problem to the PC of how you’re going to word this thing. Of course, you’re going to word this thing with current wording. If absolutely impossible, you’re going to change it. But you’re going to try to word it with current wording. But you want to show the PC this thing. And it’s this arrow that comes in toward him, and this arrow that goes out that faces the other arrow, and then this arrow that pulls back and then this arrow that goes out parallel to the other one. You want to show him those four arrows, and you’re going to say, “That’s oppose. That’s opposed to doing your goal, and this is doing your goal, see, and this is keeping you from doing your goal, don’t you see, and that’s retarding the other Tom being opposed. But at the same time, we don’t want this fourth line here to be the second line up here. Do you see how that could be? See, who would oppose you doing your goal? And who would not want you to do your goal?” Ooooh, those things are getting awful ghostly close together, aren’t they?

You got to have wording here that means these four flows, with regard to the action of this goal.

Now, goals Are action situations. Even “being a hound dog,” as a goal— “to be a hound dog,” see—requires an action. The action is at least to be. That’s not much action, but it’s still enough action to be action and it causes a Dow. You say, “Who would want to be a hound dog?” and of course now you’ve got it pretty well made. Of course, there’s some action a little bit added in there. And “not want to be a hound dog,” see? You could get these things, you see, but they’re still actions. “Oppose being a hound dog,” that’s guaranteeing action, you see? And “retard opposition to being a hound dog.”

These are very hard for PCs to wrap their wits around very often. Particularly when they’re lying at the bottom of the GPM. There they lie, nobody has disturbed them on this subject for millennia, you see, or triennia. Nobody’s even breathed it at them or mentioned it to them, and you all of a sudden come along and propound the philosophic principle of whether or not they’re going to oppose or not oppose being a hound dog, you know? They’ve just never considered it. They’ll be in this kind of a state: They know that everybody opposes being a hound dog. And that is the “truth.” That isn’t a fact, you see; that’s the “truth.” The truth of life: Life opposes being a hound dog.

Now, you introduce a brand-new idea: You say, “Who would want to be a hound dog?”

“Want to be a hound dog?” Good heavens, nobody’s thought of that, you see !

Well, factually they haven’t thought of it for ages. See? And these other actions, the other three actions . . . So they very readily steer themselves over onto one groove, if they possibly can, and it’ll be the flow they happen to be stuck on at the moment you get them to figure it out.

So their advice is worse than useless. But you want to find out whether or not they can answer it. That’s what you want to know. That’s why you consult them. You don’t take their wording, but you want to find out if they can answer it. And then you juggle the wording around or do anything you have to do to the wording so that you can clear, you know, invalidation, mistake, wrong word, anything like that that you want to clear on this thing. And after this line is cleaned up with a fast check on the mid ruds, like to-be-a-tiger drill— after this line is cleaned up, brrrrp, see—you say that line and you get pow! You get a read, see? You say the line, you get a read. You say the line, you get a read. Dandy. Here we go. That’s fine, see?

Now you want to get the next one, so that when you say that line you get a read. Say the line, get a read. Prepcheck it out. In other words, you mid-rud the thing. You see, you get those mid ruds in on the line, and then test it. You’d be surprised how busy they are sometimes in invalidating lines, and all that straighten-out.

So frankly, I’ve opened up a subject to you, you possibly haven’t looked at very intimately, and that is the wording of a line to be listed. But that, second to the goal, is the most important source from which all clearing flows—is that line. And now, keeping an even balance amongst those lines as they list.

All right. Now, so much for this wording of the line. Your next step is to make sure that as you list, you list in Model Session, your rudiments are in without antagonizing the PC unduly—because, you see, you can put the rudiments in so often that it amounts to no auditing, and then the rudiments go out, see?

So your basic action is don’t list too long on one line. How long is too long? I’ll tell you exactly how long you should list a line, exactly how long: as long as the flow in that direction persists.

Yeah, how are you going to know that? Well, short of an oscilloscope, you’re not. An oscilloscope will show you the flow line. So you just pays your money and you takes your chance.

But I’ll give you an indicator. This would be slightly overlisting a line, but would be safe. This is slightly overlisting the line by an item or two, but it’s very safe: As soon as the PC says “Uh . . . and uhhhh . . . ,” change your lines. Go to the next line. Why? You’ve hit the null point.

You see, don’t be under the delusion that the PC is thinking up these items. Don’t make that mistake. He thinks he’s thinking; he thinks he’s talking; he thinks it’s all going off, but actually he’s just a wound-up doll. See, he’s just firing off . . . He couldn’t help it. He practically couldn’t help but give you the items, because they’re being dealt. See? Because they’re stacked in the GPM in that way. He doesn’t think of any of them.

Now, if a PC is groping for the right wording, you’ve overlisted. “I mean a . . . uh . . . I mean a . . . uh . . . uh . . . mm . . . Oh, no, that isn’t the right word. Uh . . . uh . . . a uh . . . a big . . . a big . . . uh . . . no, a big, big . . . a huge . . . uh . . . uh . . . a gargantuan . . . Uh . . . a tr—tr—uh, let’s see, a tremendously . . . no, that isn’t . . . uh, tremendously large . . .” Oh, man, you overlisted a long way back. You should have quit, see?

Now, that item will spew onto the paper, bang! Just without any trouble from the PC. And long times in listing sessions without many items coming onto the page is all caused by the auditor not judging the flows right. Comm lag of the PC eats up session. And if you keep the PC out of that comm lag—you just list in rotation: one, two, three, four; one, two, three, four; one, two, three, four; and don’t let the PC comm lag, or shut off an automaticity.

Isn’t that neat? You mustn’t shut off a PC’s automaticity. He’s saying, “Tiger, waterbuck, water buffalo, uh . . . big snakes, pythons, uh . . . Mindoro uh ... natives, pygmies, uh ... pygmies, pygmies, uh ... uh....”

Well, the funny part of it is, is you mustn’t have shut him off at “water buffalo,” because it’d suppress the nest two items. He can’t help but say them, don’t you see? They’re just being dealt off the top of the deck, one-two-three-four, see? They’re just coming right on up, one-two-three-four-five-six-seven-eight-nine-ten-eleven, tr-tra-nun-nun, and then “a . . . a . . . uh . . .” Shift lines.

Now, I’ll tell you when you’ve listed too long, slightly, but not to the other degree “I can’t get the right word for it. I don’t know what . . .” Oh, you’re way overdue, man! You missed the 5:15, you missed the 6:20, see, you missed the midnight express. No, here’s the one: The PC says, “No, that’s not it.” You’ve gone over. You’ve gone over, right now.

He’s invalidating the item he is giving you. Why is he invalidating the item he has given you? Because the other flow line is now meeting the direction of his attention and is overwhelming his attention so that any item he thinks up is of course being overwhelmed by the other flow line coming to him. Just like that, heh! It’s very neat.

And you just listen to him, as he goes along on listing, and he says, “A water buffalo, a tiger, a Mindoro native, a pygmy, a uh . . . uh . . . uh . . . uh.. .ap-python, auh...um.. .uh. ..uh...a.. .a deer. No. No. No, that’s not it. Um . . . a uh . . . buck. A buck . . . uh—no, no, um . . . a buck, uh . . . No. No, not a—not—not—not a—not a buck deer. Uh . . . um . . . let’s see, now. Um . . . Well, I c-ca-can’t really think of the name of the thing. Uh . . . uh . . . a big . . . uh . . . a buck, uh . . . uh . . . uh . . . a v . . . a very lar— uh . . . It’s a certain kind of a deer they have down in Mindoro, a uh . . . a dak, or u . . . u . . .” Oh man, you missed the 6:15, the 8:30, the 10:25 they’ve all gone by. See? That’s the whole gamut. You have run the lot now, see?

Your first indicator was “and a uh....” Well, out of courtesy, you could let him give it to you. He’ll say, “ . . . a uh . . . buck.”

And you say, “All right. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Now, all right, we’re going to start on the next line. And here we go.” We’ve shifted gears, and we’re now listing on something else.

That’s really the way to get away from the pin fast, and your PC doesn’t get suppressions, and you don’t have to put in the mid ruds all the time and all that sort of thing. Just catch it on that first “ahh . . .” And it’s just handed to you on a silver platter.
He tells you. “This line has run as far as it’s going to go, and is now in an eddy area, and is about to turn around and go the opposite direction.” That’s what he tells you with that “ahh....” With the invalidation, he tells you, “It has already turned around and is going in the opposite direction, and anything I think of is being overwhelmed and invalidated by the line which is now coming the other way.” See? And when he can’t think of it at all, he’s just totally overwhumped. Now the line is really racing at him.

But similarly—let me make this point again—it is a high crime to shut off an automaticity because he won’t be able to get it again. This thing is firing off and you put a suppression right on the middle of the thing. He’s going to tell you all of a sudden thirty items—brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

And you say, “Well, that’s enough.”

He says, “Bu-bu brrr-b-brr—brrrr. . .” And you put in the mid ruds at that point, you find it was all suppressed. The PC feels kind of loused up. He feels kind of betrayed and so on.

So there are the basic tricks of listing: (1) At the beginning of the session get in your rudiments. (2) Get your goal fast-checked. (3) Now, there’s two ways you could go about this: One is simply to fast-check the first line you do, and then when you get to the next line give it a fast check; when you get to the nest line give it a fast check—first time you ask it, you see? You get to the fourth line, give it a fast check and then don’t check them anymore. Just see if it fires, that’s the only thing you want. It’s very fast. See? That could be done that way, or you could take all five of these things—the goal and the lines—and just read them all off to see if they all fire, see if there are any suppressions on them, you know. And clean them up, bang-bang, get them all firing, bong, and then go on to your session. Two ways you could go about this. Find out which one is best for you.

Now, you center his attention on the lines, of course, too solidly, in prepchecking the things, and he’ll start giving you answers, then you’re already in session. So that has some liability connected with it.

Now, your next action is to get the PC to list the first line down to a point where he says “And a ... uh ... uh ... let me see....” Let him see by all means. But if he sees for more than a few seconds you say, “Well, all right. That’s fine. We’ll get that one the next time we come around. Now, let’s start on this next line,” see? Let’s not leave him in thin air. And just list to the comm lag. Go straight along down the line. List to the comm lag. List to the comm lag. List to the comm lag.

Now, you’re going to get in trouble sooner or later because your lines are going to get ragged if you list to the comm lag. And that’s liable to upset you. So you take one of those times when he’s feeling very, very easy, and catch up a few items. And it’s a nice balance which you do. But if it’s straining him to think of any more items just to make you catch up, you abandon catching up. You got it? Because it’s not a quantitative process, after all. It’s the amount of now, see? It’s the amount of now that we’re interested in, not the number of items. And number of items is merely an approximation of keeping them level. That is a sloppy index of how much flow has been gotten off any one of these lines.

As far as checking the mid ruds is concerned, every time you turn around, you won’t have to do it if you list this way, which makes for very fast listing. But if you make yourself a bunch of mistakes—this is really when to use the mid ruds, a fast check of the mid ruds, not a repetitive check. If you make a big mistake, and this PC is going brrrrrr, and you say “Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much! Yeah, thank you! Yeah, thank you! Yeah, well I got that! Now, is there any other item that—a person or being there that would want to catch catfish?” And the PC is sitting there looking blanched, you know? He’s been struck dead. He’s halfway through an automaticity, and he can’t get it out.

Actually, recognize what’s happened to him. You’ve suppressed thirty or forty items, just like that. Bang! You didn’t quite see what you were doing, you know? You didn’t realize he was running off an automaticity and it was just tearing right on down the line, and you all of a sudden gave him a nice Tone 40 acknowledgment, see? Brought him into present time, put him into the session, crash, you see, all that sort of thing, and you just smell the rubber burning. 

You make a goof like that, don’t let him yap or get upset about it, just get in your mid ruds. Suppress—man, that is really going to be hot. You made him suppress the lot. Get the idea?

Or, if you were kind of sleepy and it was a summer afternoon, and you suddenly wake up to realize that the PC for five minutes has been sitting there saying various things like this: “Is it a large . . . a . . . a large tiger, a . . . a . . . a very—no, no, a tiger, a stri . . . a striped . . . I can’t quite get the word for this. A tiger with horns. No, that would not be right,” and so forth.

And you wake up suddenly, the PC has been going on like this for about five minutes—be an awfully good thing to get in the mid ruds. In other words, the mid ruds are something with which you pick up goofs. And if you’re really a smooth auditor you don’t goof.

Now, how many items does it take per line to list a goal out? How many items? What an interesting question. It’s almost philosophic in its impulse. It has a lot to do with how smoothly it was done, oddly enough. And the less smoothness it was done, the less in-sessionness it was done with, the more items you are going to have. So therefore you can’t say how many items should appear on a list as just a fait accompli. How many items, bang! You see? You can’t say that. But you sure can say that it isn’t going to be ten or fifteen. Ten or fifteen hundred? Now we’re getting more into the zone and order of magnitude.

But speaking, then, we’re only speaking for the first goal. How many is it for a second goal? How many is it for a third goal? How many is it for a fourth goal? Well, these things become shorter and shorter, these lines do.

So, how many clears the goal? Well, as many as you write down well and expertly to a point where the needle goes free. That’s how many it is. And it certainly is not going to be less than a thousand, I don’t think. We’ve got the third goal, I think you’re still within that order of magnitude. But I’m just guessing there.

The first goal, seven thousand items on each line I wouldn’t worry too much about it unless the TA has gone up and stuck and has been stuck for a long time, or something like this, you see? I wouldn’t worry about the number of items. I’ll tell you what to worry about in a minute. But the number of items isn’t something to worry about, you understand? Too few—God help us. That, no.

Now, of course you don’t ever null these items, and the PC is going to ask you, “Why are we writing them down?” It would be an interesting question: Why are we writing the items down?

Well, my answer to that is writing them down is a better acknowledgment and it’s a much better way to keep tabs on your lists, and there’s various reasons for writing them down. But amongst them isn’t nulling. We don’t ever do anything with these items. I don’t know anything to do with them.

Your PC at first will be rather puzzled as to which one it is. Well, of course, that’s the joke. It isn’t a Which one?”

He’s been going a long piece of track on that goals problem mass, man. He’s had an opportunity to collect an awful lot of identities. And the identities which he personally has picked up has had the opportunity to collect an awful lot of enemies. And he himself has collected an awful lot of things which oppose enemies. And he himself has had a very interesting taste for things which prevented him from doing his goal. He’ll begin to wonder after a while what possessed him. And all of these things combined make quantity. And the quantity is large.

All right. Now, let’s talk about how long a line is listed. It is listed exactly to free needle. It is not listed one item beyond free needle. Hear me now: not one item beyond the free needle. Not even one! Needle was free.

Now, the proper conduct of an auditor, when observing a free needle on a line, should be professional. He should not suddenly get hold of one of his favorite valences of a rodeo performer, start bucking about in the chair and trying to put a quirt to the E-Meter.

“A free needle! Ha-ha! Hey-hey! Ha-ha! Ha—that’s enough, it’s a free needle. Hey, do you want to come around and see this?” That is not optimum auditor conduct. It’s all right, because we can run the suppressions off.

But you’ll feel like that when you first see one. You go to the next line and list it to free needle or, if it doesn’t go to free needle, until the flow runs out as usual.

Sometimes one of them goes free, and three of them will stick for a while. Some of them then you’ve got two free, and the other two are sticking. And then sometimes you’ve got three free, and one is all hung up. And then eventually it goes free.

Well, the way to do that is you keep going one, two, three, four, see? This thing is stuck. This line is sticky; it’s not free. Come back here to your next line in sequence, see, and put one, two, three, free needle, see?

Now your needle is free when you go to your next line; your next line doesn’t upset it at all. Now, I can’t lay down a rule absolutely here, because it may not make the least bit of difference. But if you said the line to the PC and you get no needle reaction of any kind whatsoever and nothing happens to the needle, it might be very foolish to list it. So we go to the next line and we read the thing off and there’s no needle reaction of any kind to it, you see, and the needle is still free. And we come to the line we had that was sticky in the first place and it’s still sticky, now we list that thing on down until we get to a comm lag, and it’s still stuck. Well now, which line do we come back to next? Because nothing is cooling this thing down. Well, you’d better check them, hadn’t you?

Now, it won’t upset anybody if you put one item on each one of these lines. Now, we’re into a completely questionable area of what is the right thing to do? Experience will tell what is the right thing to do. I can’t give you a packaged answer, but I can tell you this: is don’t list beyond a free needle! Because it’s quite upsetting. It’s something like asking for a rudiment answer when there isn’t one, see?

And if I were to lay down an operating rule for myself on this, as something I would now be guided by, I would wade myself through this. I would read these other lines and see if I could get a stick, or a fall, see? Something.
 
And I’d get an item. And then I’d walk back to the line that was stuck, and I would list it till I got a comm lag. You get the idea? And I’d walk myself through this. And if I had three lines, all of which were giving a free needle, I wouldn’t test all three in rotation every time. I’d test one after the other. In other words, I’d take the sticky line, I’d list on it to a comm lag, and then I’d choose another one of these lines—not the one in rotation; I’d skip a rotation, see?—and then I’d list some more sticky needle and then I’d choose the third one that was free and test it now. You know, I’d just walk my way through this, sort of like on eggs. You get the idea?

And I wouldn’t list those lines. My instinct would be agin’ it. If I couldn’t get a fall or stick or any needle misbehavior on it, I don’t think I would touch them. I’d ask the PC if he had any items on these lines, but my auditing command would not be “Who-or-what-would-want-to-catch-catfish?” “Can you think of anything right now that—anything, anybody, want to catch catfish? No, you can’t. All right. Thank you. Huh-huh, that is—that’s fine. Thank you very much.” Get off of there, see?

PC said, “Yeah, I just thought . . . uh game wardens catch catfish every now and then.” And then you’ve set it down, see? All right. He just gave you that gratuitously; that’s to keep from missing withholds.

You’re at a touchy end of the case. And obviously to you it isn’t a touchy end of the case at all, because the PC is now practically Clear and a Clear can stand anything. That might be your reason. If the needle is this free, why, doesn’t matter how we treat the PC, does it?

Well, that’s the wrong kind of thinking. Because right at that stage of the game it is rather edgy, because you could take one of these free-needle lines and you could list it right on into a hole. In other words, you could stick it all up again. It’s already happened here, don’t think I’m just dealing on theory only. Overlisting has occurred.

All right. That’s enough for that. You can certainly list through to free needle on four lines.

Now, if one line consistently and continually hangs up, and you can’t make it go free, then you investigate the living daylights out of what is wrong with that particular line and see if you can find anything wrong with it at all. And see if you can get any variation of wording of that line to fire nicely and neatly, and continue listing on that new wording, and that line will go clean. Okay? That’s in case of emergency. Because there might have been, throughout, something wrong with that one line. See, you might have missed it. Already been done here, so it can happen. Three lines went free, one didn’t.

Well, when that happened before, your was in the fourth line. That your was enough to keep that line from going free. And an examination of it—only took a couple, three sessions of listing after that, and all four lines were free, just like that, see? So, suspect that if you get too much an inequality of this, and it’s hanging on too long, don’t let it go for months; look into it. Okay?

All right. Now, what are the dangers of listing? Number one, listing is auditing. It is auditing and must be treated as such. It is the only therapeutic action undertaken to free a goal—is merely listing. The pi: does not give out these answers analytically, no matter how bright and alert the PC might act. They’re all being dealt off the bottom of the deck, all out of the reactive mind, and you must not worry as to whether the PC is inventing answers or dreaming them up or thinking of them analytically or anything else. Just be calm about this. Look, there are enough things to worry about in auditing without inventing things.

No, just take what the PC gives you, man. Keep the session going and relax. See? All right.

Now, as you are starting in with the goal, you have a period of danger. And this period of danger begins at the moment of finding the goal and is over when you have proved beyond doubt that this goal, while being listed on all four lines, turns on pain on line one, sensation on line two, a little more sensation than pain on line three, and a little more pain than sensation on line four. And when you’ve proven that to your own complete satisfaction . . .

Well, look, you’re looking at me as though I should detail this more, but figure it out for yourself, man. Figure it out for yourself. Lines one and three belong to the PC. And lines two and four belong to the enemy. And the enemy is sensation and the PC is pain. That’s easy. And unless you get that optimum condition of affairs, that goal is wrong. And you better get off of that, hotter than hot and faster than fast.

Line one—here’s what makes a goal wrong: Line one turns on sensation. “Who or what would want to catch catfish?”

Dizzy, misemotional, groggy, “Uh-u-uhhh-ohhh,” see? Pressures.
“Who or what would oppose catching catfish?”

“Ouch! Oh, what a terrible pain went through my head. Oh, what an awful pain in my back. Oh, dear, dear, dear. Ohrrarr. Ohh, my—ouch!” See? It’s the wrong line! That should be turning on sensation; it’s turning on pain.

And we get to line three, which is the PC’s own line again, since it’s an allied line, and the person says, “Nyoom-m! Oh dear, still very dizzy and so on, so on and so on and so on and so on . . . Very dizzy, and there’s this little tiny pain in my ear, but that doesn’t amount to much. Sure makes you dizzy, doesn’t it?”

And he gets to line four, “Who or what would pull back your goal?”—you see, that’s the enemy, man—and, “Ouch! Urp! Pain went through the back there. What was that?”

Now look, that condition as a purity seldom exists. It won’t exist for very long. If you continue to list this it all becomes sen. Everything gets to be sen. But if you go too far on this, everything goes sen. The bank starts to become hard, beefy, lumpy. The person wakes up in the morning and the ridges he usually had are now really ridges. We’re getting an exaggeration of the situation. That bank is becoming heavy. It’s like running Creative Processing without having the goal “to create.”

And the PC will wake up in the morning, actually, and he’ll feel like there’s a board going through his head, see? Something like this. And he’s . . . And it all turns into sensation. It’s all dizzy, groggy, pressures, nausea, misemotion. Starts to feel like after a while he didn’t do anything to high blood pressure, probably, but he starts to feel like high blood pressure would be much more comfortable. You see, all four lines go to sen. That’s an interesting item, isn’t it?

Now, if all four lines went to pn, I wouldn’t worry. But if they all went to sen, to hell with it. Get out of there. You’re wrong. I don’t care what you think, you’re wrong! You got it? I don’t care what the PC says. That’s the wrong goal! Yeah, it read! Yeah, it’s fine. Yeah, it checked out. Yo. Yo, we had three instructors and the governor of Australia check it out! I don’t care about all those arguments! The line is wrong! because that is the final proof of a goal. You got it?

You haven’t got a goal until you have listed it two or three hundred items on each line, as the auditor. And that will save your bacon. Of course, if it checks out beautifully, PC got pain on it, bang, and so forth, you’re pretty sure, aren’t you? But the final test of any pudding is the listing. You go two, three hundred items deep on this thing; if it’s turning on pain in the right places and sen on the right places, and that sort of thing, oh boy, you’re in. Go for broke.

Now the only thing could happen wrong is you start listing with the rudiments out. Something crazy goes on in the PC’s life, he’s got PTPs like mad or rudiments are wildly out, or something of the sort, you see? And in a minor way—you see, checking the goal out every time is just a way of speeding this up. It won’t prevent clearing, and checking the lines out won’t prevent clearing by listing. They just blow it down.

But a wrong line will. A wrong line will prevent clearing. “Who or what would try awfully hard to oppose catching catfish?” And the next line to it is “Who or what would not want to catch catfish?” you see? And the next line down the line—all out of position, see, all misworded.

It would be too cruel an experiment—I have seen this in actual action— but you can take four lines, check them out, and then throw one. Now it will fire on a suggestion and an invalidation, see, and a mistake. You can get it to fire, of course, just like you can get a goal to fire. And now insist on listing that line. “Who or what would know he had to have to catch catfish?” And then put all the other ones down correctly.

The action of doing something like that is to bring the TA up to a stick. It’s almost exactly 4.5 to 6.0. Almost always. I haven’t ever seen a tone arm on a misworded line, or mislisting, or ARC-broke sessions, or overlisting in sessions—the errors you can make, in other words—that on goals listing didn’t go up to 4.5 and 5.0. I’m quite prepared to see one go up to 6.0, or to 7.0, or 3.75. I’m quite prepared to, you understand. But it just happens that every one I’ve seen have gone from 4.5 to 5.0 and then stick. They’ll stick at 4.5 or they’ll stick at 5.0. And more have stuck at 5.0 than at 4.5.

So when your tone arm starts lingering around 5.0 for a session, and next session lingers around 5.0, don’t be surprised if the third session your PC all of a sudden says, “Well, I was awfully dizzy. I was walking down the street, and I saw the buildings sort of reel.” You’re doing something weird. Something wild is going on here. Something’s happened. You got to straighten it out.

Now, what straightens out? How do you straighten one of these things out? Well, you locate what’s wrong. You better check out the goal and get it to fire again if you possibly can. Check out the lines, one after the other; see if there’s any disagreement from the PC on these lines or these wordings. That’s quite important. You’re not going to change them around just because he disagrees with them, but you’re going to sure make it’s answerable, if you can. Check out your sessioning in general (which isn’t really enough to keep it all hung up) and just straighten this thing out and get it to rolling again. That’s what you’re going to do.

Now, look: If you can’t straighten the goal out after you’ve listed a couple of hundred, if it ceases to fire after two or three hundred items on each one of four lists, it’s sort of “Which way did they go? What happened?” You got to get it back to firing again. Of course, if you can’t get it back to firing again, it was probably the wrong goal in the first place.

The method we’re using to find goals right now rather makes it very difficult to get a wrong goal. That makes it pretty difficult for you to get a wrong goal or run a wrong goal. That’s the beauty of it, and why I love that method. Ease of auditing and positiveness of finding the goal were enough to have this. And that’s not why I’m happy about it. It used to be that only an instructor or somebody who was specially trained in that little tiny technique of checkout—we could absolutely rely on the fact that it was the right goal.

Now, any of you guys, if you’re good enough to do nulling by mid ruds down to a point where you find a goal, you’re so used to checking them out that checking out a goal doesn’t phase you anymore. You’ll be able to actually look at a goal and say “Well, boom, let’s check it out.” Brrr, brrr. “To be a tiger”— tzal-tup-ub, bang, thud, bang. “Yeah, it doesn’t fire.” See, that’d be all there was to it, you know? “Let’s see, is there a suppression on there? That goal
 been suppressed? That isn’t a goal.” See? Positiveness enters into the picture. And that’s going to save an awful lot of bacons.

So, preventing the wrong goal from being found has been quite a campaign I’ve had to engage on here for quite a while, and actually what was marvelous is that this new nulling by mid ruds, not just for its value for the auditor, but to prevent wrong goals from being found, is worth its weight in planets, man, and it’s pretty heavy.

Now, this idea of finding a goal, finding it firing, and saying that is the person’s goal or agreeing that it as the person’s goal—that’s perfectly all right, because it can be run out. It’s an assertion, see? That’s all right. But when the PC keeps saying “No, it isn’t my goal” and the auditor keeps saying “Yes, it is your goal,” a ridge is built up which is pretty hard to take apart. And it will keep a goal firing. So don’t argue over somebody’s goal or you’ll make it fire and fire and fire, and its not his goal. You get the suppressions, invalidation’s off it, he’ll agree with it if it’s his goal, and if it isn’t his goal, he won’t.

You could find an opposition goal. This is the other thing that could be wrong. You could find an opposition goal. Now, I don’t know that by nulling by mid ruds you will find an opposition goal. I don’t know too much about finding opposition goals, as distinct from finding goals. I can’t give you much data on this, actually, because I’ve never seen an opposition goal that would fire after it has been prepchecked and nulled by mid ruds. You understand? So there’s always the possibility that opposition goals actually only fired because they were invalidation’s of the goal or something. You get the idea? And they might not have had rocket reads on them at all, you see?

And somebody the other day came up with a reverse rocket read on a goal, and immediately proposed it was probably an opposition goal, which I thought was very interesting. So if you see that sort of thing, let me know. But I don’t know that you can get a rocket read on an opposition goal. I don’t know that it isn’t just the invalidation of the goal that makes the opposition goal fire.

Well, you’re fairly secure if you have found the goal and checked it out. But don’t be too cocky until you’ve got two hundred on a line. And if you found a goal and then turned it over to somebody to list, remember to reach out, by the time they got three hundred on each line or something like that, and say to the PC, “How are you doing? How do you feel? All right. When they ask you so-and-so and so-and-so, where does the somatic come?”

And the person says, “Well, it’s so and so on.”

“Now, what kind of a somatic is it? Is it a sensation, or is it painful or what is it? And what line is it on?” And check it all out yourself, you got the idea? You know, don’t read the auditor’s report. That’s a good prevention.

Otherwise than that, you realize that somebody who is trained to HCA level could be quite competent in listing. And listing is the longest part of clearing. So if you had somebody helping you in auditing and you kept your eye on the situation, a person with less training than is necessary to find goals could list goals, and because he was doing this sort of thing and doing some Prepchecking and so forth as he went along, he would actually get up to a point where he could locate goals. So it’s a good training school, listing is. See?

Now, that lengthens the number of people you could clear by three or four times. See?

Now, you got to know all about listing and you should list somebody to Clear just to see how it looks and get the experience and that sort of thing, but I don’t expect you to list every goal to Clear that you find. It’d be a much more economic situation for you to find the goal and then keep your eagle eye beagled on the somebody who is listing it out.

Now, how about auto-listing? Well, there is no telling. I won’t say that auto-listing is impossible. I don’t believe that it is possible or impossible, at this particular stage of the game. I believe that it would be better than nothing. Let me put it that way. But to tell somebody to go home and list on four lists and you will look into it in a couple of weeks, it seems to me like it’s sort of taking his life in your hands! You know? I wouldn’t be sure about this at all. But I would say this—I would say this: that if you were on a desert island and you knew your goal, and you knew exactly what the goal is and it’d been expertly checked out, and there was absolutely no way under the sun for you to get Clear any other way, I would say that you should pick up a pencil and a piece of palm bark. But we would know more about that in due course.

Now, these are the various ramifications to listing. Clearing itself consists of the cycle of finding a goal and then listing it until you have a free needle on each of four lines, finding another goal and listing it on each of four lines, Ending another goal and listing it on each of four lines. And the state of case is regulated by the number of goals the person has which have not been found and listed. Those are damping factors.

Now, here at Saint Hill it’s fairly simple to make a first-goal Clear—not simple, but with heroic activities (let us put it that way), we can make a first-goal Clear.

Now, to find a second goal on a PC, and list that one out, this is getting much more difficult. We have just now found and checked out a second goal on Jean, and that was very, very good news, that I was very happy about. And at least it was stated to me in so many words that it was checked out today. Was it?

Female Voice: Hm-hm.

Yeah. All right, that’s a second goal. Okay, now she’s got a little time to list on this second goal. And I think they possibly even may list it out because the listing, very possibly, is much shorter than a first goal. But we know more about that in due course.

She’s already starting to depart from the standard state of Clear, or such a person is already starting to depart from what we have considered Clear. They’re starting to move up into Theta Clear or something like that, and it’s an adventure from there on out, because these various states, now, of course are not regulated in any way by different processes to different conditions. It’s a gradient scale of the same condition all the way, of course.

Now, I can’t even tell you how many goals it is to OT. See? Or how long it’d take you to find and list each one of these goals. I was very happy to find today that the second goal would fire so nicely. Nice. I was told they had good rocket reads on the thing. See? I was very happy about that.

Somewhere up the line, why, the goals are not going to stay in. They’re going to start blowing. But how far do you have to keep the goals not blowing to get OT? See?

But that is the road that we are on, basically. And it’s a repetition of the same action.

The only improvement which I see in auditing which is coming immediately up, and so on, is a mechanical improvement. That is to say, a persistency of read—devices to make a read more persistent and therefore more observable by an auditor.

I don’t see any changes to amount to anything on clearing as such. I do see some dodges one could do to probably shorten up finding a goal. And I see some frills one could add onto listing that would possibly shorten the thing up one way or the other. But I don’t look for any fabulous advance from along that line. I don’t. Because there are certain limitations that you hit, and the limitation is that the person has got just that much case, and they have to sit there just that long, and they can talk just that fast. Get the idea? All right.
 
And maybe when we’re all OT, why, maybe we’ll look back over the whole thing again, and we’ll say it would have been much easier had we done it this way. And I hope that we’re in that condition and don’t have to do it some other way.

Those are the improvements I look for in clearing. I really don’t look for many other improvements. But I do look for improvements that’ll take little shortcuts—little faster, something that is more valuable to do this than to do that, you know, little things along the line.

And we may carve it down, we may carve it down considerably. We may use various systems Of auditing. Just given you one tonight: You find the goal, let am HPA list it, see, under your eye. Therefore you’ve lost two hundred hours Of auditing, just like that. Various other mechanisms of this character can be fine, and we can step it up into quantitative clearing. Our problem now is quantitative clearing.

My immediate problem is to get some of you to read an E-Meter better. Well, I’m solving that with drills and attention and various things, and I’m also double-solving it by making sure that a persistent-read E-Meter comes into existence in the very near future that can be hooked up to a Mark IV and red lights go on and pinball’s dials go around when you hit a read, see, and it stays on until you do something about it or something like that.

But I have actually no quarrel—no real quarrel with your drills, no real quarrel with your auditing presence, no real quarrel with these things. I see just this metering that’s being a problem. And we’ll get that licked.

I have a problem of how many of you can I push on through to first-goal Clears in a space of time, when the fellow alongside of you can’t read an E-Meter and neither can you. You know? Some of you are in that condition, and that’s worrying me. I got these various problems, but I haven’t got any technical problems now. I haven’t got any. I’m not even worrying about what’s in the guts of this meter. I just told them, well, what we need is an idiot meter. You have an on-and-off switch and a red light. When you say something to the PC the red light goes on. Or it doesn’t go on. And if it goes on you clean it up, see, and if it doesn’t go on, you don’t clean it up. Idiot meter! These things we’ll have. These things we’ll have.

I can undoubtedly find where we can best expect the goal to appear on a list, and therefore cut down the number of goals we have to null in order to find the goal, you know? Do various other tricks of this character. But as far as technology is concerned, we got it made, and you’re doing it. And the only thing some Of you are doing wrong is you’re missing a few reads, see? Well, that’s all I got to cure, so that’s easy. That’s that.

Thank you very much.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 AUGUST AD12

Magazine
Franchise
HOW IT FEELS TO GO CLEAR

Jean Kennedy of Bulawayo, Southern Rhodesia, wrote me a note after her first goal was cleared. She had been cleared once on Routine 3 and was cleared again on the same goal at Saint Hill with Routine 3GA. Her subjective reality on these two processes is of great value to all Scientologists.

These are in actual fact two notes. I give you both with her permission.

She has now had her second goal found and is listing on it and will soon be the first 3GA 2nd goal clear. She graduates this week from the Saint Hill course with honours.

“Dear Ron,

I feel tip top at the moment, and really couldn’t have asked for more out of auditing, if this was as far as one could go it would be enough. I must say there are two big basic differences in the way I feel now and the way I felt after the 3rd S.A. ACC. (1 ) This time I have a bigger certainty, and a very ‘comfortable’ feeling, and while R3 processed you up to more confidence each session, I found on R3GA (just before the lines went free), that I had never felt so stripped bare, and at one stage I didn’t know who I was or where I was going until I realized that ‘I’ had to do things not wait for something else to do them! So all in all listing on the goal was fun, pictures and track recall were very vivid and I sailed right back to the beginning of ‘body moulding’, but the biggest thrill of all was the basic cognition where I thought I was going to find the answer to why I decided to be that way—and guess what, there wasn’t any reason !

Jean.”

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

On receipt of the above I asked her for permission to issue and she wrote the following expansion:

“This is the basic difference between R3 and R3GA. Being run on R3 had a limiting effect inasmuch as you didn’t run with enough depth and could never really get at the reason why you chose to be the way you are. It processed you towards greater confidence each session and finally left you feeling tip top, mass-less but still no real answer—and one was always a little vulnerable, if you knew the right button. Pictures and cognitions were also limited.

Now, R3GA was very different and had much more punch behind it, and you could ‘get’ at things you would never have got at on R3. At the start of listing everything seemed innocent enough and I couldn’t see any difference between the two, and suddenly the track opened up and vivid pictures and recall in detail on the track came from all directions, cognitions shot off the body in little spark forms and one could feel the masses just exploding all around, at times making the rings so hot on my hands they had to be taken off. There was a steady feeling of cycling backwards (to the start of body moulding) and one’s habit patterns, fixed ideas and attitudes just went flying by. The most fascinating part was the lines transferring over and viewpoints changing totally.

The worst part comes just before the end, two days before the needle went free I dug my heels in and refused to give another item—why, because I didn’t know who I was, where I was and least of all why I made that postulate. I have never felt so stripped bare of everything and suddenly realized that nothing was automatically going to swing into place and do things for me, ‘I’ would have to do them.

My auditor gently coaxed me into more items, and then at the bottom I found the answer I have been looking for, for so long—’nothing’—how foolish can a thetan be!  But what a certainty.

Jean Kennedy.”

								L RON HUBBARD

LRH:jw.bh							
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard	
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6208C14 SHSpec-185 World Clearing

The subject of this lecture is forwarding scientology on a world-wide clearing basis.  The activity of world-wide clearing is now understood, but there will have to be an agreed-upon and workable plan to deliver the goods.

HPA/HCA is presently a neglected sphere.  Prepchecking is not an adequate tool to turn people loose with, by itself.  We also have the very effective form of auditing with great therapeutic value that is goals listing, not necessarily goals finding.  If someone is upset, just get them to write a goals list with some astronomical number of goals on it.  Preserve it carefully for later use.  This sort of goals assistance will shortly be part of HPA/HCA training, along with prepchecking.  If the PC could also list items for goals, he would shortly be in shape to learn to find goals. Alternatively, a St. Hill graduate in an organization could find the goals of everyone around, once they had been set up by the HPA/HCA.  Item listing takes a long time.  There could be 2500 per list.  So a policy letter has gone out forbidding St. Hill graduates from doing anything except to find goals (HCOPL 13Aug62 “Clearing”).  That way the org can do clearing. The staff could co-audit on getting goals and items listed, and the St. Hill staff staff auditor could find the goals.  This would get staffs cleared.

Now, on to world clearing! Say you have fifty people, paying a certain amount per week.  They all want to be clear.  Form them into co-audits, three nights a week or whatever. Get goals listed.  Get items listed.  St. Hill graduates would find the goal and put the person back into co-audit.  Within a year, they would all be clear.  Second goals could be found next.  Have them study the practical actions and get to look like auditors, co-auditing under good supervision.  The fee charged should be more than adequate to support the center, or whatever.

What damage could this do?  The instructor would have to make sure that no withholds got missed that could cause PCs to blow.  You will have to do some training at first.  At the same time, get the goals lists made so that some progress is evident from the start.  You could take the person’s auditing skill count for points towards their getting their goal found.   

You might think that this would cut people off from getting trained.  Not so at all.  People will decide to go get trained while waiting to have their goal found.  At the end of the year, you will have fifty first-goal clears. The only limiting factor on the expansion of clearing by this system is the number who can go through St. Hill, and that number can be increased.  There are lots of old-time scientologists around the world.  LRH is now getting their names so that he can write them and send them to the nearest franchise holder.  This will give semi-trained assistants, people who will join in the co-audit, etc.

A finite auditing period -- four to five hours of auditing and several hours of training per day -- are required to accomplish this program.

That is the basic world-clearing activity.  Central organizations have always existed for training and dissemination of information, with auditing of PCs mostly for demonstration purposes.  Now, when PCs come in, they can be handled with co-audit and/or preparatory actions.  The trouble in any central org or any co-audit will be to keep up the quality of auditing and not to let it get slipshod.  That is always a fight, because green auditors can think up more interesting ways to do things and have more problems!  You can find what portion of a central org the public is impinging on most, because that will be the most scrambled and mucked-up and off-line.  The main danger with a small staff is that the public will shove the time-scheduling out.  You have to be mean on that point, because the area the public is most messed up on is time. Time is the single source of aberration.  There would be no aberration, were it not for time.  keeping time controlled for the group, with regard to course hours, etc., will actually result in your giving wins.  Don’t let a guy sneak in late. Greet him loudly.  This results in less aberration and enturbulation in the group.  Let them know you think scheduling is important and other factors will fall into place. This is a method of controlling people who are otherwise unruly.  LRH would never let himself be pushed into auditing more than five to five and a half hours per day.

You also have to save time by having administrative people to handle the phone, mail, etc.  The people on the co-audit will string out in time, depending on how much bank is in the way of their understanding.  The bank is composed of no time at all, so they get into its timelessness and have no time to do anything.  People have different periods of time that it takes them to register the same recognition.  They have different reaction times.  They have different rates on different subjects and on different dynamics, etc.  These rates are determined by where the goal sits.  That gets in the way of your meter reading.  Some people are aberrated on the subject of meters and can’t see the read on the needle, though they may read books, etc., well.

A very sane person has fantastic quantities of time.  LRH once flabbergasted someone by outlining a program for this part of the universe that extended 5000 years into the future.  “I’ve seen a billion years planned out, down to the smallest detail.”

If there were no time, there would be no motion, no havingness, no matter, etc.  The more bank a person has, the less time he has for the longest period. A rock can sit there without any recognition at all for a few trillenia.  Speed of recognition depends on how much time a person has.  PT varies from a thousandth of a second to a more normal value of a second or two.  Expanded to ten minutes, this would be frightening.  The number of mistakes a person makes is [inversely] proportional to the amount of PT they have.  The saner and the freer a person is, the more PT he has.  The guy whose PT is a thousandth of a second never foresees the difficulty of doing anything and does the most impulsive and stupid things you ever heard of.  Foresight is not really brightness, but width of PT.  Nothing beats looking your way out of things.

If you think being able to foretell the future a thousand years ahead with accuracy would be boring, how come you can only get excitement by being stupid?

Anyway, this gives you a fast index on PCs, co-audits, etc.  This index is the amount of time it takes him to register, to find out that something is there.  The length of time it takes him to absorb auditing information is the length of time it takes him to be reliable.  If you pair up co-audit teams on the basis of their recognition periods, they will stay happy.  It will seem reasonable to both of them.  Methods could easily be developed to measure recognition period.

How much should you teach your co-auditors?  LRH would demand perfection.  In any co-audit, the amount of gain is to some degree proportional to the amount of responsibility the instructor is taking for those people.  It is not very dependent on what process you are running.  You have problems of comparable magnitude, PTP process, responsibility processing.  Use some processes that avoid O/W.  Your best bet, though, is to put them onto listing goals and items, so they had better be started out on prepchecks and prepchecking.  If you have to keep them busy, give them something to study: listing, for example.  Utilize the available time in the most productive possible way.

It is not very tenable to single-hand a project like this.  It is harder on you than you would think, since you lack a datum of comparable magnitude.

The communication channel falls off to the degree that an individual feels that he is outside the organization.  This makes the development of city offices, rather than franchises, a good idea.  [A city office is similar to a franchise, but it is under the administrative direction of the central scientology organization, via an HCO Area Secretary. It is set up by the HCO Continental Sec.  The intention is that it will ultimately grow up into a Central Organization.  See OEC Volume VII, pp. 154, 158, 162-163, 165.]  There is a necessity to make everything neat.  Since it will blow up anyway, it might as well be done neatly, so that it can be put together again after it falls apart when expansion hits.  When increased comm hits a network of comm lines, it is not surprising if the seams leak.  So you have to be skilled in putting the line back again, not in trying to hold it.
Any central organization putting together a clearing co-audit should do it perfectly.  then put it all back together again when it blows up.  You hold the fort with time, good discipline, etc., and you realize that world clearing is done on the basis of somehow making it, not as a juggernaut rolling down the highway.  There hasn’t been a road.  You follow policy as far as you can, and then you make it work from then on.  Just don’t scant technology.  Don’t fail to deliver the goods and make clears.  

6208C21 SHSpec-188 Basics of Auditing

Auditors keep asking LRH for rules and more rules.  Then they goof in session and ask for more.  It is strange that fundamentals usually come at high levels of training.  Here is what an auditor should be able to do: He should be able to get another being to be interested in his own case and willing to talk to him.  Rules, tricks, rudiments, and various other types of upset-preventers are all contributive to getting this to occur.  The E-meter is only contributive insofar as it applies to rudiments.  It is vital for assessing.  In rudiments, you are trying to do with rules and the meter something that you cannot do yourself.  This won’t work.  Some auditors have only to sit down in the chair to have the PC ARC break.  This is more true now than ever.

The difficulties the auditor encounters are his own difficulties, and the mechanics he uses force the PC into session with an auditor who doesn’t want the PC in session or who doesn’t understand that the PC should be in session or why the PC should be in session.  The mechanics of rudiments and rules have made auditing so powerful that the PC is put into a state where he is interested in his case and wants to talk to the auditor.  But the auditor thinks he is supposed to do something else and drives the PC out of session again.  So the PC ARC breaks.  The auditor looks like an auditor and the rules trick the PC into session.  Then the PC finds that the auditor doesn’t want to hear what he is saying.  The auditor is auditing by some set of rules.  In fact, there is no auditor, but the technology has created a PC.  This drives the PC around the bend.  The PC doesn’t know what is wrong, but he feels that something is wrong.

We have been blaming meter reading, missing reads.  This is just another technical rule.  Someone who understood the basics of auditing and used them could miss reads and clean cleans and still have a PC happily in session.  But someone who cleans cleans and misses reads must be auditing, not by basics, but by rules that force a PC into session.  If there is no auditor but only rules and a meter, the rules may be right and the meter wrong.  There is nothing else holding the PC in session, so he gets upset.  If the auditor is not there and he misses something, it is curtains.  So it is very necessary to know what the basics of auditing are.

The remedy for the above situation is that people are going to learn to prepcheck and to put ruds in without meters and to do this accurately.  This will make auditors.  They can do it because they will learn the basics of auditing.

Why does auditing exist at all? There are two articles in Certainty magazine (1958) that take apart what psychoanalysis did wrong.  Anyone that went into session in analysis did so accidentally.  Basically, the analysand never had an auditor.  He was also never brought back to PT at the end of session.

The basics of auditing include the mechanics of blowing something -- the reason why auditing works (Axiom 51).  One underlying thread is the principle that after a session, a PC should feel better.  Even an awful goals assessment session that missed the goal should end up with the PC feeling better. Secondly, the auditor must get off the PC’s withholds.   

The earliest part of auditing is the roughest part, since all the missed withholds of life are still sitting there unrelieved.  It takes a far better auditor to handle such a case than to handle someone who has come up the line a ways.  Scientologists are not really harder to audit than raw meat, especially raw meat that hasn’t ever reached for anything.  You would be surprised, though, at who can go into session and who can be audited.  Once, in Detroit, the cops seized some tapes.  Fourteen cops listened to them, and twelve resigned from the force!

An auditor should be able to handle the PC’s problems and to get a clean needle so that the PC can be assessed and made to feel better.  An auditor should audit to get things done in a session, not just to audit.  Auditing consists of getting something done by a series of little accomplishments, not by going through the motions.

You should be able to get a PC into session without a meter, rules, or anything.  Some people have a gift for this.  An auditor should be able to let the PC blow something by talking to him.  You would be surprised how rare this is.  You should also be able to get done what the PC wants done, without Q and A.  People have trouble differentiating between TR-4 and Q and A.  An auditor must be able to make this distinction.  He must handle the session and do things the PC wants done without Q and A.  You have to work at it, to get in trouble with this.  Q and A is simple:

1. Not accepting the PC’s answer; questioning the PC’s answer.  Auditing isn’t done by rules but by understanding.  People who Q and A don’t  want the PC to talk to them.  They use a remark, a comment, or a  request for more information to prevent the PC from just saying something and blowing the charge.  Or the auditor doesn’t  acknowledge.  This is a defensive mechanism.  

2. Doing something every time the PC says something.  An auditor who  always does what the PC says will drive the PC crazy.  An auditor who audits strictly by rules and not by understanding will never do anything a PC says, no matter how reasonable or sensible it is, which  also drives the PC crazy.  There are two things that PCs do:  

1. They ask auditors to do things such that if the auditor doesn’t do them, the session will go around the bend. 

2. They originate.  Auditors who are having a hard time with PCs never differentiate between these two situations.  They don’t evaluate importances.  They try to follow all the rules instead of helping the PC.  You don’t take up the process that the PC wants run or the goal which the PC asserts but which doesn’t check out.  On the other hand, you don’t ignore it when the PC says, “This room is so hot that I am melting!” Open the damn window!

There is no substitute for understanding and a feeling of humanness. Obnose!

Why does auditing work?  It bothers someone to be the only one who knows something.  He feels better when someone else can see it too.  He doesn’t like to have only his attention on something.  It bothers him to have to keep it from other people. When he puts something out and lets someone else see it, and the person says that he has seen it, and nothing else happens, Axiom 10 hasn’t fired.  The catastrophic effect he expected hasn’t been produced.   

Auditing of withholds blows the PC’s certainty of consequences.  He gets off a gross overt that he knew would kill him if anyone else ever found out about it, and there is no consequence.  The only thing that happened was ventilation.  Having gotten off the withhold, the PC finds himself with his attention freed up from that subject.  Before, it was stuck on keeping it withheld.  So he drops it like a hot potato. Without going into the mechanics of as-ising, we can say this:  If the horrible consequences that the PC expected, on getting off a withhold, don’t materialize, his previously fixed attention is freed up.

Auditors have interesting methods of preventing PCs from blowing things. They use the meter.  They do something every time the PC originates.  If the auditor always does something or asks another question about it, the PC isn’t allowed to blow anything.  Auditing works because the PC blows things.  If he isn’t allowed to blow things, he will blow up.  The point is to audit the PC, not to go through a drill.

Auditors should be able to clean up a dirty needle.  They should be able to prepcheck, simply using PC indicators to establish cleanness of the question.  But don’t try to assess goals without one.  If rules get in your way, you probably don’t understand the rules.  The reason for this emphasis is that 3GA requires a superb auditor, if it is to be done rapidly.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 AUGUST 1962

Central Orgs
Franchise Airmail
ORDER OF PREPCHECK BUTTONS

This is the following order of buttons for all Prepcheck forms, including those of July 15 and all Problems Intensives. A11 buttons must be cleaned before leaving any section even if they have to be gone over several times in sequence.

The first question to be asked is “What have you been careful of?”

The subsequent questions are: “What has been______________?”

The endings are now as follows and in the order:

Agreed upon. 
Suppressed. 
Asserted. 
Invalidated. 
Suggested. 
Protested. 
Revealed. 
Mistaken. 
Withheld. 
Done by you. 
Decided.

Finally: “What goals have been set?”

These buttons are done over and over until nothing is made to read and the suppressed button has been worked hard every time it is covered.

                                        					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 31 AUGUST 1962
Central Orgs
Franchise Airmail
3GA
EXPANDED LINE WORDING

The following are expanded line wordings for listing on a found and checked goal in Routine 3GA:

GOAL: “To Sneeze”, which is used as an example. 
Line One: Who or what would want to sneeze?
Line Two: Who or what would oppose sneezing?
Line Three: Who or what would not oppose sneezing? 
Line Four: Who or what would not want to sneeze?
Line Five: Who or what would sneeze?
Line Six: Who or what would not sneeze?
Line Seven: Who or what would oppose opposition to sneezing?
Line Eight: Who or what would pull back somebody or something from sneezing? 
Line Nine: Who or what would want to be sneezed at?
Line Ten: Who or what would oppose being sneezed at?
Line Eleven: Who or what would not oppose being sneezed at? 
Line Twelve: Who or what would not want to be sneezed at?
Line Thirteen: Who or what would be sneezed at?
Line Fourteen: Who or what would not be sneezed at?
Line Fifteen: Who or what would cause somebody or something to be sneezed at?
Line Sixteen: Who or what would help somebody or something not to be sneezed at? Line Seventeen: Who or what would someone or something have to be in order to sneeze?
Line Eighteen: Who or what would someone or something have to be in order to oppose sneezing?
Line Nineteen: Who or what would someone or something have to be in order not to oppose sneezing?
Line Twenty: Who or what would someone or something dare not to be in order to sneeze?

Lines Seventeen through Twenty are not vital to list, and Lines Nine through Sixteen, which are the effect wording of the goal, may not be broadly workable.

Lines One through Eight are vital. By listing four items at a time on the first eight lines or the first sixteen lines, the case stays balanced, the goal can be kept firing, and clearing is speeded.

So use eight or sixteen lines on goal listing.

As regards pain, it can occur on any line in listing. The only dangerous indication is if no pain occurs on any line, only sensation, which indicates that rudiments are out or that the goal is wrong. Pain can even occur on Lines Two and Four and sensation on Lines One and Three, and all still be okay.

LRH:dr.-h							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE 
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C.

HCO BULLETIN OF 12 SEPTEMBER AD12
CenOCon

SECURITY CHECKS AGAIN

With the advent of Dynamic Assessment a new method of Security Checking, far better than any previous Security Checking, has emerged.

Nothing in this bulletin of course detracts in any way from the value of missed withholds, pulling missed withholds or handling missed withholds on preclears or other persons in the Organisation.

If the following questions are asked of a person on a meter it can be at once established whether or not this person will inadvertently, covertly, or unknowingly attempt to ruin, wreck, stop and otherwise interfere with an Organisation, Scientology, or an Auditor. The questions are as follows:

       	Consider committing overts against Scientology.
       	Consider committing overts against Ron.
       	Consider committing overts against the Organisation.
       	Consider committing overts against me. (the auditor)

It will be found that such a person has a goal which the person considers to be impossible to achieve so long as any one of the above four exist, therefore destructive actions will at all times be manifested no matter how “constructive” they appear.

The Rock Slam produced must be a wide Rock Slam to be decisive. By wide Rock Slam is meant a quarter of a dial Rock Slam to a full dial Rock Slam.

The action which should be taken if this condition is found to exist is to suspend the person or otherwise put the person away from communication lines until such time as the person’s Dynamic, Item, and Goal are found. Sometimes it is almost enough merely to find the Item, as the foolishness of the conclusion that Scientology stands immediately and directly in their road will appear to the preclear at that time.

By “A Goal which is an overt against Scientology” is meant something which the pc considers to be a goal which is an overt against. When you finally see such goals appear they will not be apparent to the auditor as overts. However, the pc so interprets them. For instance a pc may have a fixed idea against any spiritual activity, interpreting it as a harsh activity which forbids dancing, and the pc may have a goal to dance. However the person’s Item lying above the goal to dance will be found to be a spiritual group and this of course would make Scientology appear to the person to be highly antipathetic to the goal to dance.

I cannot too strongly urge the fact that when the above occurs no possible good will result until the Dynamic, Item, and Goal are found. Therefore this should be expedited. All care should be taken not to punish the person unduly, but to carry on because often the person is unaware of the destructiveness of his or her own actions.

In a marriage, if the husband were to place the wife on an E-Meter and ask the question “Consider committing overts against me” and find a wide Rock Slam immediately results, he will be then in total possession of what has been wrong with his marriage. Similarly, a wife finding this manifestation on a husband would also be informed.

The remedy in such a case is not to sack somebody, to shoot somebody, to divorce somebody or take some drastic final action, because we now have all the answer we need to resolve this and it will be found that as soon as the person’s goal has been found the condition of hostility will cease.

The Rock Slam produced must be at sensitivity 16 on the meter. If a dirty needle occurs it is necessary to pull the person’s missed withholds because these obviously exist. This should not be neglected. By Dirty Needle is meant a quarter of an inch agitation of the needle as an instant response to the asking of the above questions.

This is the new security programme. Any person responsible for maintaining security in an Organisation or a home should perform the above tests and take the remedial action.

I cannot too strongly urge that while this is absolute, or near as it can be, and positive in its diagnosis, it is not permanent because we can now clear, and clearing consists of doing away with the Rock Slam and not the offending person.

                                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:jb.cden 
Copyright © 1962 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE 
1812 19th Street, N.W., Washington 9, D.C.

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 12 SEPTEMBER AD 12
Issue III
CenOCon

AUTHORIZED PROCESSES

Only the following processes are authorized for use on Staff Members and on HGC Preclears:

Assists. 
Problems Intensives (Modern Version). 
Ordinary 3GA. 
3GA by Dynamic Assessment.

No other processes are to be used on Staff or HGC Preclears.

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

6209C18 SHSpec-189 Directing PC’s Attention

“Instead of reaching for an argument, reach for an E-meter.” To straighten out arguments, put the person or persons on a meter.  Pull missed withholds on a nattery person.  Just sit him or her down as though no natter had occurred and ask, “What have we failed to find out about you? What have I failed to find out about you? In this session, have I missed a withhold on you?”, etc.

When you use an E-meter, get something done.  You can do a great deal with it, so use it to get somewhere.  The rules of auditing are to keep you from doing ineffective things.  Men have been talking to men for thousands of years, and the general result of these discussions has been nil.  How can we use talking in auditing to get something to happen? The rules by which you audit are the rules of an effective path to an accomplishment of reaching someone, bettering someone, reaching an agreement, and improving existence. But it is a highly circumscribed path.  There have been almost numberless efforts in the past to cure people or make them better.  Almost all schools of healing have involved talking or listening.  There is an effort to reach. Axiom 10 applies throughout.

We can now make this same talk effective.  Auditing has to do with the comm formula.  This is the most fundamental fundamental of scientology.  When someone says something and someone acknowledges it, if the statement is true and the acknowledgment is received, mental charge can blow, de-intensify, eraser be eradicated.  It is on this fact alone that auditing works.  It isn’t what is said.  It is Axiom 10.  The cycle of auditing follows this pattern:

1. The auditor’s question or command directs the PC’s attention to a  certain area of bank, causing a momentary restim.

2. The PC, perceiving the area of bank that has been restimulated,  responds by verbalizing.

3. When he is acknowledged and receives the acknowledgment, he knows  that he has responded.

4. That area of the bank blows. 

Most auditing rules exist to maintain the purity of the auditing cycle. The tech exists to determine what should be restimulated, in what sequence. If you have done the auditing cycle right and you know what buttons should be hit and what responses should be given, then you only need add repetitive question and response and the proper sequence of questions, each followed by the same cycle, to obtain the state of release, clear, theta clear, or OT. That formula is the only reason anyone gets out.  There can be numberless departures from the auditing cycle.  Other activities, like selling and teaching, have their own cycles, which are different from the auditing cycle. If the auditor has spent lifetimes being a salesman, he may use the wrong sort of comm cycle and end up selling the PC an engram.  Or you may get someone who thinks forgiveness of sins makes people better.  This person won’t use the proper auditing comm cycle.  He will do something else.

Auditing is basically a cycle of command that operates as an attention-director, eliciting a response from the PC and getting the PC to as-is the restimulated area.  The PC knows he has done so when he receives an acknowledgment from the auditor that it has occurred.  That cycle, all by itself, is sufficiently powerful to get gains, no matter what words or process is used.  The mere fact of directed attention and the acknowledgment that the PC has directed his attention -- that fact by itself is therapeutic.  There need be no significance in the command.

The repetitive action adds duplication to the formula.  This increases the effectiveness of the communication.  The person will become aware of the existence of another being; he will become aware of mass and of whether his attention is easy or hard to shift.  His awareness will increase and his attention will become freer.  In essence, those are your CCH’s.  It is the non-significance of directed attention.  The CCH’s present different ways of directing the PC’s attention with minimal significance.  Your worst-off PC does well on these, because he discovers that there is matter, energy, space, time, and another being in the universe.  This can be a great shock to him. How does the great criminal live with himself? By knowing that he is the only one, that there is no one else in the universe.

You can’t tell someone in that condition to think of the significance of this or that, because the significance would never arrive.  He can’t duplicate it.  He can duplicate the fairly non-significant action of simply directed attention.  This is a new idea in the communication cycle: a communication without significance, beyond the significance of what the PC’s attention is directed to.  [Linguistic analysts refer to the “performance” aspect of language, apart from the mere significance of the words.]  Many an activity has directed attention, but has not done so duplicatively.  That is one of the secrets of scientology processing, and why it works.  This was not discovered before scientology because earlier practitioners couldn’t duplicate.

You could run a duplicative process on one object, but two is better because it makes space and adds duplication.  You need to have two things to use.  You need two to make space.  We live in a two-pole universe.  You can’t make space with just one spot.  You also need two things to have duplication. This applies to Op Pro by Dup.  The two points, book and bottle, give you space.  “I don’t care how you run [Op Pro by Dup].  Run it.”  

“You could direct attention repetitively, in a duplicative fashion [or] in almost any fashion, and achieve a renewed awareness on the part of another being [of] yourself and ... the world around him....  There’s no further significance than that,” and that is the whole result of the process.  This increased awareness improves I.Q., alertness, etc.

Wherever you have a communication line set up, you have some kind of response system on this line, and it will go through some kind of cycle. Knowing that different cycles of action exist, you will see that the auditing comm cycle is unique, and you will realize that the question or command directs the PC’s attention by pulling his bank up around his ears.  The auditing comm cycle operates independent of the intention of the PC.  It is more responsive to the practitioner than it is to the PC. “Any outsider has more control over the person’s reactive bank than the person himself.  It’s on that fact that auditing is based....  The common denominator of the reactive bank is other-determinism.” So auditing requires an auditor separate from the PC to be very effective.  And when the auditor isn’t following through the cycle of action of auditing, then nobody else will adjust the bank for the PC.  An auditor who won’t help the PC out by adjusting the bank for him is leaving him in the soup.  The auditor must control the PC’s attention, if the PC is to be able to as-is anything in the bank.  Otherwise the PC obeys the bank, and auditing is not occurring.

There are no good PC’s and bad PC’s.  There are only good and bad auditors.  The good ones know and keep in the cycle of auditing.  If the auditing cycle isn’t followed, auditing doesn’t occur.  A PC whose attention cannot be controlled, cannot be directed into areas of significance that reactively don’t want any attention directed there.  Say the PC has a goal, “Never to look.” If you can’t control the PC’s attention, you will never find it, because the bank has more authority over the PC than the auditor does. All goals lists contain goals of this character.  If you look over the goals list of a PC whose goal is being easily found, you will find an absence of those goals that command the PC’s attention to go the other way.  You will find no “Never to look” or “To be silent”.  These goals cause trouble until they are located.  The PC whose attention can be directed by the auditor, on the other hand, will have a great many of these.

There are no good or bad PCs, only auditors who do or don’t use the auditing comm cycle and get it executed.  Sometimes an auditor has to work harder than at other times, that’s all.  You should look over your auditing with the question, “Is the PC’s attention being directed by me, and can I count upon the fact that it is?” If you do this, you will learn a lot about your auditing and what is going on with that PC, and the relationship between your auditing and what is going on with the PC.

Tape: 6209C19 SHTVD 14A
TIGER DRILL PART 1
is not currently available

The Editor

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1962

Franchise
CenOCon

VALID PROCESSES
(Changes all earlier Issues)

The following processes should be used by all Scientologists and other earlier processes should be discarded except for research.

Class I: 	Assists.

Class I: 	CCHs, Op Pro by Dup and SCS.

Class I: 	ARC Straight Wire.

Class II: 	Problems Intensives (Modern).

Class II: 	Prepchecking Auditing, goals, etc.

Class II: 	Goals Listing.

Class III: 	3GA Ordinary.

Class IV: 	3GA by Dynamic Assessment.

Class II: 	Items Listing.

Classes II, III and IV: Tiger and Big Tiger Drills on goals, items, lines, single words, names, persons.

All except Assists, CCHs, Op Pro by Dup and SCS are done in Model Session.

If a process is not mentioned above, do not use it.

NOTE: Any of the above Processes, except 3GA ordinary goals finding and 3GA Dynamic Assessment may be done in Co-audits under direct supervision of classed auditors.

For the greatest gain achievable by an auditor in his class, use the above. An auditor attempting processes above his class will have failures and spoiled cases.

Use of processes above Classification can result in cancellation of certificates.

We can clear Earth. Why spoil cases in the process?

LRH:dr.cden 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1962 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 SEPTEMBER AD 12

Franchise
PROBLEMS INTENSIVE USE

The only fully valid lower level process today that achieves enormously effective results, is the Modern Problems Intensive.

It does the following:

Eradicates feelings of illness 
Adds years to life 
Subtracts years from appearance 
Increases IQ.

It is very easy to run as it can be done with errors and, so long as the Tone Arm moves, will achieve marvellous results.

It is the ideal HGC process for HCA/HPA staff auditors as it gives them countless wins.

It is a natural for the field auditor who knows his Model Session and the rundown.

It can be combined with the CCHs or used without.

Its rundown is simple.

One does a Case Assessment. Assesses for the Change, predates it by a month and runs the Prepcheck Buttons on it over and over, flattening each one so far as possible.

When one assessed change is run, another list of changes is made and assessed and it is all done again.

It can be interrupted by an end of intensive without consequences to the pc if something was left unflat.

The public may scream to get clear, but most of it could only be audited on a Problems Intensive anyway.

Unlike partially completed or badly done goals assessments, there is no liability to a Problems Intensive.

All the gains envisioned in Book I can be achieved with enough Problems Intensives, even a 1st Dynamic clear in many cases.

So don’t risk your pc’s health and good will if you’re not a Saint Hill graduate. Get good, solid gains with the Modern Problems Intensive. Only if you fail to find and pull his or her Missed Withholds in the course of sessions could you estrange a pc.

You may have to clear the buttons for the pc who doesn’t understand the words, but other than that it’s all plain sailing.

People are suddenly losing all manner of things they thought were illnesses and were calling arthritis and ulcers and what not. They weren’t sick. They were just suppressed.

Please realize what you’ve got here in a Modern Problems Intensive. I’ll be giving you lots of data on how it’s done.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 OCTOBER AD12
BPI

WHEN YOU NEED REASSURANCE

(Cancels HCO Bulletin of September 27, AD12, “Dream Come True”.)

When you hear people growling, when the lines are all awry, when the auditor has flubbed and the world of Scientology looks black, just remember that in the dozen years of sometimes despairing work and heart-breaking set-backs, the dream has yet come true. We have it now. We can and are clearing them all—and you.

In Scientology just remember this when all looks dark:

IT WILL ALL COME OUT ALL RIGHT.

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:jw.bh							
Copyright Q 1962	                  				
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6210C04 SHSpec-198 Modern Security Checking

We have had dissensions and upsets over the last twelve years.  Things now are more even and more easily handled, but we still have occasional upsets.  There was an HCOB on a new style of sec check we have [HCOB 12Sep62 “Security Check Again”.  This involves looking for rock slams with commands with the wording, “Consider committing overts against _______ .”] This HCOB points the way to a resolved case and to peace and quiet, while we get cases cleared.  For a long time, we have tried to find out what made some people nervous, obsessed, and prone to revolt and cutting their own throats. We have wondered if there was some international group that was closely opposed to the advance of scientology.  The answer is, “No.” Communism has some goals which would make you nervous if you knew about them, such as the goal to take away everything of yours.  This leads to a total games condition.  Socialism is also nutty.  It rewards people for not working.  It says, “If you are working real hard, you should share with people who won’t help you.” Another antipathetic philosophy is that of the South American division into ricos and pobres.  Capitalism has one small group owning everything.  Democracy goes like this:  “Take a ... bunch of uninformed people and take the mean of their opinion and say that [it is] valid and therefore disregard it, and then do things and tell them it’s their fault....  It’s the perfect mechanism to prevent revolt.  No better one has ever been invented.  It’s a self-perpetuating machine that is pure idiocy.” You are given a choice of voting between two goons you wouldn’t let clean your chicken coop and then if everything goes wrong, it is your fault.

“All government is merely a substitute for the disabilities...  of the individuals in the population.” In an absence of understanding of the human mind, you inevitably have government, and you have as much government as you have crime, until the whole government is crime.  There is nothing a government does that has not been done privately at one time.  This includes fire departments, police, etc.  Police forces [that are a part of government] have nothing in common with public safety.  The more government you have, the less liberty you will have because government is a non-producer.  The laws that the government passes against crime apply to you, who are in theory honest hired men.  Next thing you know, you haven’t even got yourself anymore.

But there is no international group that faces and opposes Dianetics and Scientology, except to the degree that aberration opposes sanity.  A medium-good auditor gets chewed up from time to time. An excellent auditor never gets chewed up.  The only enemy of Man is his aberration.  You just need to audit, that’s all.  If people attack you, it is because you are not auditing them.  What they want is relief from their own misery and agony, and you are giving them no auditing.  Once you have embarked on this sort of thing, you are in for it if you don’t carry through with it.  In the past, when we have not executed our commitments, we have been in trouble.  You have to make some kind of arrangement whereby auditing can occur.

A PC who has a screaming ARC break can be smoothed out just by auditing him smoothly and well, though, true enough, he has missed withholds for you to clean up.  PC’s ARC break over no auditing.  Auditing can also be conducted so as to amount to no auditing of any kind.  Making auditing occur and making it possible is an even stronger action than pulling missed withholds, although that is necessary too.  Auditing is pure magic.  

The pretense of auditing without auditing is pure poison.  It is dangerous to be almost an auditor, going through the motions of auditing without really listening to the PC, etc.  A PC will put up with a relatively poor auditor, but not with a pretended auditor.  All the things you are having trouble with are resolvable with auditing.  Therefore you must not fall short as an auditor.  In Last night’s TVD, it turned out that the PC had set up the room in such a way that the meter wasn’t secure.  It bounced around and had to be fixed.  When it was fixed, the PC’s needle cleaned up.

The above truth applies regardless of the dynamic you are addressing. You can’t counterfeit the intention to audit.  If you have that, you will win.  If you don’t, you won’t.  Even if the PC doesn’t perceive the intention, you should handle the situation by auditing.  Put in the hope factor and the R-factor and audit.

What causes the apparent revolt against dianetics and scientology, when it occurs?  It is a particular sort of missed withhold: a missed dynamic, item, or goal.  It doesn’t much matter what it is.  The person is a thetan who is basically good.  An appeal directly to the thetan bypasses all the garbage and secures his cooperation, if you truly intend to audit him.  All the crimes, wars, and insanity in the world are not caused by the individual himself.  They are caused by the misapprehensions of that individual.  The greatest misapprehensions of all are his considerations of the dynamic and item, as a result of his carelessly postulated goal.

We are dealing here with human behavior.  If an individual exists and can be reached, anything wrong he does thereafter is the result of his not being reached or audited.  Here is what makes him tough to reach:

1. His goal.

2. His item, which is his pet antipathy.

3. His dynamic, in which he has included all the badness of existence.  “He’s fighting against shadows which are quite real to him.” A person’s goal may commit scientology to the status of being -- in his consideration -- his oppterm, whether it makes any sense or not to you, the scientologist.  You can’t predict this just from knowing the goal.  It involves the PC’s interpretation of the goal and his track experience.  You match up to his oppterms, in his universe.

A rockslamming case is one who would get a rock slam on, “Consider committing overts against:.

1. Scientology.

2. Ron.

3. The organization.

4. Me. (The auditor)”  If you get a rock slam on any of those four commands, the person considers you an enemy.  He is not unauditable, but the meter behaves oddly.  It is rockslammers who have made things unpeaceful for the last twelve years, not governments, psychiatrists, or some international organization.  These people make up not more than twenty percent of an organization.  

[If psychiatrists or psychologists had come up with results like ours], they would have published our case histories, with graphs and all. Nevertheless, they would undoubtedly rock slam, because they have a basic disagreement with what we are doing.  The psychologist has agreed that Man is an animal, a meat robot.  There is an earlier fundamental that makes this a lie.  “Psychology” means “study of the psyche”.  If you talk to a psychologist, don’t get into a discussion about whether Man is an animal. Talk about the derivation of “psychology”, their fundamental name.  You will thereby blow off their disagreement with us and clear up something that was definitely antipathetic to themselves.

The individual existed before the goal.  The goal is less fundamental than the individual.  It is only the antipathetic goal that gives you trouble. [Cf. Expanded dianetics: evil purposes.] Don’t reward the rebel.  Put him on the meter and check the four commands given above.  If someone rockslams on one of those, don’t hire him or enrol him on a co-audit.  You could enrol him on a sub-co-audit, hang the rock slam around his neck, and he won’t cause any trouble because you have as-ised the fact that he is a rockslammer. Rockslammers will dramatize in a 1.1 manner if you don’t get them audited. You get an emergency telephone call, and they write down the message for you. Then, as they leave the room, their coat brushes it off into the wastebasket. You don’t see it, but later on they can prove that they wrote it down for you.  They will also agree with you about doing all the silly things you mention, and they will dissuade you somehow from doing all the right things.

Knowing these principles, you can understand human behavior much better. In an organization, a clearing co-audit, a marriage, or any other group, you have a sure-fire way of testing for the person who has to be straightened out.  It is the person who rockslams when the group or person is mentioned in “Consider committing overts against _______ .”  It is not one bad act that makes a rock slam.  It takes a long accumulation of overts.  The thing that a person rockslams on may be so suppressed that it has to be thoroughly tiger drilled [See p. 295a] before it rockslams.  Find and handle rockslammers. Neither snuff them nor let them foul up the non-rockslammers.

We are in the weird situation that if we lose, everybody loses, while if we win, everybody wins.  So it is an overt act for an auditor not to pick up and pay attention to a rockslammer, because if he omits to do this, he is letting the person lose and making it possible for everybody to lose.  The rockslammer will only win if you do something.  Only finding a goal will make a rockslammer go straight. 

6210C09 SHSpec-200 Future Org Trends

If scientology organizations did nothing cohesive and had no central control, but only had people doing processing, and if, combined with this situation, there were other people with a vested interest in making slaves, we could get thrown on the dung heap and scientology could end up being practiced with electric shock by governments.  On the other side, we could have a completely different picture: a well-unified scientology with sufficient international esteem and force to overcome any attempt to use it wrongly.  

Buddhism, for lack of a plan, ended up being an enslaver of people.  Some thought needs to be given to scientology’s future to make sure that scientology doesn’t end up like Buddhism.  In Buddhism, nirvana became like a GPM.  Look at a picture of nirvana sometime.  It looks like someone surrounded with valences -- a GPM.  Lamaism, with more ghosts and devils, became like another GPM.  Zen Buddhism was based on the idea that if you are hit, you know.  Much of it is a dramatization of Axiom 10.  The Indian rope trick is mass hypnotism.  The East never had a technology that did anybody any good. They knew a few answers, but they all wound up in the soup.

So this is the first time on this planet and maybe in this universe, when sentient beings could better themselves without worsening someone else.  We are looking at tremendous force, not as in bullets, but force of knowingness: theta force.  In this universe, one is used to seeing good people being squashed.  It starts to look like goodness is weak, not a force, and that evil is strong.  That is this universe’s lesson, but it is not true.  The reverse is true, even though this universe would like us to believe otherwise and seems to provide numerous “proofs” to the contrary.

If you block a theta comm line and tap it, you can suck a certain power off it that is residual in it.  But it will explode in very short order.

The way an organization gets in bad shape is by individuation.  An org commits overts against other orgs and gets into a games condition with them, then starts considering itself strange and different.  Then it can’t communicate anymore or function anymore.

This cycle is an interesting phenomenon which one can see every day. Overts are followed by the still after the confusion -- the withhold.  The quiet moment on the battlefield is the one that sticks.  So the stable datum is likely to be whatever someone thought after the fight was over.  This is not necessarily what holds it still at all.  One dramatizes the withhold.  It is not the overt but the withhold that is the source of action.  For instance, Bill shoots Joe and doesn’t tell the police.  He fires; Joe falls; Bill feels remorse and says, “I mustn’t tell the police,” and that, not the shooting, is what he dramatizes.  As time goes on, he is no longer sure what he mustn’t tell.  To get rid of the source of pronouncement of his guilt, he commits more overts [-- against the police].  His “I mustn’t tell the police” equates to individuation from the police.  He also mustn’t be Joe, the victim.  That is another individuation.  He might be able to tell you the withhold, “I mustn’t tell the police,” but he will probably not be able to spot or as-is the [prior overt], since it is at the level of action.

Committing an overt results in an individuation.  The more separate we are, the less we can communicate and the less we can understand.  If you want a laugh, get someone to “explain” something to you in an area that he has overts on.  Using symbolic logic, where instead of numbers you are using meanings, all mathematics can be derived from ARC.  In the absence of ARC -- i.e.  when there are many overts -- there is no understanding or knowledge. Overts lower A, which lowers the other two: R and C.  Someone who is totally stupid in an area has overts in that area.  In the absence of ARC, there can [by definition] be no knowledge.  

You can always apply these mechanics backwards.  You can make someone feel that he has done something if he has a withhold about it.  If we tell someone that we will burn him in the electric chair, he will dream up a crime to fit the punishment, even if he continues to protest his innocence. [Cf. the Jews in German concentration camps, who felt they must have somehow betrayed their Fatherland.] Also, if you tell someone not to touch something enough times, he will start to believe that it is dangerous, whether it is or not. This is because you have told him not to communicate with it, and the definition of dangerousness is “not to be communicated with”.

Logic is two-poled.  There are two sides to an equation.  The mind also operates on a two-poled basis.  Thus, when describing scientology to someone, if you keep on saying that it isn’t like this, that, or another thing, he will get the idea that it simply isn’t.  You have to dream up something scientology is just like, so there will be a datum of comparable magnitude.  You will find that the more ARC he has towards the thing you compare scientology with, the better he will understand scientology. So the best strategy is to compare scientology to himself, his highest ARC terminal.  This will intrigue him, at least.  “You want things better, right?  So does scientology.  You probably have a lot of basic wisdom about life, some buried, but really there.  You have observed things.  Scientology ia like you.  You like to be free. Scientology wants that.” You would be surprised how effective even so crude an argument could be with people.  It doesn’t even matter if his understanding of scientology is correct or not.  He will get some A, R, and C.

In the absence of any ARC, you have no observation and no knowledge of the object or thing.  Something you feel something about, have a tiny reality on, and have communicated slightly to the vicinity of -- that thing would be something that you would understand only slightly, but you would know it existed.  There is an understanding that goes along with each step of the tone scale, up to total ARC, which is total understanding.  This leads up to being part of everything, which is the booby trap of nirvana.  The reverse of individuation is enforced association.  One can obsessively become something.

There is a cycle here.  Overts first lead to individuation, then goes on through the cycle to obsessive identification with the thing overted against.  PC’s associate themselves with their own oppterms, in varying degrees.  This phenomenon occurs throughout existence.  “What you resist you become,” is here more accurately stated as, “That against which you have overts, you become.” One becomes more and more individual and individuated up to a limit, at which point, the harder one tries to individuate, the more one becomes a sort of fake version of that against which one has overts.  This shows up in dynamic assessment and clearly shows up with the item.  This is how the person rockslams.

If an organization overts against another one, it becomes more and more individuated, until it becomes a lower-level beingness.  A thetan will run a whole cycle this way.  That is why you get the “dead thetan” at 2.0.  He is obsessively being what he was once part of.  

We must keep the above mechanism of individuation in mind and look at the organizational plan that says that one scientologist is a field auditor and another is a staff member.  This plan gives us a source of inadvertent withholds.  If we are planning anything broad in the way of organizations, we have to eliminate any incipient individuation, or we will get a fake scientology.  Scientology must be a single org in which the members freely participate.  [Yet] scientology orgs must never individuate from scientology. They must never be allowed unhandled overts, or scientology will crash like every other attempt to help Man.  The HCO 10% tends to further individuation, since it makes “HCO” different from the org.

Philosophers say that every organization’s ethic is strongest at its inception, but actually, there ia no reason why its ethic shouldn’t get much higher.  To accomplish this, you must set it up such that organizations are not made different from each other, in order to avoid the incipient inadvertent withhold which would lead to no true scientology being in existence.

[Here, LRH goes into describing at some length an ideal scene for lower level scientology organizations.]

6210C09 SHSpec-201 Instructor’s Bugbear

An auditor clears as fast as he is bright and as he delivers good quality auditing, and he clears as slowly as he flubs.  If all is not going well, look to what is wrong with the auditor, not the PC.  There is nothing wrong with PCs.  Some PCs require more cleverness on the part of the auditor than others.  Apparently, the individuality of life was all attained by goals. That doesn’t mean people are individuals because of goals.  It means that they are odd individuals because of goals.  A goal is a symptom of individuation. So each person acts differently in processing.  But there is no goal too difficult to be found.  If you can discover a goal, “never to be discovered”, why, you have a damned good technology.

Auditing quality is not “associated with sternness or...  immovability or ... with being able to repeat the auditing command or [the idea that] “the auditor must always be right”.  An instructor watching half a dozen auditors may think that he needs a half a dozen new rules to overcome these students’ peculiar difficulties.  Actually, all he needs is “a tremendous ability to detect variation from the standard rule.” This variation is sometimes so clever and well hidden that one never spots it. An auditor can leave the session on the forward track by leaving the PC at time point A and progressing to point G as fast as possible.  The auditor is actually leaving the session, by way of the future time track instead of the door.  The auditor is running the session process and the PC is still stuck in the first rud that the auditor couldn’t confront and therefore didn’t handle.  In an effort to avoid facing the confusion in a session, the auditor unwittingly refuses to set up a session.  He ignores and evades some part of the session that he has had trouble with.  Now the PC is trying to get into session, while the auditor tries to run [from] the session.  

The PCs who give you the most trouble are the ones who do the least. They don’t explode at you.  They don’t walk out.  They are just never in session and auditing never bites.  They make no forward progress.  The “good” PC is produced by an auditor who never gets the PC into session enough to ARC break them.  Everything is all sort of shallow, dusted off but not investigated, etc.  There was no communication and no understanding present. The auditor was trying to avoid ARC breaks, so there was no ARC at the outset and the whole session was an ARC break.

Standard auditing is the cycle of “asking the auditing question of that PC who is sitting in that chair, getting a response or answer from that PC, which is then understood by the auditor and is acknowledged by the auditor in such a way that the PC knows he ... did properly answer.” When this is interfered with, weirdnesses creep in.  It is a terribly simple cycle, and “terribly simple people -- such as myself -- don’t seem to have too much trouble with it.  More brilliant people figure their way through...  and arrive at some kind of a mutated answer to it that produces a no-auditing situation, and how they manage to do this is the subject of an instructor.” This is the instructor’s nightmare.  The instructor must observe the departure from the simple comm cycle and get the auditor to see what he is doing.  The instructor has to point out to students their errors “in such a way that they realize that they are not doing what they should be doing.”

Where do all these oddball considerations come from, apart from goals, which is a source that we already know about? Man can rise above his aberrations anyway.  He doesn’t have to dramatize his aberrations to the full.  It is not good enough to say that his goal and his item oppose his being a good auditor, even though he will perhaps never be fully expert until these are out of the way.  There is another element, however.  The auditor has a fixed idea left over from some group or philosophy or activity, about what is supposed to happen or what he is supposed to do to make something happen when he audits. For instance, he may have been part of a society which supposed that there was no reason why you couldn’t decide to be anything you wanted to be and immediately become it.  According to this view, all men were evil because they couldn’t do this. That’s rather a familiar one on the track.  This is a weird way of making nothing out of thetans.  An auditor with this kind of background operates on the basis that the PC is weak because he doesn’t just make up his mind to go clear and do it.
Another oddball consideration is, “Why should you ask anybody a question? They already know and they know you know ....” Wait a minute! Those are the people who think that everybody knows all about them, to whom every minute is a missed withhold.  This is the consideration, “Well, that is obvious to me, so it should be obvious to him.”

Then there is the consideration that the auditor has to control the session and that that means, “never let the PC originate” or “Never confess that you didn’t understand the answer” or “Never check anything the PC tells you is out (like a rud).”

So this auditor is doing a basic not-is of auditing the whole time he is auditing.  And it will be found that he has never examined his fixed idea. With this auditor, the instructor must:

1. Find the fixed idea.

2. Get the auditor to look at it.  

A person can get the impression of knowing from an impact, so if you have committed a fantastic number of overts against a thing, you conceive that you know something about it, but it’s an inverted knowingness. It’s the total cycle of individuation,” and the PC returns on the reverse curve of inversion, back to the center of impact. [See pp. 242-242a for a more detailed description of this cycle.] At this point he “knows” that he knows. But -- ask him, say a psychiatrist, what he knows, and he can’t tell you anything that he knows. If you kept it up, things would get very interesting, because you would “de-individuate him out of an obsessed interiorization into whatever he’s doing.” You would be reversing the cycle until he again knows he doesn’t know.

When you “try to teach [such an individual] something to know, ... that room has already been rented.  It has occupants.  You can’t, because he already knows,”at the level of impact and obsessive interiorization. So you have to reverse that cycle and convince him that there is something he doesn’t know. This is the guy who greets everything you tell him with, “Yes, I know.” So you say to him, “Everybody hates you,” and you will get, “Yes I know.... 0h. Now wait a minute! ... Well, I knew if I knocked long enough, somebody would open that door! Hello!!”

If you press such an auditor long and well enough as an instructor, he will eventually cognite either that he “knows or that he doesn’t know, and a new piece of certainty will be added to his auditing.” Don’t leave these fixed ideas uninspected by the auditor. Just ask him to inspect his own considerations about why he is doing, must do, or should do what he is doing wrong.  Take his cockeyed, memorized answers, acknowledge, and then give the question again.  Break down his machinery, and he will finally see some screwy alter-is that he has added into what he really should be doing. Ask him, “What puzzles you in a session?”, and you will get an item of alter-is and confusion.  It is usually something he has added which wasn’t taught.

“All additives occur in the absence of understanding or the presence of misunderstanding.” Idiocy equals all additives and no understanding. “Understanding is the reason for no additives....  Misunderstanding is the reason for ... additives.” Know this!

Misunderstandings get picked up on meters as disagreement, a no-comprehension of.  Education by disagreement is a fascinating approach. Hence, while word clearing on a meter, you don’t ask,  on spotting a read, “What didn’t you understand there?” You ask for the symptom of the lack of understanding: “What is the disagreement there?”

In life, with respect to knowledge, “disagreement occurs after the misunderstanding.” Get the auditor to spot his disagreements, and you will find his misunderstoods.  If you get him to give you “twelve things in that bulletin you agree with,” you will inevitably get the twelve things they disagree with.

“A person cannot do what he does not understand.” Increase a person’s understanding (ARC) of what he is doing, and he will do it better. An auditor is not evil. There is something he misunderstands or doesn’t understand about “the function of the auditor or the cycle of auditing action....  You can’t understand psychiatrists ... because you don’t realize that they haven’t any goals. [They] aren’t doing anything that you would think they should be doing.”  

A goofing auditor can get really wild in his computations.  You have to spot it and get him to spot it.  For instance, you could get a computation like this:

1. I’m trying to straighten out this PC’s mind.

2. Therefore I have to correct the things that they think.

3. The only way to correct anything is to change it.

4. So to change the PC, I have to correct him.

5. So I have to tell the PC something different every time he says something.  “If you do not understand what is going on in a session, you won’t be able to handle that session.  At the bottom of all error is misunderstanding.” You restore understanding of something by deleting the disagreement with it.  Then you can study it and do things with it, etc.

Tape: 6210C11 SHSBC 202
3GA GOALS FINDING
is not currently available

The Editor

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 OCTOBER 1962
Central Orgs 
Franchise
ROUTINE 3GA
LISTING

The reason some pcs go to clear on listing and the reason some don't at once lies entirely with the auditor.

The dominant rules are two:

1. 	Don't force the pc to list more items than he has, and
2. 	Don't prevent the pc from giving items.

The number of ways an auditor can dream up, or overlook, to violate 1 and 2 above are countless.

Example:

If pc can't answer the line easily skip, omit or change it, DON'T Tiger Drill it to force an answer.

LISTING IS NOT PREPCHECKING. You don't wait for the pc to say he has no more before you stop asking a line. THE AUDITOR REGULATES HIS QUESTION BY THE PC'S COMM LAG. When the pc first comm lags (without asking for a repeat of the Line wording) the auditor comes off the line. The auditor doesn't ask the line again just "to make sure" or ask the pc "do you have any more". Asking it again when the pc has comm lagged leaves, amongst other things, an unanswered auditing question.

The line is asked. The pc answers until he or she comm lags. The auditor then acks and goes instantly to next line. If the pc says he has more on the old line, the auditor says "sorry" and takes them.

A LINE IS RUN TO FIRST COMM LAG. How long is a comm lag? It is the pause before the strained grope.

A pc's decline in answering goes as follows:

1. 	Bright rapid giving.
2. 	Comm lag while looking.
3. 	Groping for more.
4. 	Comm lag while groping.
5. 	Can't quite say it.
6. 	Starts picking up and rejecting.

From 3 above onward the auditor is at fault. Right at the end of 2 the auditor acks and gives the pc the next line.

The auditor takes only the bright, easily gotten flows.

If the pc goes fumbling and groggy the auditor is at fault and is doing wrong.
Listing is a rapid action. The way to keep it rapid is to deftly see that the pc has given all and then get out of there!

Auditors whose pcs dope and grope will soon have pcs that mope.

The auditor avoids Q and A. The auditor never repeats an item back to the pc or asks if it fits on the line. The auditor's role is permissive with good presence.

If the auditor does not understand an item he or she says so but does not include any repeat of the item in saying so. That's evaluation.

Listing is slightly contrary to early auditing philosophy. Then, if the pc protested, the auditor forced the pc to answer. In listing this is never done.

Then, if the pc comm lagged, the auditor flattened it. In listing one never flattens a comm lag. One shifts the moment the first comm lag appears, but without startling the pc.

Listing auditing is different. The pc is always right. In listing if you trick a pc into more items and prevent the pc from giving those items he has readily to hand, the whole case may have to be patched up before it will clear.

It is so easy to list right as an auditor that many will fumble all over the place before they get the knack. And almost all errors will be additive errors.

Listing is the biggest barrier to clear now that we can find goals.

Other listing methods may appear, but these will only alter What lines. Nothing is going to alter the above, so you better learn it.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 17 OCTOBER 1962

Central Orgs
Franchise

AUDITOR FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND

If a pc says something and the auditor fails to understand what the pc said or meant, the correct response is:

"I did not (hear you) (understand what was said) (get that last)."

To do anything else is not only bad form, it can amount to a heavy ARC break.

INVALIDATION

To say, "You did not speak loud enough_____" or any other use of "you" is an invalidation.

The pc is also thrown out of session by having responsibility hung on him or her.

The Auditor is responsible for the session. Therefore the auditor has to assume responsibility for all comm breakdowns in it.

EVALUATION

Far more serious than invalidation above, is the accidental evaluation which may occur when the auditor repeats what the pc said.

NEVER repeat anything a pc says after him, no matter why.

Repeating not only does not show the pc you heard but makes him feel you're a circuit.

The highest advance of 19th Century Psychology was a machine to drive people crazy. All it did was repeat after the person everything the person said.

Children also do this to annoy.

But that isn't the main reason you do not repeat what the pc said after the pc. If you say it wrong the pc is thrown into heavy protest. The pc must correct the wrongness and hangs up right there. It may take an hour to dig the pc out of it.

Further, don't gesture to find out. To say, pointing, "You mean this item, then," is not only an evaluation but a nearly hypnotic command, and the pc feels he must reject very strongly.

Don't tell the pc what the pc said and don't gesture to find what the pc meant.

Just get the pc to say it again or get the pc to point it out again. That's the correct action.

DRIVING IN ANCHOR POINTS
Also, do not shove things at a pc or throw things to a pc. Don't gesture toward a pc. It drives in anchor points and makes the pc reject the auditor.

ROCK SLAMMER

The reason a person who Rock Slams on Scientology or auditors or the like can't audit well is that they are wary of a pc and feel they must repeat after the pc, correct the pc or gesture toward the pc.

But Rock Slammer or not, any new auditor may fall into these bad habits and they should be broken fast.

SUMMARY

A very high percentage of ARC breaks occur because of a failure to understand the pc.

Don't prove you didn't with gestures or erroneous repeats.

Just audit, please.

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

Tape: 6210C11 SHSBC 203X
3GAXX FOLLOWING THE ROCK SLAM
is not currently available

The Editor

Tape: 6210C25 SHSBC 208
3GAXX
is not currently available

The Editor

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 OCTOBER 1962

Central Orgs 
Franchise Airmail

PRE-CLEARING INTENSIVE
(Most appropriate to Z Unit Sthil or HGCs)

On cases that have been run on many clearing procedures or goals or types of lines or who have had frequent changes of auditors, to speed eventual clearing, the following can be done:

1. 	Assess the Pre-Clearing Scale (below) by elimination.

2. 	Choose a period one month before the first session the person ever had in Dianetics and Scientology. Use only the month and year.

3. 	Run the seventeen buttons by Prepcheck on the Command "Since______(date) in (or on)______(subject from Scale below) is there anything (or has anything been, as appropriate)______(button)?"

4. 	Clean once through the buttons only and assess again.

5. 	Keep the Mid Ruds in.

ASSESSMENT FOR CLEARING INTENSIVE

        	Auditing	Processing
        	Self-Auditing	Working
        	Clearing	Preclears
        	Dissemination	Auditors
        	Practising	Talking
        	Teaching	Goals
        	Learning	Hopes
        	Living	Helping
        	Intention	Finance
        	Sessions	Problems
        	Courses	Sex
        	Training	Dianetics
        	Processes	Scientology
	           	Organizations

LRH:dr.bh
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard	                  				L. RON HUBBARD
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Tape: 6210C30 SHSBC 205
LISTING GOALS
is not currently available

The Editor

6211C01 SHSpec-206 The Missed Missed Withhold

[LRH enumerates the many bulletins that have come out on missed withholds, starting in February, 1962.  In spite of all this, the subject has not been duplicated by students.  People keep picking up withholds, instead of missed withholds.]

All ARC breaks stem from missed withholds.  “I don’t know exactly how to get this across to you except to be brave, squint up your eyes, and plunge.” Get the missed withhold.

A missed withhold is a withhold that people nearly found out about but didn’t.  You want to find out what people almost found out. A withhold is something a PC did and isn’t talking about.  It is not missed unless someone nearly found out about it.  The missed withhold has nothing to do with what the PC did or is doing.  It’s not the PC’s action.  It is the other person’s action and the PC’s wonder about it. It often shows up as a recurring withhold, one which the PC keeps giving you.  The charge keeps coming up because of the restimulation, as yet unlocated, of someone possibly finding out.  “A missed withhold has nothing to do with the PC.  it is another person’s action and the PC’s wonder about it....  Forget that it is even a withhold....  You are looking for exact moments in the ... lifetime of this PC when somebody almost found out and he’s never been sure since whether they did or they didn’t.  We don’t care what they almost found out.  We only care that they almost found out something.  That is the address to a missed withhold. It’s an other-person-than-the-PC’s action.  It’s an other person’s action.” The PC is stuck in the unknownness of the uncertainty as to whether someone else knew.  This blows when the PC spots it. A missed withhold is an overt and a withhold plus a mystery.  The magnitude of the overt has nothing to do with its evaporation.  The degree of mystery is what holds it in place.  If you want to know what is sticking a thetan to something, look for the mystery sandwich.  Even overts themselves wind up in the mystery of whether you should have done it.  This causes withholding of further action.  All things boil down to right conduct.

So when you ask the PC for missed withholds, be alert for whether the PC is giving you withholds or missed withholds.  The number of withholds a person has on the whole track is undoubtedly staggering. You don’t need to get them all to clear somebody.  The whole anatomy of a game is O/W.  You gather energies by the mechanism of O/W which result in solid-mass terminals, making a game possible, etc.  In spite of all that, you don’t have time enough to run nut all the PC’s overts, even for one lifetime.  General O/W does have its uses.  It is useful for getting the PC into session and smoothing things out, but it is generally too lengthy.  So to see a case go, “Sproing!”, Ask the PC for “nearly-found-outs”.  “When I tell you to pick up a PC’s missed withhold, I want you to pick up another persons action, not the PC’s.  And it is best characterized as ‘nearly found out’....  You are running the almost-discovered track.”  

“You’ll never see anybody quite so upset as somebody who has been just barely missed.  Look at a pedestrian who was not hit,” or a bear that is biting at a bullet [that just missed him], or an exam that you failed by one or two points.  “It’s the nearness of the miss” that counts.  It is a mis-estimation of effort or thought.  A thetan’s main attention is on estimation of thought, effort, and look.  He wants to know how much look is a look.  His certainties are all based on proper estimation of thought, effort, look, etc.  When an error is made here, it is upsetting.  How much knowledge is knowingness?  That is an estimation.  How much emotion does it take to be emotional?  Enough to create the desired effect.  What is a proper symbol? Etc.  You can estimate everything except how much mystery constitutes a mystery, because that is a mystery!  You are now into the no-estimation band, and it is all mysterious.  The not-knowingness of it is upsetting. Not-knowingness that is probably known is especially painful, because of the multiple not-know flows involved.  Take a not-knowingness and play with it both ways:  They knew, but they didn’t or couldn’t have known.  You know they knew, but you know they didn’t know.  The four-way flows of a missed withhold are painful to a thetan.  This is the stuff of which insanity is made. Insanity in the effort band of the know to mystery scale is “can’t reach/must reach”.  Insanity in the mystery band is a “did/didn’t; must/mustn’t know”. That is what a missed withhold is and what it is doing to the PC.  “It’s just pure mystery mucilage, ... and the thetan will stick right to it.”

Getting just the overt and withhold off, when there is an added mystery of a missed withhold, doesn’t produce an as-isness of the section of track where the PC is stuck, because “the PC is not stuck with the overt [or] the withhold.  The PC is stuck with the ‘almost found out’, so of course nothing as-ises [if you only get the O/W’s] and you get a recurring withhold.” You could get remarkable results running, “Get the idea of people nearly finding out about you.” You could run this on three flows.  This process would free up track that the PC had never seen before, but which had been right in front of his nose.

So when pulling missed withholds, it is not what the PC did which is of interest.  When pulling withholds, “get the name, rank and serial number of the person who missed it.  [I] couldn’t care less what was missed.  I don’t want the PC’s action.  I want the PC’s guess about the other guy.” Get who the PC thinks might know, etc., etc.  If you have gotten off his overts on something and he still feels a bit weird about it, you are apt to think that he must have more overts, so you keep after him for more.  This will send him around the bend, since you are essentially cleaning a clean.  You have to find:

1. Who nearly discovered the overt.

2. When.

3. How often.  This is what is needed to complete the cycle that was started when the overt was almost discovered.  Just as far as time is concerned, it is a mystery sandwich.  The thetan is wondering whether a certain punitive track is going to happen.  It doesn’t, so that time doesn’t exist.  The result in the creation of mocked-up track that never actually appears on the track and therefore hangs up in time. Not dropping the other shoe is like producing a missed withhold.  

So you don’t ask, “What have we failed to find out about you?” ask, “What have we nearly found out about you and when did we nearly find it out?” The first gets withholds; the second gets missed withholds.  The worst type of missed withhold is where the PC is asking himself, “Which one of my crimes did he (maybe) discover?”  

6211C01 SHSpec-207 The Road to Truth

It is very difficult to go around remembering all the time.  You get stuck!

Pontius Pilate asked, “What is truth?” Truth is a very near ultimate in its most severe interpretation.  Lots of people have stated what truth is without realizing that they are putting an absolute where there is actually a maybe.  Truth is a relative commodity.  The best approach to truth is contained in the mathematics used in connecting telephone switchboards.  They don’t select out subscribers with arithmetical truth.  Arithmetic is a theoretical truth.  It is only theoretical because there is no commodity connected with it.  It is a truth of symbols.  Errors only turn up when people say the symbols mean something in reality.  “Two apples minus two apples equals no apples,” is a magician’s trick.  A no-apple is a relative thing. There is still something of an apple.  You can say, “Well, there are no apples on the table after you take two apples off.” That is true, as long as you accept time as a truth, which is adventurous!  The statement is only true for one particular time and place, yet it passes as a truth.  It is a truth, but a relative one. No thetan since apples came into existence has utterly as-ised an apple.  So “Two apples minus two apples equals no apples,” is only relative, unless it presupposes some kind of magic.  We have become used to accepting such things as true.  The abstract 2-2=0 is true, but it is true only because we have set it up that way.

The person who adventures out on the road to truth adventures with great desperateness.  It is an adventurous step.  A philosopher who seeks to discover and teach truth is taking his life in his hands, as well as the lives of many others.  Therein lies his responsibility.  It is adventurous because it is the only track you have to go the whole way on.  There is no short stop on the way to truth.  You have to walk to the end of the road.  Otherwise, all manner of difficulties and upsets will beset you.  There is no such thing as a relative philosophical truth that is safe, if it doesn’t approach the actual composition of the subject matter it addresses.  If you address the subject of the physical universe through the physical sciences, you will find weird things in your path.  The savants of these sciences use the phrase, “exact science” with great impudence, considering the complete difference between what is given as truth in two different fields, like chemistry and physics. There is an article in The Encyclopedia Britannica at the turn of the century that wisely said that people wouldn’t find out much about time and space until they studied in the field of the mind and got the conceptual basis that preceded time and space.  Physics has gotten the world in trouble by building weapons that can be used by men who aren’t sane.  

There are workable truths.  which gives the “exact sciences” a bloated notion of themselves, because they deal in workable truths.  In the field of the study of Man, people try to use, as a workable truth, the notion that no one can do anything about Man because he is merely an animal.  This idea started as a revolt against religion’s control of men’s faith.  Psychology is a study that is peculiarly religious and was so until 1879, when Wundt theorized that Man has no soul.  Up to that point, psychology had been a religious study, looking at the will, reason, etc.  Somebody moved in on it in the spirit of revolt.  Just as the advances of the “exact sciences” have, here and there down the track, blown up religion, so the “exact sciences” have now entrenched themselves in a total falsehood concerning the mind.  At the same time, they have developed an unworkable psychology to back up the “exact science” of blowing up the planet.  That gives you some of the liabilities of embarking on the road to truth and not going towards truth.

Gautama Siddhartha discovered how to exteriorize without discovering the laws governing it or how to let someone else exteriorize at will.  How many hundred million people did he condemn to slavery by not walking all the way down that road?  Because half-truths have been used and misused ever since. Knowing this, it takes a brave man to go in that direction.  He knows that the traps and upsets of existence are composed of half-truths and that all efforts to enlighten can be employed to enslave and entrap, by the fact of two-way flow.  Aesop’s Fables originally had no morals.  They were just amusing stories.

This is pertinent to what you are doing, because in the microcosm of a single person, you have the macrocosm of the universe.  The universe proceeds from basic postulates.  You can go on from these basic postulates to spot the goals of gold and lead and the methods of livelihood of quartz and schist. They aren’t alive, but they follow a behavior pattern.  All flies wash their faces in the same way.  It is wonderful, the way some postulates stick!  Moss or Man, you are looking at the same cumulative structure, based on some intentions and dedications.  You could reanalyze the world of chemistry or physics on the basis of postulates and intentions.  One of the booby traps of studying science is the sort of statement typified by, “Nobody knows what electricity is.” This is in fact just a remark, not even a postulate!  But everyone takes it as a truth, so they go into agreement with it and therefore are debarred from discovering more truth.  People have been telling other people for a long time that they can’t find out about truth.  The idea of the unknowable has some use, but only to let people see that you don’t have to know all about something before you start to find out about it.  Emmanuel Kant used the concept of the unknowable differently.  He said that the unknowable would never be known by anybody.  Well, how did he find out about it?  Even by philosophic examination, it is preposterous.  If you can’t experience it at all, how can you know it exists to be not-known?

There are some roads that are agreed to be closed.  For instance, there is an idea that it is bad to know about the human mind.  [“Some things it is better not to know....”] If you are alive, you know something about the human mind.  What is really dangerous is to find out nothing more about it.  In the last few days, the cobalt-60 was close to spreading across the steppes of Russia and [the plains of] the U.S. Because of what? Because it is so dangerous to begin to know anything about the human mind.  People recognize that it is dangerous, to some degree, but they recognize what is really dangerous.  If you know of the existence of something, it is dangerous not to know all about it.  People concede that they don’t know anything at all about it.  That is an idiotic premise.  In the field of the mind, they are already aware of the existence of figure, think, calculate in other beings, so they are already started on the road to knowledge of the human mind.  It is very dangerous to go no further. So the search for truth isn’t the province of a few.  Everyone has started to know something about it.  But not to know more about it than they do will cause them to die.  That doesn’t even seem startling, it is so accepted.

If a group decides to go all the way on the road to truth, the more they know, the less dangerous it is.  What is really dangerous is to suppose that people think, and to know nothing more about it than that.  It is also very dangerous to be spotted as one who is walking towards truth, unless you go the whole way.  It is booby trapped.  Everyone is very suspicious of anything being known, because people who have jumped up and said something was known have often lied.  If they pretended to know more then others, they have committed overts.  If they found some partial truth and never got any further, but instead spread bric-a-brac in all directions as The True Wisdom, they have committed the overt of consigning perhaps billions of people to slavery.  So there is no substitute for walking the track.  LRH has never doubted that he would bring off this study, though he has often wondered whether or not the time factor would upset things.  We needed a few clear years.

If you have a reputation for knowing, you enter into a mechanism called the missed withhold.  If you seem to have the gift of knowing about the mind, people think you know the truth, and to them, the only truth that exists is themselves: a first dynamic truth.  This includes their own aberrations, their ideas about rightness of conduct, etc.  So you run into missed withholds.  A scientist wants to get away from right and wrong because he is blind to the possibility that there could be an exact right conduct.  The idea of right conduct has been a particular concern of eastern philosophers.  It has been ignored in the west.  All considerations of behavior and the O/W mechanism are primarily based on ideas of right and wrong conduct.  In back of the O/W mechanism is the idea that right conduct can exist.  This is the saving grace of any race of beings.  Survival is the monitoring factor of rightness of conduct.  The behaviorist would try to tell you that right conduct is a first dynamic matter, that it is not survival, but self-preservation.  This misses the boat.  A person commits overts, not because of self-preservation, but because of survival.  That is his rightness of conduct.  The difference is that, in fact, one acts out of more than one dynamic.  Right conduct is always a group activity, not an individual one.  No matter how much a person speaks of integrity to himself, his ideas of his own rightness are based on the concepts of the group to which he belongs.  So we get third dynamic aberration of right conduct as underlying all O/W and missed withholds.  The only thing senior to O/W is the pure mechanics of existence, as given in the early Axioms.  Those early Axioms are very close to absolute truth.  [A thought: Absolutes are unattainable because the only absolute is a static and that is nothing, hence it is unattainable, because it cannot be had.]  

The aberrations a person engages in are his efforts to discover right conduct, with the handicap that mores change from group to group and lifetime to lifetime.  So there is no road to truth on the subject of right conduct. If you realize that a thetan’s aberrated condition results from:

1. A search for right conduct;

2. An effort to adhere to codes of right conduct;

3. The breaking of codes of right conduct,  then you are walking the road to truth.  Moral statements are the entrance of arbitraries into conduct, not truths.  This fact is unknown to legislators, who always try to say that their laws are true.  But in making the laws, they no longer even consult the customs of the people, but instead try to reverse the social order.  However, laws which don’t evolve from the customs of the people:

1. Operate as a total tyranny.

2. Are totally unenforceable.  Prohibition was a good example of this fact.

This concerns you, because you are in the business of determining truth from right conduct or “now-I’m-supposed-to’s”.  People think that right conduct is truth; they think they have some data, when they don’t. Your period of peril is past.  There was a time when -- taking you as a unit of truth -- there was a question whether or not your state of understanding of yourself [could be] materially improved by study and processing.  However, it is now clear that if anyone will sit still and if the auditor does the right processing, this will occur.  We started out with everyone stupid as Hell on the subject, including LRH, originally.  Now we have gotten to the point where someone can know all about where he has been, what he has done, and where the Axioms look to him like clearly-stated obvious things.

We are essentially in the business of individuals.  Don’t forget that. No matter what you are trying to do or handle, whether it is a world government, or whatever it is, you will never, in your whole history, handle more than sn individual.  If you fail to handle an individual, then you will have to set up all sorts of groups and laws to do it.  The raison d’etre of most earth organizations is the fact that they could not handle an individual.  This brought about their construction, not their demise.  This isn’t true of all third dynamics, only the aberrated ones here on earth.  This is actually an inverted third dynamic.  They couldn’t handle the first dynamic, so they developed an organization not to have to do it.  Despite that scientology is the one activity on this planet that doesn’t follow this rule, there still tends to be an organization that gets pulled in and grows up around LRH.  At times this organization fails to deliver service, due to shortage of time or material or personnel.  But on the whole, we are handling the individual.  Russia shoots individuals and loves the masses.  This is aberrated.

You can handle the individual if everything you do is individually tailored to serve his needs, so he is not overlooked.  Whenever you fail to handle an individual, you set up an upset.  So you will set up an organization, laws, and all sorts of O/W to do it.  We are probably the only organization today going in the direction of a clear third dynamic.  We use O/W only to park an individual until we can handle him.  

“There is no truth in the mass of things [and] no truth in moral codes. Truth isn’t to be found there, only agreements.” There is no truth apart from the individual.  If there is any truth, you are it.  If there is any truth to be known, you will know it.  When someone almost caves in because you have confronted him and made him wonder what you do know, i.e. when you have missed a withhold on him, your only mistake is not to reach him as truth.  You are at that moment confronting the road to truth, and you have got to travel it, because you have already started to.  There will be many a PC that you will start to process, many a person that you will tell about scientology, of whom you will say, “Why did I get up this morning?!!”  If someone says, “I heard that Ron doesn’t believe in God,” the wrong thing to do is to unload, jump off the road.  You handle it.  All your disasters anyplace will stem from the instant you backed off, turned around, did something else, and set up an organization to handle this jerk.  You will only fail when you don’t try, because if you make some stab at it, he won’t go away.  You will be surprised to find that you will pick him up somewhere down the track.  Many times you will think you have failed when you haven’t.  The only mistake is to try to go backwards on the road to truth.  That is dangerous.  If you fail to stand up to someone who is mad at you because of his missed withholds or to the guy in the PE course who says, “It can’t be true because Ron doesn’t believe in God,” that is when you fail: catastrophes occur; people get mad at you.  You cave in.  But that can be changed or handled.  If you fail to handle an individual, you end up setting up an org to handle masses, but not individuals. Individuals only stand up [and yap] in order to be handled.

There is truth to be found, and there is a road to truth.  You have that in you, and every time you look at a human being, you see it in him.  Rut you don’t find truth in the mass of things and in moral codes.  Since you understand what [human nature] is about, the more you know and understand it, the less these factors [like having to handle a banky individual] will trouble you.  But every little fellow has started on the road to truth.  His only stupidity is not to keep going. We are almost there.  The main road and the thorns are behind us.  We only retreat from our position to the degree that we don’t realize that you can’t start a case, you can’t embark on clearing a planet or an individual and do it diffidently, without to some degree seeing it through to a final conclusion.  Your only disasters will stem from failure to follow that road all the way through.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 NOVEMBER AD12
CenOCon
Franchise

WRONG GOALS,
IMPORTANCE OF REPAIR OF

(Use of this HCO Bulletin. Get it hat checked on all auditors whether classed or not. If an auditor is found to have found a wrong goal, make him or her pass this HCO Bulletin again.)

If a wrong goal has been found on a pc and has been ''confirmed'' as correct but later refuted, that goal must be Big Tiger Drilled out of existence, all pain and sensation and meter reaction off, at once.

If a wrong goal has been found on a pc, checked out as correct and listed, that wrong goal must be Prepchecked out of existence, and all pain, sensation and reaction on the meter removed and immediately.

These are first, primary, important and mandatory actions. They must be done at once on the discovery of the wrongness of a goal.

No other action may be done until the above is done. And the above must be done right now, not "next month when we have an auditor available". And poetically it should be done by the person who "found" the goal if immediately available, and should be done in addition to that person's regular auditing. Even finding the right goal does not straighten out the "found" wrong ones.

If more than one wrong goal has been found and listed or not, the wrong goals must be eradicated chronologically, the first wrong goal found is the first one to be done. The above rules apply as to whether the goal was listed or not (in other words, what is to be done with each wrong goal is governed by the first two paragraphs of this HCO Bulletin).

Now these rules are not because of policy. They are technical. And the technical is extreme in its validity and so this HCO Bulletin becomes policy because it has such heavy technical validity.

Finding and running wrong goals is very destructive and very dangerous to a pc's life and health.

The most effective treatment a pc who has had a wrong goal found or run can have is the eradication of the goal by Big Tiger or Prepcheck. The pc will get a gain beyond mere repair.

In the presence of a wrong goal found or found and run, no other processes will work. i.e., a Problems Intensive or General O/W or Missed W/Hs. The presence of a wrong goal found or found and run will develop a PTP that stops all further progress. An auditor will just make no headway on a case that has had a wrong goal found or found and run until one or the other of the first two paragraphs of this HCO Bulletin has been done properly.

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

SYMPTOMS OF A RIGHT GOAL LISTED WRONGLY

1. 	TA getting High and Sticky (4.5 or 5) and nothing brings it down, or TA staying below 2 and nothing brings it up.
2. 	Pc looking bad, old, grey, weight increasing.

3. 	Pc acting blowy.

4. 	More sen than pain on pc.

SYMPTOMS OF A WRONG OR IMPROPERLY CLEANED GOAL UNLISTED

1. 	Doesn't rocket read and no Prepcheck can make it rocket read even once out of three times.

2. 	Checking it gives pc sen only, and no pain during check-out.

3 . 	Pc blowy.

4. 	Pc says or feels goal is overwhelming.

5. 	Pc can't wrap his or her wits around goal.

6. 	It's not something pc really wanted in this life.

7. 	Pc has had no pain while auditor was cleaning goal up by Prepcheck.

8. 	Pc tries to fit goal into life.

9. 	Pc has had no cognitions on goal.

10. 	Pc looks worse than usual.

11. 	Pc very upset during check-out or in total apathy. (Pc's often nervous on a right goal during check-out, but with a wrong one pc is a wreck and very ARC breaky or totally uncaring.)

12. 	Pc very doubtful as to whether it is or isn't the goal.

13. 	Pc rock slamming during check-out.

14. 	Pc has no reality on goal.

15. 	Pc has to get into a certain position or spot on the time track to make goal read.

16. 	Pc very worried about being checked—a lot of anxiety. This sign also accompanies a goal which is very charged because of poor prepchecking. When it's the right goal pc is usually calm.

(The above 16 are taken from HCO Tech Letter of October 22, 1962.)

SYMPTOMS OF A WRONG GOAL LISTED

1. 	TA mostly at 4.5 or 5 (or could be below 2).

2. 	Pc ARC breaky.

3. 	Pc blowy.

4. 	Pc looks very bad, older, greyer, skin tone poor.
5. 	Pc's eyes watery.

6. 	Only sensation predominant on list.

7. 	Pc dizzy.

8. 	Pc nauseated, or vomiting.

9. 	Bank getting more solid.

10. 	Pc gaining weight.

11. 	Rudiments can't be kept in.

12. 	Missed W/Hs even when pulled, fail to get pc cheerfully into session.

SYMPTOMS OF A RIGHT GOAL UNLISTED

1. 	Goal rocket reads 2 out of three on Instructor's check.

2. 	Goal rocket reads 2 out of three on check after a Prepcheck on it.

3. 	Goal won't go out entirely and if it does it bobs back up.

4. 	Pc relaxed during check-out, co-operative but not selling the goal particularly.

5. 	Pc gets cognitions on the goal.

6. 	Tiger Drilling, Prepchecking or checking gives pc pain.

7. 	If sen is on, a clean-up wipes it off and turns it to pain.

8. 	Pain never wholly vanishes. Handling goal doesn't wipe out all its pain for very long. Pain always returns even when briefly departed.

9. 	Goal goes out and in, sometimes does, sometimes doesn't read.
	
10. 	Right goal reads are different. Wrong goal reads are very constant and rarely rocket after maybe once or twice when found.

11. 	A rocket read can always be recovered on a right goal even when it has vanished, right up to the time it vanishes and the pc goes clear. The rocket read gets shorter, gets early or late, but it doesn't vanish entirely until the goal is blown.

12. 	Pc looked better after goal was found.

13. 	Rudiments easier to keep in.

14. 	Pc co-operative.
-------------

It is hard for an auditor to get a reality on a goal until he or she has found a goal.

For experience the auditor tends to hope his or her way through and trust that "even if it doesn't read, the pc will be disappointed" or the auditor feels he or she would look bad. To our shame, auditors have faked a goal to a pc or instructor. Also, an auditor who is green tends to throw the burden on the checker and do a job that's "good enough for a check". Only the right goal, reading properly, is "good enough for a check".

An auditor who finds a goal and doesn't get it to read properly before a check, or who finds a goal and doesn't get it checked by another auditor who is expert, is irresponsible. And an auditor who will not immediately sweat to clean up a wrong goal or work overtime and on his own time too to clean up a wrong goal that's been listed is just not worthy of the name.

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

Wrong goals are dynamite.

Prevent them by being properly trained and by doing a good job.

With goals processing in our hands we can deliver results greater than any ever achieved before anywhere. Thus, such a powerful weapon must also be respected and used right.

LRH:gl.jh							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 NOVEMBER AD12
Issue II
CenOCon
Franchise Airmail
ROUTINE 3-21
THE TWENTY-ONE STEPS
FINDING GOALS

I have been doing considerable research auditing and case inspection and have worked out the following method of clearing.

THE TWENTY-ONE STEPS

The first reliable clearing method, 3GA, is to be found, improved, in 3-21, carrying the pc who can be handled this way, all the way to OT goal by goal. For the difficult pc it is only varied in Step 4 below, which is changed on difficult pcs to 3GA XX or variations of it.

Clearing has been improved by the advent of Tiger Drilling and Goals Prepchecking and by new data on finding goals and on listing. The greatest hold-up in clearing was lack of an adequate Prehav Level finding system. I have now developed this in HCO Bulletin 7 November, Issue III. This will be of enormous help both in finding Rock Slams to find goals and running out goals when found.

There is, however, no substitute for a well trained, accurate auditor out to help the pc. This is a fully understood requisite to this method.

The method is briefly as follows:

1. 	Tiger Drill or Prepcheck out of the way any earlier found goals in accordance with HCO Bulletin 7 November AD12, Issue I.

2. 	Prepare the pc with a Problems Intensive, new style.

3. 	Have pc do a goals list 850 long.

4. 	Tiger Drill goals from goal 1 on forward. (Do not preselect goals to be TDd ever on any list just do the list.) Stop at that goal which won't go out by TD, and which can be made to Rocket Read occasionally. (Only this step (4) is changed on a tougher pc when it includes different goal finding methods.)

5. 	Prepcheck that goal until it Rocket Reads with consistency.

6. 	Take the basic four lines

	1. 	WHO OR WHAT WOULD WANT______________________

	2. 	WHO OR WHAT WOULD NOT WANT _________________

	3. 	WHO OR WHAT WOULD OPPOSE_________________ING

	4. 	WHO OR WHAT WOULD NOT OPPOSE ____________ING

and list and nul each one to an Item.

Do a list of around 100.

Do a routine assessment on each. If more than one stay in, take the one that reads best as the Item. (If the pc's early lists, on a pc whose goal has been found for some time, are missing or unavailable do this step just as above. Otherwise use old written lists as in footnote below.)

7. 	Repeat 6 above.

8. 	When pc's tone arm ceases to be active (with all rudiments in and goal firing on 6 and 7) do a Roll Your Own Prehav Assessment (see next HCO Bulletin) on the goal.

9. 	Use the lines

1. 	WHO OR WHAT WOULD (GOAL) (LEVEL)?
2. 	WHO OR WHAT WOULD (GOAL) NOT (LEVEL)?
3. 	WHO OR WHAT WOULD (LEVEL) (GOAL)?
4. 	WHO OR WHAT WOULD NOT (LEVEL) (GOAL)?

and do a written list for each and assess as in 6 above. The lines must make sense to the auditor as well as the pc and be answerable without distorting goal. If the PH Secondary Level is changed in prefix or suffix or tense make sure it reads as well as the original.

10. 	When TA ceases to move on 9 do a new Roll Your Own Prehav and repeat 9.

11. 	Continue as in 9 and 10 until pc is having no trouble whatever in spotting and blowing items.

12. 	When last PH Level has taken all motion out of TA by 9, 10, and 11 is evident, get a new Roll Your Own Prehav and proceed using the lines of 9 but no longer writing down items, using the pages of composition book and four slant marks with a fifth crossing them out as a tally.

13. 	When neither old nor new Prehav Levels can any longer be made to react on the goal and the needle is free, Prepcheck the auditing on the goal.

14. 	When the auditing is clean, Prepcheck the goal.

15. 	Test all previous Prehav Levels for the goal and have somebody qualified inspect and attest the absence of goal read and the freeness of the needle. This is a first goal clear.

16. 	Repeat all above steps for the second goal.

17. 	Repeat steps 1 to 15 for the third goal as feasible.

18. 	Repeat steps 1 to 15 for the fourth goal as feasible.

19. 	Repeat steps 1 to 15 for the fifth goal as feasible.

20. 	Repeat steps 1 to 15 for the sixth goal as feasible.

21. 	Find consecutive goals as feasible and run them out.

Tips: The cardinal rule of listing is to never demand more than the pc has and never prevent the pc from giving items he or she does have.

Keep the pc in session, but don't use the Mid Ruds to punish the pc every time the pc originates.

If the pc gets very ARC Breaky and missed W/Hs don't cure it, then in Step 4 you have passed the pc's goal in the last page or two, so get Suppress and Protest clean and redo them.

In Tiger Drilling the goal is always ahead of you, never behind you. You leave nothing behind you on the goals list.

Keep a careful record of the PH Primary and Secondary Levels run or used in any way.

Treat a pc's goals and Items lists like jewelry. Don't lose them.

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

Above, we have a highly standard clearing procedure, the best of everything that has worked. Only the four lines in 6 and 9 are subject to change.

On the easy case this is the best rundown for finding goals and clearing.

More difficult cases are characterized by two things—(a) pc's needle is occasionally very dirty, or (b) goals go out hard on Tiger Drilling. These are the only two guiding points which dictate a change. Even so only Step 4 above is changed (finding the goal).

Even if some other method than Step 4 is used to attain the goal, the rest of the above is still followed. I surmise that on less easy pcs only the first goal will require other goal finding than Step 4 and that the above holds good for all second goals onward for all pcs. This however is only a surmise and other means than Step 4 may be needed on some second goals.

Therefore, today, we have no variation from the above except in actually finding the goal. Further about 50% (at a guess) of one's pcs require no variation from the above to find or run a goal.

As more data becomes available some of the above can be expected to be modified in the interests of speed and positive results. But the Twenty-One Steps are based on vast quantities of experience and data.

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

Note: Where a pc has had his goal found some time ago and written lists exist for the first four lines, recover these lists and take them in consecutive sections of 100 and nul them by usual means to an Item.

Then, again in rotation, take the next 100 and nul each to an Item. The lists however must be from the correct wording of the goal, not an earlier variation as they then would not apply. In the latter case do only the steps as above.

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

ROCK SLAMMING ITEMS

Note: Items in the Twenty-One Steps which Rock Slam when found in listing the goal may have to be opposed or otherwise handled to discharge them. (See forthcoming HCO Bulletins on 3GA XX.)

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 7 NOVEMBER AD12
Issue III
CenOCon
Franchise Airmail
"ROLL YOUR OWN" PREHAV
(Cancels all earlier HCO Bulletins on how
to do a Prehav Assessment)

Roll Your Own Prehav Assessment has been developed:

(a) 	To avoid lengthy Prehav Assessments,

(b) 	To get much more accurate levels for the pc for use in both finding and listing out goals, and

(c) 	To enter the Rock Slam channel easily.

The assessment is done on any available or special Prehav Scale for the purpose of the assessment. (For instance the 1st 65 levels of the Auxiliary Prehave Scale.)

The assessment follows the exact steps below:

HOW TO DO ONE

It is very easy to do a Prehav Assessment. It is not so easy to do a completely accurate one.

When clearing is going hard, the most likely source of error is the Prehav Assessment. It is ridiculously easy for an auditor to make a bad one. The Preclears attention hangs up on a button he tells himself isn't it and the invalidation makes it stay in and voila you have a wrong assessment.

Like goals, a Prehav Assessment must be kept clean of Tiger Drill buttons.

You get a wrong assessment if the pc has invalidated or protested a button. Or if he or she has suppressed the right one.  Also if too many levels are staying in or too many are going out, the Mid Ruds are out.

A Prehav Assessment requires careful auditing. Only experience can give an auditor the full data.

TERMS

Prehav Scale = Any scale giving degrees of doingness or not doingness.
Level = Any doingness or not doingness on the scale. Any word in the scale itself.
Assessment = Any method of discovering a level on the scale for a given pc.

Read = Any reaction of the needle different from its regular action for the pc, occurring during or slightly after a level has been called.
Mid Ruds = The middle rudiments of the current model session.

Tiger Drill = That series of buttons which are capable of preventing a right goal or level from reading or making a wrong level read, combined in an appropriate exercise.
THE MOST ACCURATE ASSESSMENT

Realize that the most accurate assessment of a Prehav Scale would be by the Tiger Drilling of each level in turn.

By average, on a rough pc, this would require about one minute per level. This would be three hours for a 180 level scale.

Unless scales are shorter, assessment by elimination would normally be faster, if done with due care.

But Tiger Drilling a scale to find a level cannot be ruled out as a means of finding the real level with superb accuracy.

DOING THE ASSESSMENT

One puts the pc in session, gets the Mid Ruds in, takes a Prehav Scale and calls out each level once, noting its reaction on the meter.

If the auditor was not sure or didn't see it, the level is called a second or a third time.

If too many levels go out consecutively, there is a suppress. If too many levels are staying in, there is another Mid Rud out.

One marks only those that read. Those that do not read are not marked.

A pc has his own Prehav Scale mimeo copy in his folder. This is used over and over.

The pc's name and date of the first assessment is written at the top of the mimeo sheet.

A new symbol is used for each consecutive assessment and the level found on the mimeo sheet and that symbol is marked at the top at the end of the assessment.

The list is covered once. Those that read are marked in.

The Mid Ruds for the session are put in at the end of the first nulling.

The list is covered again but only those that stayed in the first time are now read. If they read again they are again marked in, using the same symbol.

The list is covered a third time but only those that stayed in the second time are read and marked in, using the same symbol.

When the list has not more than eight (on a rough pc) and not less than three levels left in, the remaining levels are Tiger Drilled.

One level will remain—or will react better than the others. Take this as the PRIMARY LEVEL and mark it in at the top of the mimeo sheet with its symbol.

ROLL YOUR OWN

In times past, this Primary Level would have been enough, but using the Prehav to locate the Rock Slam Channel or to list out goals requires a SECONDARY LEVEL.

To "Roll Your Own" is to get the pc to give you a secondary scale that is in its turn assessed.

This is done as follows:

Take the Primary Level, found as above. Put it in the sentence "If somebody were fixated on (or 'wanted to' or 'intended to' or 'wished to')_______ (Primary Level) what would that person do?" Or use the sentence "What would ________(Primary Level) represent to you?" The sentence must cause the pc to give doingness. Otherwise it must be changed, using the Primary Level, so that the pc does give doingness.

The auditor, as in any assessment, lists down the pc's answers on a 13" (foolscap or legal) sheet with the pc's name, the date and the question at the top of it.

When the pc says that's all, the auditor puts in the Mid Ruds and lists the question against the meter. If the meter reads on the question, the list is incomplete and must be completed.

When the question gives no read with Mid Ruds in, the list is complete. This list is now handled exactly as the original scale above.

The resulting level is the pc's level and is used for finding Items in 3GA-XX or in listing out goals.  The Primary Level is not otherwise used.

The Secondary List is not used again. A new Primary Assessment is done for the next full operation. Only these Secondary Levels are actually used in auditing.

Various Primary Prehav Scales may from time to time be developed for various purposes.

LRH:gl.bh
Copyright © 1962						L RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 NOVEMBER AD 12
CenOCon
Franchise

SOMATICS
HOW TO TELL TERMINALS AND
OPPOSITION TERMINALS

It is important that a clearing auditor be able to distinguish pain from sensation, terminals from opposition terminals, and to have the data at the level of instant knowledge. To understand it less is to invite serious errors in clearing. Failure to sort terminals from opposition terminals can confuse the pc or even degrade the case. All a pc’s somatics, deformities and distortions proceed from terminals, opposition terminals and combination terminals. Thus they are of vast importance to the pc and the auditor.

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 vertical and chilled tubes going horizontal 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.

TERMINAL = An Item or Identity the pc has actually been sometime in the past (or present) is called a TERMINAL. It is “the pc’s own valence” at that time. In the Goals Problem Mass (the black masses of the reactive mind) those identities which, when contacted, produce pain, tell us at once that they are TERMINALS. The person could feel pain only as himself (thetan plus body) and therefore identities he has been produce pain when their mental residues (black masses) are recontacted in processing. Symbol TERM.

OPPOSITION TERMINAL = An Item or Identity the pc has actually opposed (fought, been an enemy of) sometime in the past (or present) is called an OPPOSITION TERMINAL. As the person identified himself as not it he could experience from it only sensation. An OPPOSITION TERMINAL, when its mental residues (black masses) are recontacted in processing, produces only sensation, never pain. Symbol OPPTERM.

COMBINED TERMINAL = An Item or Identity the pc has both been and opposed produces therefore both pain and sensation when it is “late on the track”, which is to say, after the fact of many Terminals and Opposition Terminals. The Combination Terminal is the closure between Terminal and Opposition Terminal lines which possesses attributes of both and the clarity of neither. It signifies a period toward the end of a game. It is found most commonly when the pc’s case is only shallowly entered. They exist on all cases but are fewer than terminals and opposition terminals. Symbol COTERM.

ITEM = Any terminal, opposition terminal, combination terminal, significance or idea (but not a doingness, which is called “a level”) appearing on a list derived from the pc. Symbol It.

RELIABLE ITEM = Any Item that Rock Slams well on being found and at session end and which was the last Item still in after assessing the list. Can be a terminal, an opposition terminal, a combination terminal or a significance, provided only that it was the Item found on a list and Rock Slammed. Symbol RI.

ROCK SLAM = That needle agitation which erratically covers more than three quarters of an inch on the E-Meter dial.

A Rock Slam is the response of an E-Meter to the conflict between terminals and opposition terminals. It indicates a fight, an effort to individuate, an extreme games condition which in the absence of auditing would seek unsuccessfully to separate while attacking.

As the pc’s attention is guided to the Items involved the games condition activates and is expressed on the meter as a ragged, frantic response. The wider the response the more recognizable (to the pc) is the reality of the games condition and the violence of the conflict.

The Rock Slam Channel is that hypothetical course between a series of pairs consisting of terminals and opposition terminals.

If the conflict is too great for the pc’s reality no Rock Slam results. Later in auditing as the pc’s confronting rises, Items which did not react earlier in auditing now begin to be real and so express themselves on a meter as a Rock Slam. The pc with the lowest reality level is the hardest to attain a Rock Slam on, but in contradiction a pc who has the least control over himself in certain zones of life has the largest Rock Slams.

The Rock Slam vanishes under Suppression and activates on Invalidate or Withhold or on other Prehav Levels.

This is the most difficult needle response to find or attain or preserve. And it is the most valuable in clearing.
All Rock Slams result from a pair of Items in opposition, one of which is a terminal, the other being an opposition terminal.

It can exist in present time where the pc is the terminal and what the pc is faced with is the opposition terminal. Symbol RS.

INSTANT ROCK SLAM = That “Rock Slam” which begins at the end of the major thought of any Item. Symbol IRS.

DIRTY NEEDLE = That erratic agitation of the needle which covers less than a quarter of an inch of the E-Meter dial and tends to be persistent. Symbol DN.

DIRTY READ = That more or less instant response of the needle which is agitated by a major thought; it is an instant tiny (less than a quarter of an inch) agitation of the needle and is in fact a very small cousin of a Rock Slam but is not a Rock Slam. It does not persist. Symbol DR.

TESTING

The method of testing for the character of an Item whether Term, Oppterm or Coterm is extremely simple.

If the Item, when said to the pc in any way, turns on PAIN in the pc’s body it is a TERMINAL.

If the Item, when said to the pc in any way, turns on SENSATION around or in the pc’s body it is an OPPOSITION TERMINAL.

If the Item, when said to the pc in any way, turns on both PAIN and SENSATION in or around the pc’s body it is a COMBINATION TERMINAL.

WAYS OF ASKING

The rule is, “Give the Terminal Cause, the Opposition Terminal Effect in any listing, wording or use.”

The simplest form is, of course, just chanting the Item at the pc a few times. This is not always workable.

The simplest but not always workable form is:

For a Terminal — “Would a__________commit overts”

For an Opposition Terminal — “Consider committing overts against__________”
	Using PH Level.

Instead of “Committing Overts” the Prehav Level by which the Reliable Item was found is normally used:

For a Terminal — “Would a_____________(Item)____________(PH Level)” or “Consider a______________(Item)_______________ing (PH Level)”

For an Opposition Terminal — “Consider_______________ing (PH Level) a_______________(Item)”.

USING TD BUTTONS
The above sentences may also be used, or their rough approximation, with a Tiger Drill or Prepcheck Button, and if a Rock Slam is present, it may develop.

No matter what method is being used in saying the Item being tested to find out if it is a Terminal, Opposition Terminal or Combination Terminal, the rules of Sensation and Pain apply. Sensation means Oppterm. Pain means Terminal.

It is important to know if an Item is a Term, Oppterm or Coterm, as its character as one of the three determines the listing question.

The same rule for testing applies in listing. If it is a terminal, it (Prehav Levels). If it is an opposition terminal it is (Prehav Leveled).

Example: For a Terminal, A Waterbuck, Prehav Level Snort. Proper Listing question: “Who or what would a waterbuck snort at?”

Example: For an Oppterm, A Tiger, Prehav Level Snort. “Who or what would snort at a tiger?”

Of course the reverse can be listed but is rarely necessary except to get a longer list when the pc stalls.

THE LINE PLOT

A Line Plot must be made up for any pc for his 3GAXX or the Listing the Goal Steps of Routine 3-21 (Steps 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and II. of 21 Steps).

This consists of a heavy Blue 13” (foolscap or legal) sheet of paper, kept in the pc’s folder and kept up to date every time a Reliable Item (or even last Item in) is found.

On this Line Plot one column, the left-hand one, is reserved for Oppterms. The right-hand column is reserved for Terms and lines indicate whenever Terms or Oppterms are derived from each other.

A Reliable Item is designated as such on this Line Plot with the symbol RI. Non-Reliable Items are not designated.

The date each Line Plot Item was found is added after the Item so it can be found again in the auditor’s reports without a scramble.

The full behaviour and character of any Item found is written into the auditor’s report of that session in which it was found. The width of the Instant Rock Slam in inches, whether the slam turned on every time the Item was read, what wording turned it on, and whether it would still RS by session end are all made part of the auditor’s report.

About 20% or 25% of the cases that appear for clearing can have Reliable Items found on them at once by exploring the words “Scientology”, “A Scientology Organization”, “An Auditor”, “Me (the auditor)”, “Ron”, or the head of the local Scientology organization by name. These are considered to be oppterms by any pc whose realization of his goal would be interfered with, he or she feels, by Scientology. It does not matter what wording (see above) turns on the RS so long as it can be consistently turned on for a bit. If it is at first only a Dirty Read, it is Tiger Drilled to try to make it Rock Slam. Only in this peculiar instance is the person called a Rock Slammer or is considered a Security Risk. Everyone alive RSs on something. In any event, if Items such as those in this paragraph turn on a Rock Slam, they are put on the Line Plot as Reliable Items and used in handling the case.

The above material is in actual fact a partial anatomy of the Goals Problems Mass, its identification in auditing and the behaviour of an E-Meter towards it.
As it has never before been viewed by any practice, mental science or religion, it has to have special terminology.

The terminology has been stably in use for quite some time in Scientology. I have made the definitions more precise in this HCO Bulletin.

Anyone working in clearing should have this HCO Bulletin data at his instant call without referral to the HCO Bulletin.

With very few additions, this is the track one walks in clearing and going clear.

Know it.

								L. RON HUBBARD

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

6211C13 SHSpec-210 The Difficult Case

A Problems Intensive is apparently capable of producing a Book One MEST clear, if it is done right.  It has done so on a couple of PCs. If this is not happening elsewhere than at St. Hill, it may be that people elsewhere don’t know what a free needle is.  Peoples’ TA’s have been gotten to clear read with no mention of F/N.  So pay some attention to this.  It could be that it was happening without being reported.

The aspect of a case depends on the way the case is handled, generally. How the case is handled has a great deal to do with how rough the case looks. Say case A and case B are similarly tough cases.  If case A gets a lot of usual actions, a good hope factor, a good R-factor, and case B gets unusualness and wrong actions, case A will run easily and case B will run rough and break anybody’s heart.  

Psychiatric classification, behavior in life, etc. have no bearing on how hard or easy the case will be to handle. The same goes for scientology classification schemes.  We make our own tough cases: the Black V, theetie-weetie, etc.  It doesn’t matter.  The length of time to handle the case doesn’t compare to the state of the case.  All cases are hard, actually. Some are made more difficult by preconceptions and classifications that don’t really apply.  The technology has by-passed the difficulties.  The case that you will have trouble with is always a spook and a surprise to you.  It is not the psychiatric disaster case.  The tough ones are the ones who look sane and able and lie like Hell, because they don’t do the commands.  They get upset if you keep at them to see if they did the command.  That just makes them feel accused, and they get harder to audit.

You can spot this kind of case by observing that, after a short period of modern auditing, the case hasn’t recovered. This case either:

1. Hasn’t done your commands,    or 

2. You haven’t audited the case.  This case interrupts the auditing cycle.  

The most extreme example of this kind of case is the individual who can’t communicate at all, or the case that can’t hear or that has no command of the language that you are using.  But that is simple.  You recognize the out-of-communication state that he is in and know that you would get nowhere with a subjective process like straightwire.

But you miss the case who ostensibly speaks and understands English but never answers the question or executes the commands.  There is actually a gradient of this which, at its top level, includes every case.  Sooner or later, any case won’t do the command.  The “spook” is the one who never does the command and always does something else.  What is happening is that he is on a circuit.  He is being a wired set of valences.  The PC is out there somewhere and has nothing to do with the auditing at all.

Don’t let your PC sit there in a sort of comfortable, relaxed puzzle. Find out what is going on, but don’t chop up the PC.  Auditors sometimes sense that the PC isn’t executing the command, and they start harassing the PC, chopping him up, because they know something is wrong.  They don’t feel in good 2WC with the PC.  So you move in and get insistent with the PC.  Then the TA moves even less.  This case is the last one in the world to admit that he is not doing the command.  He could even get TA.  Say he is running the command through an electronic incident, because he knows that if it changes, he is better.

How do you handle this case? You watch the TA while you are running the PC’s right havingness process, or you can run another process that has something to do with the physical universe, like Op Pro by Dup, SCS, or CCH’s. If you get good TA with that, flatten that.  The reason you don’t notice the TA is that the PC is off the meter.  But if the PC gets a lot of TA in the rudiments and little in the body of the session, you know at once that the PC never does the auditing command.  It is self-evident that this is the true state of affairs if you run the PT environment, e.g. with, “Look at the _______ ,” and the TA moves, while a Problems Intensive gives zilch TA.  Here you will see that the PC can get TA.  

Such people have a short span into the past.  Reality on what went on in the world ceases five minutes to five days ago, or so.  In the body of the session, you are trying to send him out of PT.  If all PCs were like this tough case, we would clear people with ruds, since TA action gives a direct index of case change.  “If you don’t get as much TA action in the body of the session as you do in running the rudiments, please realize” that the process is not running.  “TA motion mirrors directly and immediately the amount of change which is being secured.  [It is a] direct index of how much bank is changing or shifting.”  So you handle the difficult case by giving ruds and havingness sessions.

A case with good reality on the bank wouldn’t get good TA on ruds.  TA on havingness or any CCH or contact process means that the PC is becoming aware of the walls of the room.  “What wall?”, indeed!  His concept of mass is being shifted by confronting his environment.  It is not bank mass that is giving TA.  It is the mass of the walls of the room.  The PC is in no shape to be audited, because where is he going to be audited from?  Furthermore, he doesn’t have the stability of PT to audit against.  So any attempt on your part to get him to address the track throws him into confusion.  He can’t answer the auditing question because he has no point of reference.  Cases are audited against the reference point of PT.  Oddly enough, the memory of eight million years ago totally depends on knowing it was sight million years from a specific time, e.g. PT.  A guy who is stuck in an electronic incident of three million years ago will get TA when you get him to look at his immediate vicinity.  Otherwise, hs will run a Problems Intensive from a point three million years ago, which is an unstable point.  So you are running a confusion against an instability.  But two confusions never made a stability.  “A case that is wildly out of PT seldom answers the auditing command or executes it, and auditing depends exclusively on getting the...  command executed.” The auditing cycle must occur every time the auditor opens his mouth.  On “Recall a time you communicated,” if the time he commed is up the track from where he is stuck, he can’t recall it, because it hasn’t happened yet.  So he has to do something else.  So, for instance, he mocks up a psychoanalyst against the auditor.  Or he holds the two back corners of the room.  He does these things because he doesn’t want to wasts the auditor’s time.

TA action on ruds and on the body of the session is the only reliable indication of this type of case. In this situation, it becomes important to prepare a case.  Don’t try to plow the ground with a Cadillac.  It is the wrong vehicle.  If the PC isn’t doing the command, don’t harass him.  Do objective processes.  When the motion goes out of the TA, do the body of the session with subjective processes.

The gradient scale of toughness of cases is proportional to the amount of TA they get on PT or near-PT processes, ruds and havingness.  To get good reality on this point, take a PC who has been having an awful time with 3GAXX and run some PTP’s or some such, and watch the TA fly.  [First mentioned in tape 6210C23 SHSpec-202A “3GAXX”.  Also mentioned in tape 6210C23 A “3GAXX Following the Rock Slam” and 6210C25 SHSpec-209 “3GAXX Secondary Pre-hav Scale”.  These tapes are confidential.  The process lists and handles some types of implants.  It unburdens the case and locates goals.  See also pp. 332-335, below, and HCOB’s 8Nov62 (Listing Pack II) and 11Nov62 “3GAXX: Straightening Up 3GAXX Cases” for more on 3GAXX running.] The PC must be there before you audit him.  The auditing cycle requires the presence of the PC.  So give him lots of ruds and havingness and a Problems Intensive on a close-to-PT problem he can confront.

This type of PC will get sensation on a list, all right, because he would get sensation from two days ago, it is that unreal.  He has sensation because he is in the middle of a confusion with no referral point, no PT.  How do you expect him to be anywhere but in a confusion?  That’s what sensation basically is: the PC in a confusion.  Give him PT.  Then you can run him.

6211C15 SHSpec-212 Terminals

There is an item on the bulletin board about Nixon.  We really clobbered him!  “I hit him because he hit Mary Sue.  [He was] using the U.S. secret service as sort of a private Gestapo ... all over Washington,” which didn’t seem right.

You will notice that after country A has defeated country B, customs of country B will show up in A.  Almost anyone will take on the color of his oppterm.  This is horrible but true!  People tend to think of themselves as the cowboy in the white hat and the oppterm as the cowboy in the black hat. However, the only real to tell whether you are dealing with a terminal or an oppterm is whether it turns on pain or sensation.  Pain shows that it is a terminal; sensation shows that it is an oppterm.  Some people get tangled up because they consider themselves to be the guys in the black hat.  If you get a terminal on the oppterm side or vice versa, the consequence is great confusion.  Such an item, a combination terminal, turns on pain and sensation.  This is a deteriorated package.  Mark it in the center of the line plot.  It’s legitimate.  It is a new terminal that has attributes of both terminal and oppterm, a sort of end of the road, a combination terminal which is a lock on both the terminal chain and the oppterm chain.  

In national life, you get succeeding generations of politicians performing as combination terminals.  The U.S. defeats Germany.  Then, somewhere up the track, there is a tendency towards Democratic Fascism in the U.S.  It is OK for a democracy to exist, as long as we can also operate a gestapo.  “It’s that sort of thing that I tend to keep an eye on.”

You may not realize it, but you are all members of a secret society:  You have been for a very long time.  It is the SPG.  You can enlist anyone.  There are no dues.  Only performance is required.  It is the Society for the Prevention of Government!  It is interesting that Man hasn’t yet realized that government is the cause of his wars.  A “pure” government attacks an S.P. government, thus producing a combination terminal.  The “pure” government henceforth isn’t so pure.  Keep this up, and you will get what we have, in the way of a government.  LRH recently received an invitation to be part of a group that is supposed to figure out what should be done with governments and Man and atom bombs.  All the group is doing is meeting, in the hope that someone will come up with a solution.  All they are doing is to get people in communication.  They haven’t approached governments!

The reason why government occupies so much of people’s attention is that governments have spokesmen and salesmen, while individuals do not. [Democracy is highly publicized, but in a democracy] everything is the people’s fault, so the head of the government has no responsibility.  But the people have no real choice.  This is a real mess.  With salesmen, you get more and more government.  Individuals become less and less.  The end of this process is totalitarianism.

The only reason you collide with government is that you are selling the idea of the individual.  You see that bettering things by handling the individual is a workable system, so you push it.  This puts you up against the government, because it is for the government.  This makes you a revolutionary in a totalitarian world, whether you intend to revolt or not.

The perfect reply to a communist is to tell him that you are an anarchist.  That is the one thing that he cannot handle.  He is claiming that communism wants to do away with the state, and you force him to say that government is necessary.  Thus you turn him into a conservative.  Anarchy has always been rampant in countries just before the communists took over. Anarchy is the one thing that the communist fears.  He has so many overts on anarchists that they have almost become sacred to him.  Similarly, the U.S. government is becoming more and more communistic, e.g.  with its tax laws. Things won’t get straightened out in the political arena.  They will just get more and more confused.  You can predict the politics of the future by looking at the opposing sides and combining the least desirable characteristics of both.  Combination terminals in politics occur because the least admired characteristics tend to persist.  “That Which is least admired tends to persist.” We are going to get the worst of Russia and the U.S. combined into a super state, unless we stop it.

This is also the fate of any individual.  Livingness alone will not lead to a new, highly desirable state, because the above mechanism will occur.  In the course of handling cases, you will get a look at the eventual fate of any individual you process, in the absence of further processing.  Suppose you could locate the chief terminal and the chief oppterm in an individual, without in any way relieving them.  You could take the least desirable characteristics of both and get the combination terminal the person would become in a few generations.  Those terminals and oppterms that are near the top will produce a new pair.  But first, they will produce a new single terminal:  the new combination terminal.  As the GPM flies off, you will see that this had been taking place.  The freedom that is there to be freed is fantastic, because all cases are in a very deteriorated state.

When we first discovered the tremendous power that the basic postulate of an individual could exert over him, in the course of creating the sections of the GPM, we tended to see it as something brand new, despite the fact that it is mentioned in the definition of the first dynamic in Dianetics: The Original Thesis.[“I. The dynamic of self consists of the dynamic thrust to survive as an individual, to obtain pleasure as an individual, and to avoid pain.  It covers the general field of food, clothing and shelter, personal ambition, and general individual purpose.” p. 31.  See also Advanced Procedures and Axioms, p. 42 and p. 270, above.]

A thetan does various basic things, following the laws governing theta as formulated in the Axioms.  However, he also splinters off and postulates some portion or specialization of them.  He tries to go forward with this specialization as an individual purpose and, trying to effect this purpose, moves on with a lot of accumulated mass and things like terminals, oppterms, combination terminals, items, upsets, etc.  Thus the thetan builds up a section of the GPM.  Then he postulates something else and builds up another section of the: GPM.  That dwindles out.  It gets blown up thoroughly, and the thetan gets sort of out of it.  He forgets it utterly.  Then he makes up a new individual purpose.

Actually, all these purposes are in controversion to the basic laws of this universe, theta, and the purposes of thetans.  And if there is any reason why it builds up mass, it is that it is an alter-is of the Axioms. The thetan is an individual, already in a games condition with his fellows and the universe.  Then he decides to be even more individual and makes a basic postulate.  It is this basic postulate that we are dragging up as a goal. This postulate is counter to the agreements on the structure of the universe, as contained in the Axioms, so the thetan is now individuated out to the degree that he has pitted himself against the whole lot.

What we are finding out, as we find items, turn on somatics, and clear the individual, is that he hasn’t gotten away with it.  There is the GPM, and it is killing him.  He can’t even execute his individual purpose or goal, because it fights his own more basic agreements, postulates, etc.  He has called himself a liar by violating these agreements, e.g. the Axioms, and thus he has departed into super-individuality.

As the individual goes forth, postulating a new goal, he is flying in the teeth of all his former agreements.  So now he gets to a point where he explodes out of the bank.  Then he postulates a new individuation, a new basic purpose.  He lives this one out.  When he finally gets out of it, he adds it to the old stuff that he has accumulated.  Each new purpose gets messed up faster and faster.  He finds more and more things he can’t do and that he can no longer confront.  Eventually, he won’t even explode out of the mass anymore.  One day he says, “Row come it’s all black?” And he won’t get out of the GPM again.  

This is Hell: an oblivion of total pain and sensation.  “What’s ‘Hell’? In religions, they’ll have some metaphorical method of trying to communicate, [but] if they were talking about a Hell, this is Hell....  They recognize there is something waiting for them in the future and they try to shorten it up ... and say it’s the next life and this time you’ll die and you’ll go to it.  Well, that’s just enthusiasm!”
The only alternative to this grisly picture is scientology, but people have been “saved” before, too many times on the track, e.g. by the auto-da-fe of the Inquisition.  That’s why they are decidedly reluctant to be “saved” by scientology.  Someone who gets mad at scientology and refuses further processing is a fool.  He isn’t aware of his future of total pain and sensation, which is Hell.  But thetans have a long history of being sold pie-in-the-sky, so they are likely to be skeptical about what scientology has to offer.  Someone who has been sold on heaven and hasn’t found it, and who knows that Hell is possible, begins to regard the idea of freedom with some doubt.  He has been “straightened out” before, and has been cheated.  This area of betrayal comes up in the course of clearing someone.  The offer of help restimulates this area, and the PC will fight help all the way, until he gets reality on what is happening.  The kindest way to handle him is to give him a fast reality on the fact that you mean business.  Do something for him subjectively, so that he will realize that he is on some kind of a real road to truth.

The PC whose trust level is shot alter-ises commands, doesn’t answer, etc.  The auditor can feel uncomfortable about this.  The healing sciences haven’t helped, with their general ineffectiveness in most things.  No wonder the PC’s trust level is so low! This is the main thing that gets in the way of dissemination.

The individual has fought the physical universe and the laws of the physical universe after agreeing to them.  He now alter-ises them.  Since those laws concern matter, energy, space, and time, he starts accumulating MEST.  That is what puts MEST in his bank.  Then he makes an individual purpose that has nothing to do with these other purposes.  He tries to go up against these other purposes with this individual purpose.  That causes a lot of mass to accumulate.  Then he does this again, and again, etc.

All this is true, but this activity must have been based on a very low level of confidence and trust anyway.  To have gone to all this trouble, with all the individuation, etc., the thetan must have had a very low level of trust and confidence.  He must have thought that what was going on was detrimental, or he wouldn’t have taken all this trouble to individuate from it.  Most PCs are mad at the physical Universe, to some degree.

Now here is something I’ve never told you before, but it follows from the sixty-four lectures of the 1952 Philadelphia Lectures.  The physical universe will stay there for the individual until the individual gets back to the first individuating goal that he made, after agreeing to the Axioms.  At this point, you would think that the PC would hit total OT, but he won’t.  He still has to handle the Axioms.  You will now have to back up through the Axioms.  The PC, at this point in processing, would start telling you about the Axioms even if he had never heard of them.  They are getting ready to blow.  

The individual’s agreement to the Axioms, his contribution to the Axioms to that degree, is in all probability his first basic trust.  You may have to go back to the Axioms and run them.  Sooner or later the PC will collide with them, going backward.

[The purposes that you will run into at first] are all purposes that are individuations from the basic purpose.  You have to go a long way back to pick up more than the first dynamic.  Even today, the fellow is generally on an inversion of the first.  You will find that there are seven dynamics that will invert on you. You must reverse the inversion process before the PC gets to a straight first dynamic. He then has to go quite a ways before he gets a sight of the other dynamics.  That is what you are tackling.

In every PC, there is a deteriorated trust in everything, not only in his fellow man, but also in organizations, group activities, and any effort to do something for him.  He starts to get nervous when you start to do anything for him because he knows that that has always been dangerous for him.  You are reversing his experiential track, so he is going back into areas that he thinks are dangerous, and, thinking these areas are dangerous, he is nervous. This applies to every PC.  What is important is your skill as an auditor: the smoothness of your model session, the positiveness of what you are doing, the fact that you can produce a result in the PC in which he has a reality.  These things make him realize that you are going in the direction of freedom.  The PC may be so downscale that when he sees that he is going towards freedom, he can’t have it because it looks too good, and you get into another wriggle-wraggle.

You can add to the above phenomenon the idea that if you existed and if you freed Man and did things for the physical universe, then this person couldn’t execute the first goal you will run into in processing him. (This “Goal One” is not the first goal that the PC made.  It is the first one you find.) With this addition, you’ve got a rockslammer.  His distrust is not built just on goal one.  It goes earlier and is built on the quicksand that everybody is made of. To handle him, you have to find the oppterm to what he is rockslamming on.  Then it tends to blow up.  His “whole viewpoint on the subject of scientology will shift.” [See HCOB 23Nov62 “Urgent -- Routine 2-12, Opening Procedure by Rockslam, An HPA/RCA Skill”.  This bulletin gives R2-12 procedure.  At this point, R2-12 is also known as “3GAXX for Rock Slammers”. Evidently it is a form of 3GAXX that can be done by a lower than class IV auditor.  Many other bulletins and tapes on R2-12 follow.]

A soon as your auditing is less than perfect, you rekindle or permit to remain all the morass of distrust that has been generated down the track, all the betrayals of promises of heaven, all his experience of Hell.  You can flub a little, but if you let the case drift too far out without a win and you will key in the whole background of “There is no heaven,” and you will pay the price.  The individual’s reality on Hell is much greater than his reality on heaven.  Thus, the longer you take to produce a result on a PC, the harder it is to get the result because of the distrust factor.  

You can’t say positively that a person isn’t a rockslammer because he may have to be processed awhile before it shows up.  Some rockslammers are below being rockslammers at first.  The PC may at first simply be nattery, and then you have to rely on intuition. There is no absolute test of absolution except persistent case progress.  Rockslamming relates to the degree of overting in your direction and his belief that if you did not exist, he could achieve his basic goal.  Once you discover and he discovers that he is a rockslammer, the discovery of it tends to pull its teeth.  All you have to do is to list the oppose list to the thing on which he is rockslamming, and it will blow up in smoke.  If it’s “an auditor”, write an opposition list to “an auditor” and get the first PT package.  A capable auditor should be able to straighten this out in two or three hours.  You can list a goal against any terminal or oppterm that rockslams.  Sometimes you will wind up with the person’s goal.  If so, opposition it.

Unhandled rockslammers will frequently become combination terminals. Squirrels, for instance, combine scientology with something else because they realize that they are as crazy as a loon to be attacking it.

6211C15 SHSpec-213 Clearing Technology

We are pretty well there, technologically, although things can still be sorted out and neatened up.  More data keeps appearing, of course.  When you are on top of the mountain, you can see alternate routes up.  Just don’t forget the way you got there and could get others up.

One reason you don’t like to see long goals lists is that you don’t like having to tiger drill every goal.  It takes an average of a minute per goal, even when the case is running well.  If the case is not well-prepared, the PC will have a persistent dirty needle.  We used to call this the PC’s needle pattern.  It means that ruds are out, and it is not OK.  This dirty needle that you see on goals lists won’t clean up with mid-ruds.  Persistent dirty needle and a dirty read -- an instant read that goes “Bzzzt!” on the needle -- are not the same thing.  If ruds are in and the PC is well-prepared, a dirty needle means the list is incomplete.  Or you could have listed from the wrong question, e.g. the wrong pre-hav question.  Actually, if you use the right question and the item is on the list, even if it is the PC’s first list, when you null it, the dirty needle, if any, disappears.  After a PC is prepared, the only reason thereafter that a dirty needle occurs and mid-ruds don’t handle it is that the list is not complete.  The item is the missed withhold that dirties the needle.  Therefore, assuming a prepared PC, there are two variables that cause dirty needle on nulling:

1. Wrong question.

2. List incomplete.  This makes it a little more difficult.  You may have to use trial and error to discover what it is.

[Details on assessing goals.  There is a new experimental process: you can assess the long list of goals, then only tiger drill the ones that stay in after the single assessment.  The PC should let the auditor know if pain turns on.  Pain goes deeper than the meter, and it may indicate the presence of the item when felt or a few items earlier on the list.]  

You can get the PC to list goals from terminals and oppterms, using the commands:  “What goals would (terminal) have?” and “If you were (oppterm), what goal of yours would be impossible to achieve?”

Just having the PC write out a goals list is very therapeutic, even on raw meat.  Reading something once has minimal restimulation.  Beyond three times, you have started running a process.  So you can go over a goals list once, and the only thing hot enough to give the PC somatics will be the goal. So watch for the somatic while on that assessment.

Another method of goals finding is known as the prepcheck!  You will get an early MEST clear with enough use of the method described in HCOB 21Mar62 “Prepchecking Data -- When to Do a What”.  A lot of people sit around not looking.  They do, not look.  That is their motto.  A problem that has shown up is that after two or three Problems Intensives, the PC keeps saying that such and such is his goal, and he wants to know what to do about it.  In other words, you tiger drill the PC until his goal reads!  The vital part is to assess the right problem.  If you run the right one smoothly, run it, don’t Q and A, keep ruds in, the PC will tend to go MEST clear and the goal floats into view.  It could take four or five Problems Intensives.  This would be a very simple way to do it.  It may not work on all oases.  Maybe if we added a Routine 2 button or two to the Problems Intensives, using Roll Your Own Pre-hav against a Problems Intensive, [we might find the goal this way.]

The only thing wrong with a Problems Intensive is to find a truly self-determined change.  On the Queen Elizabeth, Reg Thorpe was auditing LRH, and LRH only found two real self-determined changes, this lifetime.  So we can assume that most PCs are answering fallaciously.  We should realize that there is a trick built into the Problems Intensive.  You get the PC to give you a change that he believes to have been self-determined, then you find the prior confusion and the determination for that change.  So there is probably something wrong with the question.  There shouldn’t be a trick to it.  You should just use “change”, not “self-determined change” We formerly asked for self-determined changes so as not to have him give engrams.  However, the prepcheck buttons are powerful enough to run the PC through engrams.  He won’t get stuck in an engram anyway, if he doesn’t have a missed withhold.  That is what sometimes makes PCs curl up in a ball and go into an engram while you are tiger drilling:  the missed withhold.  Pull the missed withhold, and he will come right out of the dramatization.  The PC’s effort to withhold is what pulls him back into the incident, because he can’t be in PT.

So you could ask for “times you decided to change”.  Then the PC doesn’t have to tell you a lie to answer.  A bad assessment can give you no TA, so, in handling Problems Intensives, keep your eye on the TA.  You should get TA in the first twenty minutes on the first button.  If not, drop the first change and do a new assessment.  

Tape: 6211C20 SHSBC 214
THE GPM
is not currently available

The Editor

6211C20 SHSpec-215 Fundamentals of auditing

There are probably thousands of rules you could go by in auditing, but the way to audit has only a few fundamental basic rules, without which auditing does not occur.  These are the senior data of auditing:

1. Auditing is a third dynamic activity.

2. The basis of it is communication.

3. Audit the PC in front of you.  

Violate those, and you have had it, no matter how many other rules you are following.  Never neglect those few little fundamentals.  An auditor can forget about communication and sit there as an individuated island.  In this case, no matter what is right about what he does, he won’t be auditing the PC.  Don’t be a first dynamic using no communication to audit a book or a nothing.  If the auditor and the PC are a group, and if they are in communication and the auditor is auditing the PC in front of him, then auditing will occur and results will be obtained.  One day, “all of a sudden a long blue spark hits you, ... and you say [to yourself], ‘Maybe if I ask the PC I can find out,” and communication starts to occur.

What a St. Hill graduate misses, when he gets back into the field, is any feeling that auditing can happen.  People don’t know that there is a right way to audit.  Also, St. Hill graduates have gotten over being nervous or self-conscious about auditing.

If you overlook these few little fundamentals of auditing, you then need thousands of rules to handle whatever comes up.  There is a right way to audit, described above.  Relatively muzzled auditing, uniformity of sessions -- these are desirable if an auditor is going to add a bunch of nonsense into the lineup.  But muzzled auditing is just a curative measure to prevent people who don’t know the above basics from adding nonsense that has nothing to do with auditing.

The other part of the situation is that the human race knows nothing of third dynamic activities or communication.  What passes for communication in the wog world is unduplicatable.  There are no completed cycles of communication, and communication consists exclusively of a dispersed mish-mash of invalidation and evaluation.  The rules about Q and A, TR-4 and a host of others are to keep these aberrated habits out of the session.  If you didn’t have TR-4, the green auditor would slip right into think-think, figure-figure, evaluation, invalidation, etc.  None of these have anything to do with the communication cycle.  “Compute” should not be part of the doingness of the auditor. [Cf. the old definition of an auditor, “One who listens and computes”, in HCOB 26May59 “Man Who Invented Scientology”] The answer to the PC’s origination that “Black is white” is Thank you.” It is not “Oh, no it isn’t!” or “That’s a neat thought,” or whatever.

Every time the PC asks you to do something, it is because you have done instead of acknowledged, when the PC originated.  The PC has begun to control you.  You have driven him out of session and into thoughts about the PT environment by not letting a communication cycle occur.  “To the degree that you break down the communication cycle, you break down the third dynamic activity.  You individuate the PC, and after that he starts running the session.” He has gone on a self-audit.  You will have trouble with the PC in direct ratio “to the number of times you have not permitted the PC to originate.”  

Because the PC is aberrated, it is very easy to individuate him.  It is quite a trick to keep the PC from individuating and going on a self-audit.  As the PC gets better, he is less susceptible to individuation.  His thinkingness should get more under the auditor’s control as he goes along.  If the PC gets interrupted by the auditor, such that his communication cycle keeps getting messed up, his thinkingness will get less and less under auditor control.  The number of times that you have to get the mid-ruds in is a direct index of the amount of thinkingness that a PC, individuated from the session, has been engaging in.  That is how the auditing third dynamic gets broken down into two first dynamics.  “Two first dynamics do not make a third dynamic.” They make a games condition.

An auditor’s perception is not the perception of an individual looking at another individual.  It is a third dynamic perception.  There is a knowingness about whether the PC is in session or not that an auditor will have when he is genuinely perceptive or intuitive.  An auditor’s “perceptivity” is bad to the degree that he departs from the third dynamic back to the first dynamic.

Thetans communicate on the same wavelengths used in space opera.  You can spot an ARC break before the PC knows he has it, if you are attuned to this form of communication.  You used to know and recognize other thetans by their feeling or wavelength and not by their bodies.  Dolls know each other, despite not having names, as a rule.  It is done by direct perception.  You can forge a passport, but try to forge a wavelength!  This is not MEST communication, and it doesn’t require or use MEST or even wavelengths as a via.

ESP investigators like Rhine err by testing ESP against MEST and by entering “proof” into the computations.  Proof is one of the most aberrative buttons on the track.

If you walk through a forest with a gun concealed in your pocket, you will not see a bird or a squirrel.  Why? Because you are emanating menace as long as you have the gun, and the game gets the communication, even if the scientist doesn’t.  The animals don’t have to see the gun.

Some thetans evidently emanate more than other thetans.  This is also true of PCs.  You apparently get more of a relay from some than from others. This is a fascinating subject, as long as you don’t pull it down into MEST through the button called “proof”.  We tried to process people along this line.  The biggest indication we have that it exists is the effect of auditing on unaudited third parties. Say PC A is having trouble with person B.  We process A.  He doesn’t have any communication with B.  Yet the problem with B evaporates.  Furthermore, frequently B often then tries to communicate with A!  This is so true that you could legitimately chew out A’s auditor for not having solved B’s problem with A.

Similarly, an RI will always produce trouble for you.  If you are deathly afraid of oil companies, rest assured that you will get bum stock, short changed, etc.  Process the PC, and the oil company will stop giving the PC a hard time.

There is, then, a perception factor, but “when the individual is in a games condition on the third or fourth dynamic -- [say] with women -- ... he can’t perceive.  Perception can’t bridge across [a] games gap.” So the auditor makes a mess of it every time he audits women.  One’s perception in such a case inverts, and one reads a “good” wave as a “bad” one, or vice versa.  The auditor can’t perceive what is happening, so he dubs it in.  He “writes script” in session.  He thinks and figures, etc.  The PC is an enemy, and therefore the auditor doesn’t dare to confront or read him. The more the auditor is in this state, the less reliable perception there is and the more substitute perception you will find, taking the form of think. Think = substitute perception.  Look, don’t think.

Direct perception “only gets invalidated by those who are to some degree in a games condition with what they are trying to audit or perceive.” They can’t confront, so they can’t perceive, so they do a “think” instead of a “look”.  They “figure it all out.”

You have to figure out the way the GPM goes.  It is complicated, and aberration doesn’t emanate, so you need the meter as an aid.  “But as far as the PC is concerned, you should be able to read him pretty directly.  But if you can’t confront him -- if you don’t want to; ... if you don’t want anything to do with him -- you are going to get a substitute in there, and that substitute is “think”, and you’re going to go into a consideration of ‘What is going on?’, and [you] get script writing at its worst:” the auditor sees an ARC break when there isn’t one, he doesn’t see one when it is present, etc.
Tension and complicatedness in a session divides the auditor’s attention and cuts down auditor perception, thereby impairing his performance.  If the auditor takes some weird action, you know that his perception dropped out. The session will be as clumsy as with the sort of limitation of perception that occurs when one gives a demonstration session and has one’s attention split up.  LRH has experienced that.  He flubs in TV demonstrations more often than normally.  So that gives him some reality on what a less perceptive auditor lives with.

When you don’t acknowledge the PC’s origination, he will cut down his transmission power, which will make it that much harder for you to perceive him.  He will also go off on a self-audit.  So you get two individuals “conducting a disrelated activity.  One fellow is busy nulling the list, and the other fellow is trying to keep his rudiments in.” The PC tends to individuate to the degree that you Q and A with him and prevent him from blowing something by not just letting him get it off and acknowledging.  A lot of auditors think that if the PC mentions something, it means that you have to do something about it so that the PC can blow it.  No.  The fact that you say or do something in response to a PC’s origination, or anybody’s origination, tells him that he hasn’t gotten it off.  He hasn’t blown it.  It is all a communication activity.  When something is fully communicated and the communication cycle is complete, it is blown.  The degree that a PC can’t blow things is the degree that he has been Q and A’d with. After you have a and A’d three or four times in the session, what is the use of trying to patch it up? Now you have to have rules to cure the ARC break.  What the Hell were you doing getting an ARC break in the first place?  The rules for getting out of swamps are LRH’s a and A with auditors who got into them through not knowing fundamentals.

An ARC break occurs fifteen to ninety minutes before most auditors perceive it, and then they try to clean up the ARC break that has just happened, which is the wrong one to be cleaning up.  It is inexcusable for the PC to find out that he has an ARC break before the auditor does!  Where is the auditor?  

What is wrong with the auditor’s perception when the PC, mired as he is in the bank, can perceive better than the alert auditor?  The PC never forgives this, because it proves to him conclusively that the auditor has individuated and that he is not in a third dynamic situation and doesn’t have an auditor.  It is unforgivable because the PC doesn’t forgive it.  If that is what your auditing is like, you won’t have sessions.  You will have dogs’ breakfasts.

But if you are alert, you will find out ages before the PC does that something is wrong.  Don’t harass the PC when there is nothing wrong.  But if your own perception is up and the PC doesn’t feel right to you, just get in 2WC with him to find out how it is going.  And persist enough to be sure, without badgering him.  There is “nothing wrong with making a mistake in ... session.  The only thing that is unforgivable is [for] the PC [to] catch ... it before you do.” Perception, then, comes above technical perfection, because you can always handle a mistake if you find out about it before the PC does. E.g. the auditor says, “Is something going on there?” (just light 2WC).  The PC says, “No.” Auditor: “Well, did you have a thought of some kind there?” PC: “No.  I ... well, actually, yes.  You used the wrong command.” That is OK, because you spotted it first, before it turned into an ARC break that the PC, incidently, would have attributed to something later in the session, if you hadn’t spotted it at its inception.  If the PC could be relied on to spot the correct source of an ARC break by himself, he wouldn’t need an auditor at all, because he would just blow his ARC breaks by inspection.  If he has got one, he has misassigned it.  Q.E.D.

The degree of the apparent ARC break is related to the number of unobserved ARC breaks that have preceded it.  The first ARC break in session is always quite previous to where the PC thinks it is.  This is true of lists, where the pain turns on before the PC notices it.  The PC is always late, because the bank is instantaneous and he isn’t.  He wrongly attributes what is happening.  To ask him to think anything at all is miraculous.  If he knew what was going on, he wouldn’t need an auditor.

The communication cycle of homo sapiens consists of:

1. I originate.

2. You invalidate.

3. I not-is.  

An auditing session is based on a far simpler communication cycle than homo sapiens imagines.  You have to audit the PC in front of you, not the meter. The final step of matching up the items must be done by the PC, not the meter.  If you go on the basis of, “If the PC said it, it isn’t true,” you are again being homo sap.  There are some things on which the PC isn’t right.  He is never right on a misemotional point.  But on what the score is, and on whether it is the right item, yes.  He can tell you that correctly.  You could assess a list without the meter, if you did it very carefully, asking the PC where the pain was.

There is no substitute for putting the PC in session and auditing him. If you get tangled up in all the rules, it is just that many rules between you and the PC that are forbidding auditing.  If those rules are used to prevent a third dynamic, to interrupt or upset a communication cycle, or to get out of auditing the PC in front of you, then those rules are not for that session. There are many styles of auditing, but there is no substitute for auditing. What is auditing to the PC?  It is alleviation of his upsets and reaching his basic purposes and doing down the GPM.  He won’t let you near his bank and he won’t forgive you if you don’t run it out. Nevertheless, if he is making gains and getting someplace, the PC will take anything off of you.  On the other hand, your auditing could be the last word in technical perfection, but if you are not using it to get somewhere with the PC, he will be ARC broken all the way.

There is a right way to audit.  It is directly, straightforwardly.  The good auditor uses the tools that he has to get something done.  The bad auditor doesn’t know that there is a right way, but thinks that there are thousands of right ways and that he has to dream up a new one in session. That is just another way to figure-figure your way out of giving a session. The more you add to the basics of auditing, the less it will work.  The auditor who audits smoothly by pattern gets the most done.  Rules are valid, but should never interferes with the three basics discussed in this lecture:

1. Auditing is a third dynamic activity.

2. The basis of it is communication.

3. Audit the PC in front of you.  

Tape: 6211C22 SHSBC 216
Q & A PERIOD PART I
is not currently available

The Editor

Tape: 6211C22 SHSBC 217
Q & A PERIOD PART II
is not currently available

The Editor

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 NOVEMBER AD12
CenOCon
Franchise
URGENT

ROUTINE TWO-TWELVE
OPENING PROCEDURE BY ROCK SLAM
AN HPA/HCA SKILL

Note: Hat Check this HCO Bulletin with a stiff examination before permitting its use.

Note: This Procedure is to be done on every HGC pc, every course student of every course as a pc, as early as possible and definitely before Prepchecking or CCHs. Done correctly it will end the no-results or slow result case and guarantee faster gain to the fast case. ALL Cases must have this done at once.

The slow student as well as the slow gainer is always a Rock Slammer.

THE SLOW-GAIN, NO-GAIN CASES

The slow or never gain case has been a target with me for twelve years.

I have now made a breakthrough on this. It is, I’m afraid I have to tell you, the breakthrough. You could straighten up the head of the Medical Association with it, it’s that powerful. It undercuts all the reasons why. It must be done on all students. And also every HGC pc.

Unfortunately the solution is similar to a Routine 3 process, but there’s nothing for it but HPAs/HCAs must learn the steps in this HCO Bulletin if we are to survive. For these skills encompass more than 50% of the cases, in some areas up to 80%. And these will clear slowly or not at all unless this first step is taken first. Even a Problems Intensive will fail on about 30% of these cases.

Here are the progressive data which led to this breakthrough:

DATUM 1953 - A Problem is postulate-counter-postulate.

DATUM 1954—Persons with heavy overts on Scientology make no case progress. No Case Gain = Suspected Person.

DATUM 1955—A person with a present time problem will get no graph change.

DATUM 1961—The Goals Problem Mass consists of Items (valences) in opposition to one another. Any pair of these Items, in opposition to each other, constitute a specific problem.

DATUM 1961—A person with a hidden standard won’t go clear.

DATUM 1962—Rock Slammers. Persons who Rock Slam on Scientology or associated Items are Security Risks.

DATUM Nov 1962—When a GPM Item Exists in Present Time It Constitutes a Present Time Problem. If one of the opponents in a Problem (Item versus Item) is part of the Goals Problem Mass, that problem will not resolve without resolving at least a portion of the GPM.

DATUM Nov 1962—All non-gain or slow-gain cases have a GPM Item in their present time environment. The companion or opposing Item to the PTP Item is buried out of sight.

CONCLUSION—All slow-gain or non-gain preclears have to have the GPM Item that is in the present time environment located and opposed before they will make adequate gains in processing or study.

Suddenly it becomes of vital technical interest whether a person is any variety of Rock Slammer or not. Before, it and other security measures were only of administrative interest. Now it is a question of whether or not the case will ever improve.

Thus we have to have (a) a broadened definition for a Rock Slammer, (b) an easy method of detecting one and (c) quick procedures to remedy the condition. We have all these now.

DEFINITION—A ROCK SLAMMER is a preclear who Rock Slams on a Present Time GPM Item in his or her Immediate Environment.

Until this Item is located and opposed the Rock Slammer will make slow gains or no gains in clearing.

The Routine 2-12 method of discharging the influence of a Rock Slamming Item is actually taken from 3GA Criss Cross (3GAXX), and is a specialized routine from Routine 3. We will, however, since it does not touch goals, designate it as Routine 2.

This routine will have to be learned by all HPAs/HCAs and used by all staff Auditors. It does not include clearing. It includes only Item Assessment. By labelling it Routine 2 it comes within the reach of all trained auditors.

ROUTINE TWO-TWELVE

1. 	Make or use a list of Scientology Items. This includes Scientology, Scientology Organizations, an Auditor, clearing, auditing, Scientologists, a session, an E-Meter, a practitioner, the auditor’s name, Ron, other Scientology persons, parts of Scientology, past auditors, etc. (See HCO Bulletin November 24 and subsequent HCO Bulletins for “Scientology Lists”.) The list need not be endless as it will be easy to catch a trace of the GPM if the person is a Rock Slammer. The list is composed by the auditor, not the pc.

2. 	Assess the list, calling each item once (or until auditor is sure of the read). Eliminate down to the last 3 or 4 items.

3. 	Tiger Drill the Items still in. Select the one with the biggest dirty read or the last one to go out or the one that went out hardest. No matter how faintly or sporadically the Item found now reads, if the last one in stayed in at all, use it for Step 4 below. If, however, the Item found in this step produced a good Rock Slam (Reliable Item) omit Steps 4, 5 and 6 below and do the tests in Step 7 and continue with the remaining steps. If two RIs are found in this first step, oppose each one as in Steps 7 onward.

4. 	Using the Item selected, list a list from the line question “Who or what does (the Item found in 3) represent to you?” (It can happen that Steps 4, 5 and 6 are unnecessary. If the Item in Step 3 consistently Rock Slammed a third of a dial to a dial wide and kept on doing it when the auditor said “Consider committing overts against _____(the Item found)”, use it instead of doing the Step 4 List. If this Rock Slam is on and then vanishes even with “Suppress” clean, do Step 4, using the Item that so slammed but vanished. In doing listing beware of stopping listing while the needle is still dirty or stopping just because the pc says the last item was it. (The real RS Item you want usually comes after  the pc says the last one he put on was IT.) (If the pc stops or refuses to go on, get in your Mid Ruds and continue to list until there is no dirty needle or RS when pc thinks of Items before saying them to the auditor.) Mark every Item that RSed or DRed on Listing. While listing keep the meter at about Sens 8 and keep an eye on it to note RSs and DRs.

5. 	Nul the list, saying each Item on it once (or more if the auditor didn’t catch the read). Be sure the Mid Ruds are in. If a dirty needle turns on while nulling, add to the list, get the Mid Ruds in and test the question for reaction. If needle reacts to question the list is incomplete or the pc is protesting the question. Leave any Item in that reacts. Eliminate all but the last 3 or 4 Items.

6. 	Tiger Drill the last Items in. Select one Item with the biggest needle reaction or Rock Slam. (Two Items can appear on any list. If they both Rock Slam equally and neither goes out, you have found two Items, in which case you must do the following steps to each.)

7. 	Find out if Item turned on Pain or Sensation when being Tiger Drilled, or say it to the pc and find out. If Pain, say to pc, “Consider_____(Item) committing overts.” If Sensation, say, “Consider committing overts against _____.” This should turn on a Rock Slam if it isn’t on already whenever the Item was said or Tiger Drilled. This is called a Reliable Item if it Rock Slammed. The Rock Slam is very touchy sometimes and has to be Tiger Drilled back on. If an Item slammed while being nulled it is probably it. Those that RS while being listed do not have to RS flicker at all while being nulled, and usually don’t.

 8. 	If the Reliable Item found turned on Pain, list “Who or what would_____(the Reliable Item) oppose?” If it turned on Sensation, list “Who or what would oppose_____(the Reliable Item)?” Complete the list as in any listing. Don’t stop just because the pc nattered or wept. Get the Mid Ruds in and get a list which gives no dirty needle (not dirty reads, there’s a difference) while nulling. In case of a Coterm, test to see if there’s more Pn than Sen or Sen than Pn and classify accordingly. If you can’t decide, list both as opposed and oppose and nul as one list.

9. 	Nul the list saying each Item once, down to 3 or 4 Items.

10. 	Tiger Drill the last 3 or 4 that were left in. Select the last one left in.

11. 	Test and turn on the Rock Slam on the last one in (as in Step 7 above). Be sure to properly determine which is Term and which is Oppterm.

	Get pc to examine and align the package for correctness (and any Bonus Package) and put on the pc’s Line Plot.

12. 	Go over the list used in Step 1 to see if there are any more dirty reads or traces of reads on the Scientology List. If so, repeat the above Eleven Steps on the pc. If not, make a list for the Step 1A etc, using questions given further on in this HCO Bulletin. Note: Only the Scientology List is tested again. Other lists for Step I are used only once.

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

This is the only action known in auditing which will undercut the bank of a slow moving or non-gain pc. Every such pc is a Rock Slammer.

Why is this? Well, these two Items (a terminal and oppterm of the GPM) make a Present Time Problem. The pc is obsessively trying to solve this problem, not trying to get well or go clear. The pc won’t come off trying to solve this sub-surface problem. He or she doesn’t even “know” about it. So there’s the Auditor trying to make somebody well, but the pc is trying to die “to prove Scientology doesn’t work” or to get sick “to make my boss realize what he’s done to me”, etc, etc.

It’s pathetic. In the largest percentage of cases, the auditor is opening the door to the next two hundred trillion years and the pc is reactively trying to get even with grasshoppers.

This disagreement between auditor and pc brings about the upsets and no gains.

No other technique known will get at this key problem or problems.

This technique doesn’t try to diagnose the problem. Indeed the problem won’t be known to the pc (or the auditor) until the action is complete. And then the auditor doesn’t even have to ask for it or about it.

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

What do you do with these two Items? Well, this will prove to be the third biggest source of falls from grace in using Routine 2-12. You don’t do anything with the Items except establish which is the terminal and which is the oppterm and put them on the pc’s Line Plot. The thing that could be done with them would be to get “Represent Lists” from them to find more Items. You can ask for missed W/Hs, saying, “When did
(oppterm found) nearly find out about you?” But it’s best to leave the RS on for a goal finder as the goal finder will want to use them in 3GAXX. (Step 4A—Routine 3-21.) So don’t spoil the RS. The pc will cognite all over the place and that’s the benefit, and the pc won’t be trying to chop up auditors and orgs, and should respond very well to CCHs and Prepchecking after the Two Items are found.

The biggest error that will be made is trying to do R2-12 with the Rudiments out, and conversely, putting the Mid Ruds in every time a pc originates (a sure way to ruin a pc).

The second biggest source of error is making Incomplete Lists. These go out hard and give a dirty needle and result in no Item. The unschooled auditor will usually chicken out whenever the pc says, “That’s all,” or “I’ve just put it on the list. That last Item is IT,” at which the auditor stops listing. And the Item that will Rock Slam is never put on the list and so is never found. And the auditor is left fighting a dirty needle and trying to read through it. The rule is, while nulling, if a simple question “What did you want to say?” fails to smooth out a suddenly dirty needle the list is incomplete. Complete it and then put in Mid Ruds. The average list runs 80 or more Items. (Get the precise difference between a dirty needle and a dirty read in HCO Bulletin November 8, AD 12.)

QUESTIONS FOR THE SECOND PAIR

If you have found a pair of Reliable Items and can’t find anything now on the basic list of Step One, and you want to continue Routine 2-12, the following questions will produce lists on which Reliable Items can be found. You ask the pc the question and write down whatever he says. You never correct the pc or refuse an Item. You only use one of these questions at a time for a full coverage with all 12 Steps.

LISTS

List R2-12—1. The Basic Scientology List as given in Step 1. It is essential not to omit it as the first action in Routine 2-12. It may be done again, and should be, after other lists are used to get Reliable Items. (After other Items have been found, List 1 may come alive again as pc’s case unburdens.)

List R2-12—1A. Special List for pc’s environment. General Question, “In present time, who or what have you been upset about?” This, whatever the question, must get things like wife, husband, marriage, job, home, myself, my case, police, this country, machines, etc, etc. It is an effort to locate PT Items that keep the GPM keyed in. Use only after List 1. Pc gives the Items for this List.

List R2-12—1B. General Question, “Who or what would you prefer not to associate with?” Listed from pc. This list heading was developed for pcs who won’t say they have enemies. It can be used on any pc. Use only what pc lists. Be sure list is complete.

List R2-12—1C. General Question, “Who or what have you detested?” Use only what the pc gives. Be sure list is complete.

List R2-12—1D. General Question, “Who or what isn’t part of existence?” Use only what pc gives. Be sure list is complete.

List R2-12—1E. (General Question, “What Problem have you had?” Use only what pc gives. Be sure list is complete.

List R2-12—1F. General Question, “Who or what have you had to be careful of?” Use only what pc gives. Be sure list is complete.

List R2-12—1G. General Question, “Who or what have you invalidated?” Use only what pc gives. Be sure list is complete.

List R2-12—1H. General Question, “Who or what has nearly found out about you?” Use only what pc gives. Be very very very sure that list is complete or you’ll have missed a withhold on the pc.

The above lists are numbered and lettered for proper sequence in use on the preclear.

In other words you could do Routine 2-12 many times (plus doing Step 1 on the Scientology List more than once) on a preclear. But always do the first step with Scientology Items as many times as you can get one of its Items to react and you’ll never miss.

It is this first list of Scientology Items which holds up cases, so it must be used for all 12 steps again and again.

Further questions can be had from Prehav assessments.

The rule is: “If you get a Reliable Item always get its opposing item.” Then you will never get a BY-PASSED ITEM, the thing that hangs up cases.

In getting any Reliable Items and their opposition, you are of course cleaning up the GPM and therefore clearing the pc. So this is a road to clear.

Items have many other uses, so never fake one and never fail to record one on the Line Plot.

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

Occasionally you get a BONUS PACKAGE off one list. In addition to the Item you are looking for, sometimes two RSing Items will show up on the same list opposing each other and blow. They oppose each other, not what you’re listing. Point this out to the pc when found and put these also on the Line Plot, marked BP (Bonus Package), one as a terminal and one as an opposition terminal. And go on and find your regular Item.

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

Routine 2-12, coupled with Problems Intensives and CCHs, gives the HCA/HPA a full kit that can handle the worst cases, knock out the no-gain cases and can clear. So I haven’t forgotten the HCA/HPA.

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

Don’t try to cover up the fact that somebody has a Rock Slam or a Dirty Read on Scientology etc. You’ll have set him or her up to never have gains.

SKILLS REQUIRED

To accomplish a 3GAXX for Rock Slammers, an auditor needs to be drilled and thoroughly examined on the following:

1. 	The E-Meter and what is a Dirty Read, a Dirty Needle and a Rock Slam. Practical.

2. 	HCO Bulletin November 8, AD12, “Somatics”. Theory.

3. 	Any future HCO Bulletins on Assessment for Rock Slamming Items. Theory and Practical.

4. 	Tiger Drilling. Theory and Practical.

5. 	This bulletin. Theory and Practical.

If the auditor can’t do 3GAXX for Rock Slammers, it will be because he did not know or was badly examined on the five things above. There’s neither difficulty nor mystery about the above 12 steps.

So study up and don’t miss. This, but no Routine 3 process, is declared an HPA/HCA skill. If an auditor can’t do it, he’ll have a slow go or a no-win on about eighty per cent of all cases.

With the above, properly studied and well drilled, there will be great success on anybody who can be persuaded to begin a session.

And also this must be done on every case that hasn’t gone clear already even after their goal has been found. It’s a certainty that such a case is by-passing at least one side of a Present Time Problem that is part of and suppressing the whole GPM.

This is THE PC’s BIGGEST MISSED WITHHOLD of all.

Note: There are no variations on the order of steps or actions above. One doesn’t sometimes do this, sometimes that. This is a very rote procedure.

Note: On some very, very rough cases this system may not work fully until some regular 3GAXX is run by a Class IV auditor. In any event, a case on 3GAXX should be tested again as above after every 6 or 8 RIs are found.

Note: And just to clear up any possible misunderstanding you do R2-12 on all pcs first and you never vary its steps or sequence.

Note: No preclear will achieve a lasting case gain with overts on Scientology and allied Items. No free needle will stay free in the presence of these overts. Routine 2-12 removes the unwanted valences that commit such overts rather than endlessly sec checking the pc. The most insidious By-Passed Items are those that remain in present time prompting the pc to commit senseless overts to the dismay of his good sense and the peril of his case condition. He will make no fast gain until the Scientology List is worked over and over for any reaction.

FAST STEP RESUME

1. 	USE OR COMPILE A LIST 1, 1 A, 1 B, etc.

2. 	ASSESS LIST.

3. 	TIGER DRILL THE LAST 3 OR 4 ITEMS LEFT IN. TAKE THE ONE WITH LARGEST OR ANY REMAINING ACTION. IF ITEM FOUND IS AN RI OMIT STEPS 4 AND 5.

4. 	USING ITEM IN 3, LIST “WHO OR WHAT DOES_____REPRESENT TO YOU?”

5. 	NUL LIST.

6. 	TIGER DRILL LAST 3 OR 4 ITEMS LEFT IN, SELECT ONE.

7. 	DETERMINE IF ITEM FOUND IS A TERMINAL OR OPPOSITION TERMINAL.

8. 	LIST FROM ITEM USING PROPER WORDING FOR A TERMINAL OR OPPOSITION TERMINAL AS ESTABLISHED IN 7. TERM = PAIN = W/W WOULD_____OPPOSE? OPPTERM = SEN = W/W WOULD OPPOSE _____ ?

9. 	NUL LIST.

10. 	TIGER DRILL LAST 3 OR 4. SELECT LAST ONE LEFT IN.

11. 	TEST PACKAGE (AND ANY BONUS PACKAGE) WITH PC, MAKE SURE WHICH IS TERM AND OPPTERM AND IF THEY OPPOSE EACH OTHER AND PUT ON LINE PLOT.

12. 	DO ALL ABOVE STEPS AGAIN ON SCIENTOLOGY LIST UNTIL IT HAS NO GHOST OF A REACTION. THEN DO 1A, 1B, ETC, EACH ON ALL STEPS.

Note: This is a primary training skill. Do not give students more than instruction on the check sheet of Class IIb before turning them loose on Routine IIb as a heavy time auditing activity. They will learn little or nothing before being clean on R2-12. Put Comm Course and other instruction after R2-12 and the student will have a chance to learn it. Give the student further heavy instruction on R2-12 toward course end. Classify only on the end of course repass of the IIb check sheet. The point is don’t waste instruction on basic Scientology until the student is cleaned up on Routine 2-12, particularly the Scientology List. I don’t care how this is accomplished in the Academy or in the HGC. Just get it done.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 24 NOVEMBER AD12
Central Orgs
Franchise	         
ROUTINE 2-12
LIST ONE—ISSUE ONE
THE SCIENTOLOGY LIST

This is the List One of Routine 2-12. You can lengthen but do not shorten this list for Step 1 of R2-12.  This list is used over and over on all 12 Steps until no reaction of any kind can be gotten off of it. If an Item on it reads sporadically, even, use it on the 12 Steps.

The Scientology List is called LIST ONE. Others, 1A, 1B, are called by their designations. All lists, including the Scientology List, are referred to in general as “A first list”, or “The first list”.
______________________________	_________________________________
PC NAME	DATE
______________________________	________________________________
AUDITOR	LOCATION (CITY)

SCIENTOLOGY	A DIANETIC ORGANIZATION
SCIENTOLOGISTS	ORG SURVIVAL
AN AUDITOR	A CENTRE
AUDITORS	FIELD AUDITORS
STUDENTS	HCA’S
AN E-METER	D. SCN’S
METERS	HGC PCS
A SESSION	ACC’S
CLEARING	MENTAL SCIENCE
A CLEAR	A SCIENCE OF MIND
A RELEASE	MENTAL DOCTORS
A PRECLEAR	SAINT HILL
A PATIENT	COURSES
INSANITY	STATEMENTS
THE MIND	UNITS
MINDS	SCIENTOLOGY PAY
MENTAL HEALTH	WORLD CLEARING
DIANETICS	RON
BOOK ONE	L. RON HUBBARD
DIANETIC BOOKS	THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SCIENTOLOGY BOOKS	THE GOVERNING DIRECTOR
A SCIENTOLOGY MAGAZINE	THE FOUNDER
RON’S ARTICLES	MARY SUE
A SCIENTOLOGY CONGRESS	MARY SUE HUBBARD
A BULLETIN	THE ASSOCIATION SECRETARY
A POLICY LETTER	THE ORGANIZATION SECRETARY
A HAT	THE HCO SECRETARY
HATS	SECURITY
A SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATION	WITHHOLDS FROM SCIENTOLOGY
STAFF MEMBERS	OVERTS AGAINST SCIENTOLOGY
A REGISTRAR	YOUR CASE
SCIENTOLOGY LETTERS	PEOPLE’S CASES
INSTRUCTORS	TECHNIQUES
STAFF AUDITORS	PROCEDURES
THE D OF P	A SQUIRREL
THE D OF T	PSYCHOLOGISTS
HCO	PSYCHIATRISTS
HASI	HUMAN RIGHTS
THE CHURCH	ENTHETA
THE FOUNDATION	RUMOURS
THE CENTRAL ORG	BAD AUDITORS
THE ACADEMY	BAD AUDITING
THE HGC	SECURITY RISKS
HDRF	ROCK SLAMMERS
THE CO-AUDIT	NO RESULTS
CO-AUDITING

____________________________________	______________________________________
A bad Person in Scientology	The worst Auditor pc had

____________________________________	______________________________________
A bad Person in Scientology	A Scientology Exec

____________________________________	______________________________________
A bad Person in Scientology	A Scientology Exec

____________________________________	______________________________________
Auditor’s formal name	A Prominent Scientologist

____________________________________	______________________________________
Auditor’s informal name	Something in Scientology worrying pc

____________________________________	______________________________________
An Auditor pc had	Something in Scientology worrying pc

____________________________________	______________________________________
The first Auditor pc had	Something in Scientology worrying pc

____________________________________	
The best Auditor pc had

Note: Fill in all blanks with pc’s help.

Note: The above when found can be Terms or Oppterms. It doesn’t matter which. All that matters is meter reaction unless an RI is found on this list. If so Identify for Term or Oppterm as in Step 7 and continue R2-12.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 29 NOVEMBER AD12
Central Orgs	
Franchise	
ROUTINE 2-12
LIST ONE—ISSUE TWO
THE SCIENTOLOGY LIST

This is List One Issue Two. Do not add to it or change it. This list is used over and over on all 12 Steps until no reaction of any kind can be gotten off of it. If an Item on it reads sporadically, even, use it on the 12 Steps.

_____________________	_____________________	_____________________
PC’S NAME	AUDITOR’S NAME	DATE

SCIENTOLOGY	THE DYNAMICS
SCIENTOLOGISTS	THE REACTIVE MIND
AN AUDITOR	PAST LIVES
AUDITORS	A CENTRE
AUDITING	FIELD AUDITORS
STUDENTS	CERTIFICATES
AN E-METER	HCAs
METERS	HPAs
A SESSION	DSCNs
CLEARING	HGC PCs
A CLEAR	ACCs
A RELEASE	MENTAL SCIENCE
A PRECLEAR	A SCIENCE OF MIND
A PATIENT	MENTAL DOCTORS
INSANITY	SAINT HILL
THE MIND	COURSES
MINDS	STATEMENTS
MENTAL HEALTH	UNITS
DIANETICS	SCIENTOLOGY PAY
BOOK ONE	WORLD CLEARING
DIANETIC BOOKS	RON
SCIENTOLOGY BOOKS	L. RON HUBBARD
A SCIENTOLOGY MAGAZINE	THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
RON’S ARTICLES	THE GOVERNING DIRECTOR
A SCIENTOLOGY CONGRESS	THE FOUNDER
A BULLETIN	MARY SUE
A POLICY LETTER	MARY SUE HUBBARD
A HAT	THE ASSOCIATION SECRETARY
HATS	THE ORGANIZATION SECRETARY
A SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATION	THE HCO SECRETARY
STAFF MEMBERS	SECURITY
A REGISTRAR	YOUR CASE
SCIENTOLOGY LETTERS	PEOPLE’S CASES
INSTRUCTORS	TECHNIQUES
STAFF AUDITORS	PROCEDURES
THE D OF P	A SQUIRREL
THE D OF T	PSYCHOLOGISTS
HCO	PSYCHIATRISTS
HASI	AUDITORS
THE CHURCH	AUDITING
THE FOUNDATION	ROCK SLAMMERS
THE CENTRAL ORG	THETANS
THE ACADEMY
THE HGC
HDRF
THE CO-AUDIT
CO-AUDITING
A DIANETIC ORGANIZATION
Auditor’s Name_______________

L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :jw.bh
Copyright © 1962
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	    				

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 NOVEMBER AD12
Reissued to Franchise 12 February 1963
Sthil Students
CenOCon
Franchise
ROUTINES 2-12, 3-21 and 3GAXX
TIGER DRILL
for
NULLING BY MID RUDS
(Replaces HCO Bulletin 1 August AD12)

(Note: In an actual session, in addition to Model Session script, only the words below are used. No additive words or departures are necessary except to clean up a constant dirty needle with session Mid Ruds if that misfortune occurs. And use session Mid Ruds only when you can’t go on otherwise.)

DRILL ON NEW NULLING PROCEDURES

Position for this drill is the usual auditor-coach position. The coach only has the drill form and follows it exactly until the student auditor has each example down perfectly. When the student auditor and the coach have these drills down exactly, then the coach can give different reads and different goals for the student auditor to work on, the only caution being that the goals selected be those which would be most unlikely on anyone’s goals list. The goal used in this drill is: TO BE A TIGER. On the drills below “A” is for auditor; “C” is for coach. Student and coach use only the words in the drill except when student em at which coach says, “Flunk!” and “Start,” at which student starts at the beginning.

Use of Tiger Drill: This drill is used in Routine 2-12 to sort out the last 3 or 4 Items left in on each nulling. It is used in Routine 3-21 to null the Goals list and on the last 3 or 4 Items left in. In 3GAXX it is used on the last 3 or 4 Items left in and on any Goals list. This is the Small Tiger Drill. It is however simply called the Tiger Drill. Big Tiger is always called Big Tiger.

Buttons used: Only the following buttons are used in Small Tiger: Suppressed, Invalidated, Suggested, Failed to reveal and Mistake.

Big Tiger is the same drill except that it additionally uses Nearly found out, Protest, Anxious about and Careful of. One shifts to Big Tiger when making sure of the last Item in on the list or a goal that fires strongly.

Tiger and Big Tiger compare in buttons used to Mid Ruds and Big Mid Ruds.

Drill 1:

A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Null 
A:	On this goal has anything been suppressed? 
C:	Null 
A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Null 
A:	Thank you. That is out.

Drill 2:

A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Read 
A:	On this goal has anything been invalidated?
A:	That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been invalidated? 
C:	Null 
A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Null 
A:	On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C:	Read
A:	That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suppressed? 
C:	Null 
A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Null 
A:	Thank you. That is out.

Drill 3:

A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Null 
A:	On this goal has anything been suppressed? 
C:	Read 
A:	That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C:	Read 
A: 	That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suppressed? 
C:	Null 
A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Null 
A:	Thank you. That is out.

Drill 4.

A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Read 
A:	On this goal has anything been invalidated? 
C:	Null 
A:	On this goal has anything been suggested?
C:	Read 
A: 	That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suggested? 
C:	Null 
A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Null 
A:	On this goal has anything been suppressed? 
C:	Null 
A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Null 
A:	Thank you. That is out.

Drill 5:

A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Read 
A:	On this goal has anything been invalidated? 
C:	Null 
A:	On this goal has anything been suggested? 
C:	Null 
A:	On this goal is there anything you have failed to reveal? 
C:	Read 
A:	That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal is there anything you have failed to reveal? 
C:	Null
A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Null 
A:	On this goal has anything been suppressed? 
C:	Null 
A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Null 
A:	Thank you. That is out.

Drill 6:

A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Read 
A:	On this goal has anything been invalidated? 
C:	Null 
A:	On this goal has anything been suggested? 
C:	Null 
A:	On the goal to be a tiger is there anything you have failed to reveal? 
C:	Null 
A:	On this goal has any mistake been made? 
C:	Read 
A:	That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has any mistake been made? 
C:	Null 
A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Null 
A:	On this goal has anything been suppressed? 
C:	Null 
A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Null 
A:	Thank you. That is out.

Drill 7:

A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Null 
A:	On this goal has anything been suppressed? 
C:	Read 
A:	That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suppressed? 
C:	Read 
A:	That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suppressed? 
C:	Null 
A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Read 
A:	On this goal has anything been invalidated? 
C:	Read 
A:	That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been invalidated? 
C:	Null 
A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Read 
A:	On this goal has anything been suggested? 
C:	Null 
A:	On this goal is there anything you have failed to reveal? 
C:	Null 
A:	On the goal to be a tiger has any mistake been made? 
C:	Read 
A:	That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has any mistake been made? 
C:	Null 
A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Read
A:	That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suppressed? 
C:	Null 
A:	To be a tiger
C:	Read
A:	On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C:	Read
A:	That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been invalidated? 
C:	Null 
A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Null 
A:	On this goal has anything been suppressed? 
C:	Null 
A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Null 
A:	Thank you. That is out.

Drill 8:

A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Read 
A:	On this goal has anything been invalidated? 
C:	Null 
A:	On this goal has anything been suggested?
C:	Null
A:	On this goal is there anything you have failed to reveal?
C:	Null
A:	On this goal has any mistake been made?
C:	Null
A:	On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C:	Null
A:	To be a tiger
C:	Read
A:	To be a tiger
C:	Read
A:	To be a tiger
C:	Read (Note that this goal is now ready to be checked out.)

Drill 9:

A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Null 
A:	On this goal has anything been suppressed?
C:	Read 
A:	That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suppressed? 
C:	Null 
A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Read 
A:	On this goal has anything been invalidated?
C:	Read 
A:	That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been invalidated? 
C:	Null 
A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Read 
A:	On this goal has anything been suggested?
C:	Read 
A:	That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suggested?
C:	Read 
A:	That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suggested? 
C:	Null 
A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Read 
A:	On this goal is there anything you have failed to reveal? 
C:	Read 
A:	That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal is there anything you have failed to reveal? 
C:	Null 
A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Null 
A:	On this goal has anything been suppressed? 
C:	Null 
A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Null 
A:	Thank you. That is out.

Drill 10:

A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Null 
A:	On this goal has anything been suppressed? 
C:	Read 
A:	That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suppressed? 
C:	Null 
A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Read 
A:	On this goal has anything been invalidated? 
C:	Null 
A:	On this goal has anything been suggested? 
C:	Read 
A:	That reads: What was it? Thank you. On this goal has anything been suggested? 
C:	Null 
A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Null 
A:	On this goal has anything been suppressed? 
C:	Null 
A:	To be a tiger 
C:	Null 
A:	Thank you. That is out.

Acks—These are used to complete and end a whole Drill Cycle. They can be used during the Drill if pc needs them, but only if pc needs them. It’s better to use the Drill as is.

Suppress—Suppress is not used repetitively in Tiger Drilling, only in Mid Ruds and Prepchecking.

“Do you agree that that is clean”—This is not used. 

“I will check that on the meter”—This is not used.

After doing Suppress always check the Goal.

If the pc has a tendency to lose sight of the goal on a long run you can always change, for a command, the wording to “On the goal To be a tiger has anything been_______ ?

LRH :jw.rd							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright ©1962, 1963 					
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 1 DECEMBER 1962
CenOCon

GOALS & PREPCHECKING

In Prepchecking pcs through Problems Intensives, it commonly occurs that the pc presents his or her goal to the Auditor.

When this occurs the goal should not be given vast importance or suppressed, either way.

The pc should be taken to a Class IV Auditor and checked out. The Prepcheck may then be shifted to the goal itself.

The usual actions of Routine 3-21 are then followed, of which the goals prepcheck is a part, so long as the auditing is done under the supervision of a Class IV Auditor.

It is a very bad action to just take the pc’s goal and run it without its being thoroughly checked out. The health and even the life of the pc can be put at risk if it is not the pc’s goal.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 DECEMBER AD 12
Central Orgs	
Franchise
ROUTINE 2-12
LIST ONE—ISSUE THREE
THE SCIENTOLOGY LIST

Do not add to list or you will get incomplete list phenomena.

_____________________	_____________________	____________________
PC’S NAME	AUDITOR’S NAME	DATE

SCIENTOLOGY	SOMATICS
SCIENTOLOGISTS	PAIN
AN AUDITOR	ENGRAMS
AUDITORS	CIRCUITS
AUDITING	VALENCES
STUDENTS	THE DYNAMICS
AN E-METER	PAST LIVES
METERS	A CENTRE
A SESSION	FIELD AUDITORS
CLEARING	CERTIFICATES
A CLEAR	HCAs
A RELEASE	HPAs
A PRECLEAR	D.SCNs
A PATIENT	MINISTERS
INSANE PEOPLE	HGC PCs
THE MIND	ACC s
MINDS	MENTAL SCIENCE
MENTAL HEALTH	A SCIENCE OF MIND
DIANETICS	MENTAL DOCTORS
BOOK ONE	SAINT HILL
DIANETIC BOOKS	COURSES
SCIENTOLOGY BOOKS	STATEMENTS
A SCIENTOLOGY MAGAZINE	UNITS
RON’S ARTICLES	SCIENTOLOGY PAY
A SCIENTOLOGY CONGRESS	WORLD CLEARING
A BULLETIN	RON
A POLICY LETTER	L. RON HUBBARD
A HAT	THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
HATS	THE GOVERNING DIRECTOR
A SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATION	THE FOUNDER
STAFF MEMBERS	MARY SUE
A REGISTRAR	MARY SUE HUBBARD
SCIENTOLOGY LETTERS	THE ASSOCIATION SECRETARY
INSTRUCTORS	THE ORGANIZATION SECRETARY
STAFF AUDITORS	THE HCO SECRETARY
THE D of P	SECURITY
THE D of T	YOUR CASE
HCO	PEOPLE’S CASES
HASI	TECHNIQUES
THE CHURCH	PROCEDURES
THE FOUNDATION	ROUTINE 2-12
THE CENTRAL ORG	A SQUIRREL
THE ACADEMY	PSYCHOLOGISTS
THE HGC	PSYCHIATRISTS
THE PE	ROCK SLAMMERS
HDRF	THETANS
THE CO-AUDIT	TESTS
CO-AUDITING	EXAMINERS
A DIANETIC ORGANIZATION	GOALS
THE DYNAMICS	TAPES
THE REACTIVE MIND	LECTURES
ABERRATION
___________________________
	Auditor’s Name

L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 DECEMBER AD 12
Sthil Students
Academies
TRAINING
X UNIT

The biggest hole in student auditing is the inability to clean up a needle.

Students who try to do assessments fail to get results when they attempt to null with a needle that is already filthy.

It is rather easy to clean a needle and the results on the pc are highly beneficial.

The basis of an inability to read a meter is state of case. This is remedied by R2- 12’s List One cleaning. When List One is burnished bright, the student will be able to read a meter.

In V unit the auditing is heavily supervised and the student’s reality is raised by accurate R2-12 or R2-10.

In X unit therefore, the first indicated step is to teach the student to use the Mid Ruds.

This is done by Havingness by Mid Ruds.

The pattern of the session is Goal Finder’s Model Session.

The Purpose of the X unit Sessions is to clean a needle and to demonstrate that a needle can be cleaned.

The Auditor notes the pc’s can squeeze before session start.

The session is started with the usual Goal Finder’s pattern.

The Rudiments are put in by Big Mid Ruds, “Since the last time I audited you ............” (or “Since the last time you were audited .......	“ if this is the auditor’s first session, or “Since you decided to be audited ..	..” for raw meat).

The general missed W/Hs of the pc are pulled in the body of the early sessions. When this has been done, remaining sessions are devoted to havingness.

The pc’s havingness process is tested for and found, or is run.

The body of the session is closed.

The Big Ruds for the session are then put in.

The pc is then asked with meter at Sens 16 “In this session was the room all right?” and this is cleaned. The can squeeze test is then made with Sens 1.

Goals and gains are taken up and the session is ended.

By end of session the needle should be without pattern and the pc should be cheerful.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 DECEMBER AD12
Central Orgs
Franchise
ROUTINE 2-12
LIST ONE
ADD TO LIST ONE ISSUE THREE
(HCO Bulletin December 4, AD 12)

Correction: Auditor’s name at end of second column is part of second column and is used in assessment.

DIRECTIONS: If anything has ever Rockslammed on List One itself it must be opposed even if it doesn’t Rockslam now. The data of all observations and security checks is used to find if anything Rockslammed. The case will give dead horses if a Rockslamming Item is by-passed. Cases that give dead horses on R2- 12 had a Rockslamming Item on List One that was never opposed. On cases that have been giving lists on which no RSs occur, Tiger Drill List One until you get an RS on any button or pain or sensation on any Item and just oppose it.

After a List One Item has been represented always check it again to see if it now is Rockslamming. If so, do an opposition list to it in accordance to whether it gave pn or sen.

Add these additional Items to List One Issue 3:

  	FRANCHISE	FAMILY
 	10%s	HOME
    	SCIENTOLOGY GROUPS	LOVE
 	GROUP AUDITING	PARENTS
  	MEMBERSHIPS	FATHER
  	REPORTS	MOTHER
  	DISSEMINATION	A GROUP
   	INFRACTIONS	GROUPS
	PABs	GOVERNMENT
   	ASSESSMENTS	ORGANIZATIONS
   	MID RUDS	COMPANY
   	CHECK OUTS	MANAGEMENT
  	EXAMINERS	LABOUR
    	GLASSES	A CLUB
   	HEALTH	PEOPLE
  	MEDICINE	MANKIND
 	MEDICAL DOCTORS	SPECIES
  	HEALING SYSTEMS	LIVING THINGS
   	PROCESSING	MATTER
  	TESTS	MASSES
    	I.Q.	ENERGY
   	TRAINING	SPACE
    	YOURSELF	TIME
  	YOU	FORM
     	ME (meaning pc)	FORMS
    	ME (meaning auditor)	AUDITING ROOMS
   	SEX	THETANS
 	SEXUAL PRACTICES	SPIRITS
   	A MAN	GHOSTS
   	MEN	KNOWLEDGE
	A WOMAN	THOUGHT
   	WOMEN	RELIGION
 	A CHILD	GODS
  	CHILDREN	GOD
       	MARRIAGE	SUPREME BEING

L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 DECEMBER AD12

Franchise	
URGENT

R2-12
THE FATAL ERROR

The surest way to retard and upset a case with Routine 2-12 is to find a Rock Slam on List One, Tiger Drill it down to a dirty needle and then represent it.

That case will then hang up, 2-12 can be pronounced as unworkable and the whole thing can be skipped.

Yes, the represent list so taken will RS. Yes, the List One Item tested again will probably now RS. Yes, the auditor has followed the rules of R2-12. A11 except one, and that rule is:

IF AN ITEM ROCKSLAMS WHEN CALLED ON LIST ONE OR AT ANY TIME DURING TIGER DRILLING, NO MATTER HOW BRIEFLY, THAT ITEM MUST BE GIVEN AN OPPOSITION LIST.

And another rule:

IF YOU AREN’T SURE IF A LIST ONE ITEM GAVE PAIN OR SENSATION, THE OPPOSITION LIST MUST BE MADE BOTH WAYS, “WHO OR WHAT WOULD IT OPPOSE” AND “ WHO OR WHAT WOULD OPPOSE IT”.

If more than one Item RSed on List One you take what RSed longest or was closest to the session.

List One Items do not have to continue to Rockslam forever in order to do opposition lists to them.

Most pcs who know the rules lie about pain or sensation in order to pretend List One Items are terminals. Do the opposition lists both ways as above and nul all.

Routine 2-12 has only this frailty: Rockslammers will not find rock slams on List One. And Tiger Drilling can be counted on, in inexpert hands, to suppress the RS.

A case BOGS when you represent an RS-ing Item.

NEVER represent an RS-ing Item. Always oppose it.

Hear me, now. Almost 100% of R2- 12 cases will fail if no attention is paid to the above.                      

If you get a case that gets only dead horses, don’t go to the Zero A List. Just write an opposition list to Scientology. You’ll be right ninety percent of the time. The other ten percent RS on Scientology Orgs and Auditors.

Opposition Lists only on RS-ing Items. Hear me now.

If a case EVER ROCKSLAMMED ON A LIST ONE ITEM, whether on an old Security Check, a Joburg, a Rock Slam Sec Check, and you now do only represent lists from List One, that case will hang, or make small gain on R2-12 until somebody is smart enough to look at the record and oppose that RS-ing Item.

Honest, the case is finished right now, kaput, wrecked, smashed, ended, snarled, messed up, ruined, stopped and skewered until a List One Item that RSed ever so briefly is opposed. Represent Lists will get it nowhere until this is done.

Hear me, please.

LRH: dr.vmm.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 1 JANUARY AD13
Central Orgs

ACADEMY CURRICULUM
HOW TO TEACH AUDITING AND ROUTINE 2

INTRODUCTION

With the placing of a clearing technology into HCA/HPA hands, we must revise our concept of training.

Routine 2-12 is complicated and exact. But as it is the only thing known which cracks all cases, we have no choice in the matter. We can and must learn it well. It must not be indifferently learned. But as it is not going to change as is well proven, time and effort can be spent upon it and must be.

We must rise to the occasion. We must use all we know to learn and teach all we have to teach to get Routine 2 done.

CHECK SHEETS

There are two distinctly different series of check sheets for doing Routine 2 processes and auditing. These are:

(a) 	Those that apply to Routine 2, the GPM and data listing, nulling and case errors and repair;

(b) 	Those that apply to auditing, its basics, skills, the meter.

Although these associate and interlock, they are two separate subjects of study.

For years we have faced the arbitrary that those whose cases got in the road of their auditing yet had to assimilate auditing theory and practice.

Routine 2 well done removes with some rapidity these case barriers to auditing.

Therefore there are several phases desirable in studying auditing and Routine 2.

V UNIT CLASS 0
FIRST PHASE

For a new student, doing Routine 2-10 precedes study of auditing and Routine 2. This is done under close supervision on a co-audit basis with the Co-audit Supervisor taking a hand on cases, checking out Items, correcting cases, etc.

This is done until the student has found in another and has had found in himself 2 or 3 packages. Accuracy is the essence of this first step, otherwise the wasted time and wrong Items will give the whole action the tone of despair.

Only good results are stressed, not the form of how they are achieved.

In this first phase we want the student to see that Routine 2 produces changes for the better in himself and the pc and is worth learning. This is what we’re trying to show.
We remove, if the Routine 2 is good, the barriers to learning auditing and Scientology.

All we want then from the first phase is:

(a) 	Reality on the benefits of the process and auditing; and

(b) 	Removal of the barriers to being a good auditor.

W UNIT CLASS Ia
SECOND PHASE

This phase actually starts the training of a Scientologist. He or she, however, should have started its check sheets in the V unit.

We teach the basics of Scientology, its history, the Auditor’s Code, Axioms, the ARC triangle and Tone Scale out of the old Notes on Lectures booklet.

In practical and auditing we teach and do objective processes, Op Pro by Dup and the CCHs.

We wish to accomplish this in this phase:

(a) 	A Reality that Scientology is a real subject and very precise, not a mixture of Indian philosophy and cute tricks, and give the student solid grounding on pure Scientology basics, disrelated from auditing; and

(b) 	Get the student capable of repetition of commands and unafraid in actual physical handling of other bodies.

X UNIT CLASS Ib
THIRD PHASE

We now enter the student upon a phase of formal auditing consisting of theory and practical, using all the basics of auditing, the TRs, the meter, fine points.

This phase should specialize in basic auditing skills, very precisely applicable to handling an auditing session, a meter, meter drills, anti Q and A, TRs 0-4, Model Session, Mid Ruds, Missed Withholds, etc.

And we get the student to run formal processes on the Meter until he or she understands a meter. These processes consist only of ARC Straight Wire, comm processes, nothing that will disturb 2-12 or run out Rockslams. The idea of this auditing is to get the student used to handling a session with competence.

From this phase we expect:

(a) 	The basics of auditing in theory and practical; and

(b) 	Confidence in confronting a bank and handling a pc on a meter with good form.

Y UNIT CLASS IIa 
FOURTH PHASE

In the fourth phase our interest is in Prepchecking as an action and a prelude to lists in the form of a Problems Intensive.
In theory and practical we teach how to do a Problems Intensive, advanced metering, how to detect case changes, better sessioning, more TRs 0-4, more basics of Scientology such as Axioms and Logics.

In auditing, the student does a Problems Intensive and receives one. The stress is on good sessioning and RESULTS.

From this phase we expect:

(a) 	A good command of a Problems Intensive theory and practical, how to detect case changes; and

(b) 	The ability to actually audit to a good result and keep Mid Ruds in and CLEAN A NEEDLE.

Z UNIT CLASS IIb
FIFTH PHASE

This is a theory and practical phase for Routine 2-12.

The student also audits Routine 2-12 under supervision.

The whole check sheet for Routine 2-12 is thrown at the student. The long HCO Bulletins are segmented into a page or two and thereby made into several passes (the student studies and is examined on them in segments).

In auditing, the student is permitted to do full 2-12 and the stress is on RESULTS with accurate Routine 2-12.

PG UNIT—CLASS II
SIXTH PHASE

This is a post-graduate phase on Routine 2-12. It was formerly known as “Interne”.

The theory and practical are all on the stress of CASE REPAIR and how to supervise Routine 2.

The student is used to help supervise V unit students as his auditing activity with stress on case errors.

The remainder of the student’s time is taken up with preparation for examination for his HCA/HPA.

The student may be used for charity cases and what was formerly Interne work.

SUMMARY

This is about a three months’ course if steamed through. If it takes longer, then the V unit was flubbed.

If a student hangs up longer than a reasonable time in any upper phase, he is returned to the V unit and is required to do and receive Routine 2 while continuing to try to pass upper level check sheets so as not to hold him up.

Students are, of course, expected to study evenings and week-ends.

The three section course plan is adhered to of Theory, Practical and Auditing.

Auditing in the Auditing Section is done for RESULTS, not to teach auditing. Practical is where they practise.

Students are progressively assigned to their units and are re-classed as they pass out of a unit.

The Model of this Course is Saint Hill but it may not be so advertised.

The chief difference of course is the necessary re-introduction of a student body tape programme such as in the old days. The last hour of the day is used for this. A sequence of about 75 tapes, mainly of general historical or auditing interest, are played to the whole student body, assembled in the main assembly hall, one tape each day, regardless of the students’ classification. They are given quizzes on these tapes, very brief. No other tape use is made in an Academy. There are no headphone recorders. If tape play speakers are not good the students won’t learn anything from the tapes. When tapes are omitted as a whole class activity, the whole direction, meaning and ethic of Scientology goes sour in an area and the students haven’t a clue what Scientology is for and you find them idling about driving off pcs with nutty chatter.

This Academy Curriculum requires a D of T and two instructors. To this can be added a Training Admin who is also Extension Course. The D of T becomes Auditing Supervisor, the other two instructors are the Theory Supervisor and Practical Supervisor.

The Classes are awarded on the Completion of the phase and designate the check sheets. Students get canceled out of units but not off check sheets.

The only things that can keep students from passing through this course rapidly are (a) failure to schedule precisely, (b) failure to demand and obtain auditing results in all units, (c) local non-comprehension of R2-12, (d) capricious and unreal theory and practical examinations and (e) failure to enforce the course regulations. A full Academy will attend to all these things. An empty one will have ignored them.

It is no real sin to do a lousy job of auditing. It is a terrible crime to do a bad job of training and dissemination because then there’s nothing left to pick the cases up in this life or the next. Every bad auditor we turn out costs us a hundred preclears. Every good one puts us closer to our objectives.

An Academy Class II should be good enough to go to work at once as an HGC auditor without causing the HGC a moment’s worry.
It can be done because it must be.

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 3 JANUARY AD13

Central Orgs
Franchise
ROUTINE 2

IMPORTANT

OPPOSITION LISTS
RIGHT AND WRONG OPPOSE

Most PT terminals and oppterms look more like Co-terms than clean Terminals or Opposition Terminals when first contacted. They become more definite Terms or Oppterms after they have been listed a page. While you should be able to make the right choice in most cases by the usual test given in the 2-12 steps you can err.

Your lists will become endless and unnullable and your pc will go downhill if you oppose an RI wrong way to.

Therefore, while listing, carefully observe the needle and the pc. The TA is meaningless in this test. The Indications for testing “Right Way Oppose” and “Wrong Way Oppose” are the subject of this bulletin.

In opposing a Reliable Item you can consider it a Terminal (because pc said it gave pain) and list “Who or What would a Catfish oppose?” Whereas in actual fact it was an Oppterm and should have been listed “Who or What would oppose a Catfish?” Or Vice Versa. Sad consequences follow a wrong choice.

POTENTIAL MISCALLING AN RI

Even the best auditor can make a mistake in calling an RI he’s gotten a Terminal or an Oppterm. The pc is foggy as to what’s pain or sensation. The RI may have both. Sometimes Terminals are so covered with Sen there is no pain at first. Sometimes the hidden Terminal is so hard down on the Oppterm RI it seems like a Terminal.

Further, you can be doing an Opposition to an RI list, expecting a Terminal to come up and get, in fact, another Oppterm. This is fine. Accept it if the list only RSed once on nulling. But the opposing Terminal is still hidden and must be gotten. Pcs, you see, often put Terms and Oppterms on the same list.

STABLE DATUM:

Always regard the identity of an RI as a Term or Oppterm as potentially wrong until listed and tested as per this HCO Bulletin. Do the best you can with usual tests to tell what it is before you start listing and choose your oppose question accordingly. But be ready to find that what was a Terminal is really an Oppterm or vice versa and should have been opposed “the other way around”.

You have only two list questions to use in opposing a Reliable Item. These are “Who or What would oppose a____?” and “Who or What would a ____oppose?” For every Reliable Item there is only one of the above that is right. The other is wrong. There are no true Coterms—they only seem to be both a Terminal (pain) and an Oppterm (sensation).

When it comes to listing you will benefit the pc only by listing the right way. The other oppose question then is the wrong way.

If you list the “wrong way” (using the wrong question), you’ll get an ENDLESS LIST that never completes and won’t nul.

You therefore have a choice of two questions and one of them is right and the other wrong, always. If you choose the right one and list it, the pc benefits. If you choose the wrong one and list it the pc will get worse rapidly, right in the session before your eyes.

It often happens that you start listing the wrong way. This is because you failed to find out correctly if the RI you were about to list an opposition list to was a Terminal (pain) or an Opposition Terminal (sensation). The pc said he had “sen” but actually felt “pain”. Or the pc did have “sen” and the pain appeared afterward. In short, because PT Terminals look like Coterms very often, neither the pc nor the auditor can tell on some RIs. This happens to some RIs on every case.

The solution to the dilemma is to test by listing a page or two.

There are certain definite signs of wrong way opposition. They can be seen with half an eye. There is no need to go on until your pc is caved in and you have 99 pages of Items to find out you can’t nul and should have opposed the other way around.

A list right way to or wrong way to will Rockslam, so that’s no test in itself. The tests, five in number, are a little more delicate:

Aside from original tests for Term or Oppterm, how to tell if an oppose list is right way to:

RIGHT WAY INDICATIONS

1. 	In Listing needle is loose and gets looser;

2. 	Pc’s skin tone gets progressively better as he or she lists;

3. 	Masses move out off pc;

4. 	Pc gives Items easily;

5. 	List completes easily.

WRONG WAY OPPOSE INDICATIONS

If List is wrong way oppose (which is to say the wording is reversed, such as “Who or What would oppose a Catfish?” as different from “Who or What would a Catfish oppose?”) these things will always happen:

1. In listing, the needle gets tighter, stiff and tends to jerk. It goes in cycles, DR, RS, DR, clean, DR, RS, DR, clean, etc;

2. The pc’s skin tone gets progressively worse, darker and off colour and the pc looks older;

3. Masses move into the pc and make him feel more or less squashed;

4. Pc gives Items with some small difficulty and tends to invalidate them and RI being listed from;

5. List doesn’t ever complete. You may be able to nul a while but the needle will dirty up and no amount of Mid Ruds will clean it.

Whether your list is right way oppose or wrong way oppose the pc may get pain and sensation, even nausea. Indeed, be worried only if the pc doesn’t. These don’t count. Pain and Sensation are used for the first test you make in selection. But aren’t used beyond that test given in the Steps of 2-12. It’s the darkening colour of the pc and his or her apparent age that count. Your tests above are visual not getting data from the pc. Pcs will list wrong way to and plow themselves right on in with no complaint.

If you start listing wrong way to, and then turn it around, the pc will have trouble giving right way to Items for a bit, and then they come at a rapid easy flow and you get all the above 5 things for the right way list. Unless you change around to the right way and continue to list the wrong way you will continue to get the 5 indications given for wrong lists.

Sometimes an RI is so fouled up you have to test by listing one way, then the other and then back to the first way again.

A little experience is solid gold, for you begin to see the 5 indications for right lists and the 5 indications for wrong lists and recognize them more quickly.

When you have opposed wrongly and then, in opposing right way to you get a complete list, you never bother to nul the wrong way list. You just abandon it. The RI won’t be on it. You only nul the right way oppose list.

Rule: Never nul lists taken from wrong sources. Just abandon.

No list ever went to 50 pages that was right way to. Right Way Oppose Lists that can be completed are probably all below 500 Items, the usual being around 250 Items.

Wrong Way Oppose is the chief source of difficulty for any opposition list, rivalled only by Incomplete Lists as a trouble maker in Routine 2.

A wrong way oppose list is of course “Wrong Source” as one is using “Catfish” as a Terminal instead of “Catfish” as an Oppterm or vice versa.

Endless lists also come from just continuing to list on and on and on, the pc’s needle being dirty by “Protest”. This is just silly. Some supervisor may develop as a stable datum, “If the needle is dirty, just continue listing.” And this is wrong. A needle does get clean when a right way oppose list is completed. But wrong way oppose or Mid Ruds Out can also make a needle dirty.

On an oppose list, if a needle is dirty three main things can be wrong:

1. 	List is right way oppose but incomplete. Remedy: Complete it to one RS only seen on nulling.

2. 	List is wrong way oppose. Remedy: Oppose it the other way and watch the signs (above) until you’re sure. Then go on and complete.

3. 	Mid Ruds are out—pc protesting the session or overlisting.

Wrong Source (opposing a wrong item) can mess up a pc also. But why’d you take an Item from an incomplete or wrong way list in the first place and then oppose it? The remedy of this one lies before the fact of wrong way oppose, so is not the subject of this HCO Bulletin.

								L. RON HUBBARD

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

6301C08 SHSpec-226 R2-10 and R2-12

[Part of the data in this lecture is also found in HCOB 30Dec62 “Urgent Important: Routines 2-12 and 2-10 -- Case Errors -- Points of Greatest Importance”.]

“In August, I wrote a jerk ... named Kennedy.  This latest adornment of the Russian victory parade was offered help in the space race -- straightening up I.Q., etc.  This ‘lighthouse’ has twice asked for presentations of scientology.  We’ve granted them, and they have done weird things like fire the guy who asked for them.” Time rolled along.  The FDA started sniffing around.  The government organized a smear campaign in the press, and they raided a church, seized philosophic texts and E-meters.  How did they do this?  They lied to the court!  They didn’t tell the court who the warrant was for and they didn’t mention books.  The warrant was signed by the president.

So ads are being placed in newspapers in the bible belt, and there will be a delay in the court hearing.  “I frankly was getting worried.  We’d been ignored too long!” We needn’t waste time fighting the government.  It is its own oppterm!

What should happen when you find an item?  If you give the PC the wrong item, he will have markedly more mass than he had a minute before.  If the list is incomplete, the PC will also ARC break in the next few minutes, and you will be unable to get him out of it except by completing the list.  With a right item, mass diminishes.  A PC knows whether or not it is his item.  You are only auditing up to the PC’s knowingness, so if he doesn’t know whether it is his item, you know it isn’t.  He has to be certain that it is right.  Also, when you package the item, the PC must know that it is a package.  If there is any queasiness about it, it is out.  The PC’s knowingness is paramount, in getting the right item.  Well done listing should produce an item that brings in VVVGI’s, not just agreement.

Routine 2 has a little miracle to offer.  Done this way, the masses go “Pffft!” against each other; the rock slams cancel out.  Wrongly done, R2 delivers more mass; done right, the PC has less mass.  It is a question of havingness.  The wrong item has mass because:

1. Though it does have its own mass, it is not the fundamental mass.

2. You have told a lie about it by saying that it is the fundamental mass.

[More data on running Routine 2]

Some day, on Routine 2, you will have the bad luck to have a very suppressed PC.  He will suppress the item as he puts it on the list.  You will miss the rock slam, and you will know you goofed and have to do something extraordinary.  The PC may ARC break very thoroughly and auditing with ruds, missed withholds, etc., won’t handle it.  Only Routine 2 will fix it.  Get him to extend the list; get the item, and the ARC break will be gone.  
The more unnecessary arbitraries you introduce into how something is done, the more trouble you will have with it.  R2-12 began to handle rockslamming.  R2-12 can be done at several levels.  There are a lot of results to be had, even doing it wrong.  Auditors have had more trouble with it than LRH expected.

There are three sources for the first list in R2-12.

1. The PC’s immediate session environment.

2. The environment the PC lives in more generally.

3. The various parts of existence.  If you already have the PC’s goal, you can ask, “Who or what, in PT, would your goal influence?” to get a rockslamming item.  You could get life and livingness sources by asking, “What is part of your life and livingness in PT?” and “What is not part of it?” Each could be a complete list.  If one doesn’t rockslam, the other will.  Often both will.

We have to find something that isn’t rockslamming to get a list, when you are after a “part” or “consist of” list, because you only oppose rockslamming items.  If the PC rockslams on “Your life”, don’t list, “In PT, W/W does your life consist of?” Test the source of a list to make sure that it doesn’t rockslam.  You can even tiger drill sources to be sure.  If a source does rockslam, skip it for a represent list.  Also, don’t oppose some out-of-the-blue rockslamming item.  A rockslamming source for a list is always out of a context of another incomplete list that you don’t necessarily know the heading of.  A rockslamming item is therefore not necessarily an RI.  It is not totally destructive to oppose such an item, just dicey.  Sometimes the lists you get when you do this won’t complete, or you will get lots of co-terms.  If you found “scientology” rockslamming, you could just oppose it as a security measure, but there is a liability to doing this.

So avoid the sourceless rock slam as something to list from.  If “scientology” rockslams, find something else to list from that gets at the same thing.  You can’t do a “represent”. You have to find some way of saying scientology” so you are not representing scientology, e.g. “Ron’s work”, or “mental activities”, or some such.  Say four dynamics rockslammed.  Therefore the source is an incomplete list.  You have to complete it, but how?  You find something about scientology or the dynamics that is broad and embracive, like “mental activity”, or “What is/isn’t part of existence?” Then you get an item and oppose it.

Your success is monitored by this:  Do Routine 2 right and repair it with Routine 2. A little Routine 2 and a lot of general auditing won’t give much result.  R2 is more powerful because it is hitting at the PC’s PTP and hidden standard.  He doesn’t know what they are until you direct his attention to them.  You could ask, “What would some healing process have to do to you in order for you to know you were better?” The PC will consult with a circuit and give you his hidden standard.  If you tried to list this PC’s goals, all you would get would be the goals of those circuits.  This is another reason why you cannot get the PC clear with these circuits and hidden standards in the way.  After Routine 2, you will begin to get the PC’s goals instead of circuits’ goals.  Get a few packages off and out of the way, and the PC will give you his goal.  Then you can run him on a goals process and clear him. But you have to clear up the PT environment first.

6301C08 SHSpec-227 Case Repair

If you did the pure form of listing and opposing described in the last lecture, you get less mass as a result.  If you start seeing more rock slams than before and there is more mass on the PC, you have been goofing.  The best visual indicator is the PC’s skin tone.  If mass is increasing, the PC’s skin goes green or yellow or grey or black.  The eyes are also an indicator, although they are somewhat less reliable, because going through a period of sen. will make the eyes look “sen.-y”.  But do note the PC’s skin tone at the start of the session, so that you can compare this with its later appearance. Age is another symptom.  The PC should look younger half way through the session.  Even hair color will change: it will get grayer or less gray. Weight will also change, over the course of two to three sessions, in the direction of optimum weight.  The meter should also behave better.  It should be more responsive; there should be a cleaner needle.  Routine 2 doesn’t do much for the TA position.  The needle is more indicative.  The PC’s TA can sit at five, with the PC getting better and better.  If the TA remains motionless throughout listing, that’s fine.  After awhile, there should be some change. It is not in the course of one session, but after several.  Eventually, there should be improvement in a high or low TA, or the mass hasn’t been cleaned up.  Persistent low TA is worrisome.  Seeing no change in TA, look for:

1. A wrong source  or   2. A list that should be completed.  You should be especially concerned if the PC was at 1.5 and didn’t change after a couple of packages had been found.

Listing wrong way to makes the needle stiff and jerky.  On a right list, the needle should free up, get clean and stay clean.  A list can go clean needle before the item is on it, so avoid short lists.  A super-long list, say twenty-five pages, is from wrong source or wrong way to.  Five to six pages should do.  The wronger you are, the longer it takes.  The right way goes fast.  When nulling a list, don’t tell the PC that an item rockslammed until you have finished nulling.  Then watch his indicators to be sure that it is his item.  Don’t shift his attention after telling him the item.  If he ARC breaks when you have given him the item, it is wrong, and you had better get him to go on.  He won’t mind, if it was the wrong item.  If he knows it is his item and you try to make him go on, he will ARC break.

When do you repair a case?  When it won’t run right.  The commonest error in Routine 2 is wrong source, and the commonest source of that is an item taken from an incomplete list.  Any item is viewed as coming from a list, even if it was never before listed.

The three areas that you have available to get items from are:

1. The PC’s PT session environment.

2. His PT non-session life and livingness environment.

3. The parts of existence.  

So if the PC has several rock slams on List One, you know at once that List One is an incomplete list.  This gives you the problem of regress: you are always starting from a list that hasn’t been written.  The auditor’s responsibility is to make sure that the list source question doesn’t rockslam, since if it does, it is obviously part of a list, so he can’t use it for a represent or a “consist of” list.  All lists start with a represent list.  

Just because something slams, you don’t necessarily oppose it.  You might try to find out what the item is from by asking, “What list question would _______ be an answer to?”  If you have been listing from something which, when you check it, now slams, it is wrong source.  It is not that it is “getting unsuppressed”.  So what you want to do is to find a non-rockslamming list question that produces rock slams.  There must be no rock slam anywhere in the list question.

If you list from a non-rockslamming source and don’t get rock slams, you can always use the negative version, “What doesn’t _______ consist of?” If you don’t get anything on “Parts of existence”, try, “What isn’t part of existence?” You can also do this with List One.  If a PC has his interest stuck on an item, find what list that item was on, and complete the list. Once you have got a rockslamming item from a complete list, you can go ahead and oppose it.

What about a case that has been run a long time on wrong sources, wrong way to, and has lots of wrong items?  This is pretty sad, but the case will still have been improved.  Just repair it by finding the first incomplete list on the case, even a suppositional one or a List One, or whatever.  Get a list question of some sort that doesn’t rockslam, add to the list, and try to tiger drill alive what originally rockslammed.  If you get a rock slam while extending, watch to see whether you keep getting them.  If you do, it shows wrong source or wrong way to.  Try it the other way around.  If it still won’t clean up, it is wrong source.  Complete all such incomplete lists.  Where you get RI’s, oppose them, and the bric-a-brac will blow off.

When repairing lists, just examine the genus of the list and see if it needs completing.  Get it completed to its proper item, oppose it, and package it up.  Before this is done, the PC will be interested in the item. Afterwards, he will have no interest in the item; it erases.  He will cognite on it.  The PC may have trouble remembering right items; wrong ones will be memorable because the PC’s attention is still stuck there.

The purpose of Routine 2 is to clear away chronic PTP’s and hidden standards, so you can find and run the PC’s goal.  Having found his goal, you may still need to use Routine 2 to wipe out restimulated terminals, when the PC caves in while running the goal.  You can use, “What does PT consist of/not consist of?” or “What does auditing consist of/not consist of?” Everything said here about lists also applies to goals clearing lists: Routine 3-21. [For more data about R3-21, see pp. 332 and 356, above. More data is also available in confidential HCOB’s 7Nov62II “Routine 3-21:  The Twenty-one Steps -- Finding Goals” and 17Nov62 “Routine 3-21”.] One of the hardest things you will use to get a rockslamming item from is a goals list.  Goals lists almost never run out of slams.  When they do, though, they behave like any other list.

Remember that a rocket read is senior to a rock slam, and that in other respects, you trust it the same.  If you find rocket reading items on a (therefore incomplete) list, complete it to one rocket-reading item.

The “frequency of rock slam” test is senior to the “stickier needle” test on wrong-way-to.  Having found an RI, a PC’s needle may be fine, but the wrong-way-toness of it will beef it up.  Do it the other way.  If it still doesn’t clean up and give one rock slam on nulling, the source item must have been from an incomplete list, so complete it.  Be prepared to be wrong, and straighten it out.  Straighten up Routine 2 thoroughly; fix up auditing briefly.  You could also find one rockslamming item that never got opposed. So oppose it.

You could take List One and ask, “What question would complete List One?”, and complete it.  This would handle most problems. 

6301C10 SHSpec-229 How to Audit

For years, we have had the problem of finding some PC who, even when run on proper processes, tears up the neighborhood.  This is the problem of the missed withhold.  That is all it is.  “The biggest missed withhold you can have is the missing answer to the auditing question.  He didn’t give you the answer.  He didn’t put the item on the list.” This is such a big missed withhold that if you always got it right, you could virtually omit pulling missed withholds.  But you can’t totally omit pulling missed withholds. Here’s why:

Among the manifestations of missed withholds are dope-off and boil-off. Dope-off and boil-off are only caused by missed withholds, not by anaten contained in GPM’s.  Anaten is contained in a list, but only acts on the PC when there is an actual nearly-found-out in PT.  You have to keep the little missed withholds cleaned up, because they are the ones that make the PC groggy and dopey, not the missing items.  It is a PT nearly-found-out that makes the PC “go under” on an item or a list.  It doesn’t happen just from the list.  R2-12 pulls withholds by the carload on track.  If you miss a package, it is a giant missed withhold and a screaming ARC break.  But if you see a PC go even slightly groggy, dopey, slumping down and shutting his eyes, etc., on nulling, “pull up right there and get the nearly-found-outs!” You are after regular, PT-type missed withholds, because a missing item on a list doesn’t give the same dope-off symptom.  Having missed an item will give this other phenomenon “body”.  [See HCOB 3May62 “ARC Breaks -- Missed Withholds” for the fifteen signs of missed withholds.] The expected behavior of the PC during L and N and receiving or thinking of items is wide awake. though the PC could have his eyes closed.  This is terribly important during nulling, when you are depending on the item rockslamming.  It won’t happen if the PC is anaten. Meters don’t rockslam when the PC is anaten.  A meter will tick, but you can’t depend on it rockslamming when there is insufficient attention present to charge up an item.  The same is true for rocket reads in goal checkouts.

Boil-off, anaten, etc., were discovered in 1952 to be “a flow running too long in one direction.” A missed withhold is a restrained flow.  Any effort to outflow, by a PC who has a missed withhold, is blocked and only causes a further inflow.  The PC has a stuck flow.  If the “PC has a missed withhold, he’s inflowed as far as he can go, and he’s very, very prone to boil-off.” He is holding back a flow, so he gets a stuck flow very quickly.

Sometimes a missed withhold from out of session is keyed in by a withhold in session.  Then the PC boils off.  In this case, you have to run the out-of-session missed withhold.  That is why “missed withhold” stays in as a random rudiment.  It gets you out of more trouble than it gets you into, if you broaden the missed withhold question to include the track.  Then you will get the restimulated ones too.  For instance, you might ask, “In the past week, has a withhold been missed?” Do this when you can’t wake the PC.  Not all missed withholds are on the second dynamic. If you start steering missed withholds by dynamics, you will start more incomplete lists.  Keep the question general.

The nearly-found-out is a “left-hand” button, a suppressor-type button, which doesn’t necessarily read on the meter.  If you pull a session missed withhold but the PC goes dopey fifteen minutes later, prepcheck the nearly-found-out button, with or without a time limiter.

Left hand buttons are those that prevent things from reading, e.g. suppress, fail to reveal, anxious about, careful of, nearly found out.

Right hand buttons make things read, e.g. mistake been made, suggested, decided, protested, invalidated.  “Protested” follows on the heels of a “nearly-found-out”; thus it is a point where left and right hand buttons meet.

In a co-audit, watch for dope-off and put in the random rud yourself. Don’t try to get students to do it.  Take for granted that it is something out of session that keyed in.  You can use, “Is there anything we nearly found out about you?” The “we” limits the question.  Or get the student to run the random rudiment muzzled and repetitive, until the PC looks desperate and about to ARC break.  Then go back to listing.

Which model session should one use?  As much as necessary; no more. Model session has these elements:

1. Adjust the PC’s chair.

2. Get a can squeeze.

3. Give the R-factor for the session.

4. Give Tone 40 start of session.

5. Find out if the session has started for the PC.

6. Have the PC set goals for life and livingness and the session.  

What you do next depends on whether you are going to list or null today. Don’t worry about ruds in a listing session.  Who cares what the needle is doing?  A dirty needle can best be cleaned up by listing.  The dirty needle is probably being caused by thoughts about doing the list.  If the list is complete, the PC’s list will be clean.  In this case, it is no-auditing to do anything other than to null the list.  Take a chance on between-sessions out-ruds.  Only get worried if the PC starts to boil-off.  Get off missed withholds if possible.  If it is not possible, the list is incomplete, so extend it.  In a listing session, get goals set and go right into listing. That is more effective in cleaning up the needle and having the PC in session then anything else.  If the PC won’t sit there and list, that is different. If the PC stops listing, it is either suppress or inval.  Forget the rest of the ruds.  Take any items the PC gives you on these buttons, put them on the list, and go right back into listing.  That was the purpose of the rud, after all.

At the end of the session, discuss where you and the PC have gotten to and where in general you are going.  Close off the body of the session.  Then check end-ruds at sensitivity 64.  Get the PC out of the auditing environment with, “In this session, was the run all right?” Get your question answered, but don’t grind the PC to death.  Check protest if this looks necessary.

Refer to Scientology 8-8008.  It talks about a thetan in the physical universe.  All the thetan is doing is stacking himself up against the physical universe and batting around like a bluebottle fly in a cage.  If you want to free the PC from the session, ask if the room was OK.  Then you have got the thetan and the physical universe straightened up.  If the PC starts inventing answers or seems nerved up, it is probably a missed withhold.  You won’t do anything about it.

Then get a can squeeze.  Asking about whether the run was all right usually gets his havingness back up.  But if he is down on havingness, don’t work over ruds.  Run some havingness for a few commands, to restore the can squeeze, not to run the bank.  The best havingness processes are:

1. Feel that   _______ .

2. Touch that  _______ .

3. Notice that _______ .  

Only use a few commands, not more than twelve.  This is also a good way to get the PC back in session.

Then take up session goals, not life and livingness goals.  Take down whatever gains the PC mentions.  Get ask/say.  Answer a question if he has one.  Don’t start handling what comes up.  You are ending session.  Don’t press for more.

Give the PC a Tone 40 end of session, and have him tell you that you are no longer auditing him.  Give him an altered visual aspect also, to keep him from going on running his case.  Look more cheerful and natural.  Ask for a cigarette or something.

This is Routine 2 model session.  Using more than this minimum can get you into trouble.  For a nulling session, you can show the PC the list and ask for any major thoughts that he has had about it.  This practice lets the PC get off out-ruds on the list.  Then you don’t have to ask for them.

If the PC gets agitated in a Routine 2 session, the first thing to assume is that there is something wrong with the Routine 2.  If the PC gets self-audit-ish or interrupts to get his ruds in, just give a cheery acknowledgment and go on.  Don’t let the PC obscure reads while listing.

If you are nulling, just go down the list, going, “Bark!  Bark! Bark!” If the needle gets dirty, don’t assume that it is out-ruds.  It is more likely that the list is wrong way to or from a wrong source, especially if your nulling was too brisk to give the PC time to think.  Even more likely than the above is that the item is not on the list.  If a list is incomplete, a PC won’t register protest on the meter when you ask for more items, even if he is protesting verbally.  You could also list for pages beyond where the list was complete.  Then the needle can go dirty on protest.  But all other crimes fall short of not completing the list.

R3-21 requires more mid-ruds than Routine 2 [See p. 371, above for R3-21]. As soon as you have PTP’s out of the road, the case is ready for R3-21.  Find his goals nice as you please.  It is safer for an expert auditor to do goals on a case than to do Routine 2.  An inexpert auditor is safer with Routine 2.

The list, “In PT, who or what are you upset about?” would probably run more easily on a PC simply in the form, “Who or what does present time consist of?” [Cf. Expanded dianetics PT environment list.] This is the basic model, but you could use, “Who or what are you in contact with in PT?” On missed withholds, realize that you can list whichever area is of most interest to the PC.  If you pick the wrong one of the three (Session, Life and Livingness, Parts of Existence) to do first, it can react like a missed withhold.  Make sure you get the universe where the problem lies.

6301C15 SHSpec-231 R2-12 Nevers

Never represent a rockslamming item, i.e. anything that ever rockslammed, because a rockslamming item comes from some source, and if you don’t know what the source is, it could be wrong.  An arbitrary source is dangerous.  This is the most dangerous point in R2-12.  Never use an arbitrary list.  Don’t try to oppose some rockslamming word that just comes from nowhere.

Never abandon R2-12.  Nothing else will patch up R2-12, if it gets fouled up.  R2-12 is an ultimate process, i.e. a process that repairs itself.  Never try to patch up R2-12 with something else, because it will fail.

Never let someone lose records or keep records inaccurately.  There is a way to straighten out a case whose records are lost, however. Using the meter, find when the PC’s case caved in, the session in which it occurred, and put mid-ruds in on that session.  This will get the PC’s memory improved to the point where he can give you data about the list, or whatever.  But this is a very arduous approach.
Never attribute a violent ARC break to anything but a wrong item or an incomplete list.  It is not caused by a missed withhold, except in the sense that the missed item is the withhold.  This datum applies in the workaday world as well as it does in session.  Somebody has missed an item on the U.S. government.  Probably, the ARC break is from no-auditing and missing all their items.

Never run a PC darker and massier.  He won’t get lighter.  Come off it at once.

Never give a PC an item and then do something else at once.  This is very distracting to the PC, and if it is a wrong item, the ARC break will be compounded.  You must allow a minute or two of observation.  Just put the meter aside and make a little routine of it and say, “Well, apparently your item is _______ .” Watch him like a hawk.  Does his face get dark?  Does mass come in?  If so, don’t let it go any longer. Tell the PC that you want to continue listing.  Never lead a PC to believe that you are giving him an item when you are not.  There can be a funny condition where all the indicators look right, but after the PC cognites, the rock slam will vanish as the lock blows, after which the wrong-item indicators start to show up.  So don’t shift the PC’s attention.  This will save lots of trouble.  The longer you let a PC keep a wrong item, the more trouble it will be to patch it up.

Never persist with a wrong action that is worsening the case, just because you don’t know what to do.  It is far better to end off or take a break to straighten things out.  It is good sense to know what you are doing before you do it.  This does not mean somatics.  That’s not a sign of the PC’s getting worse at all.

Never let case errors accumulate or multiply.  When you are aware of an error on the case, fix it without forgetting that it is an error to fail to complete a cycle of action on the case.  But also don’t interrupt a PC that is doing well.  If the case isn’t running OK, repair earlier mistakes.

All lists stem from some arbitrary point.  It can’t be helped.  The three universes from which you list are:

1. The PC’s PT session environment.

2. His PT non-session life and livingness environment.

3. The parts of existence.  

Each of these can be listed positive or negative, oppterm (+ or -) and terminal (+ or -).  Thus you have twelve sources.  One way to make auditing with these less risky is, when clearing the command, to test it for rock slams.  This can include testing words or segments within the command for rock slams.  Never represent it if it rockslams.  Clear the command and vary it around until it makes sense to the PC, until it’s real to him.  Never try to list a list question that the PC cannot answer, i.e. clear it with him and get his agreement to answer it.

Choosing the wrong universe to list will get you missed withhold phenomena, including ARC breaks, because the PC’s attention is fixated on the universe that you are not asking him about.

Never, in your anxiety to clear someone or pacify someone, fail to get his PTP’s and hidden standards out of the way.  That is all, in general, that has been wrong with clearing.  

6301C16 SHSpec-232 TR-0

The original TR-0 was to teach the auditor to be there and to be aware. However, in doing TR-0, students have begun to confront with that definition. The original definition and TR-0 are still valid.  Additives have arisen: You can make someone confront with a professional attitude, an auditing attitude, an interested attitude.  Good coaching depends on spotting what the student is doing and running it out, flunking it, without either flunking so much that the student goes into apathy, nor so little that the student never improves. The purpose of TR-O is to enable the student”to stand up to the duress of auditing.”

It disturbs a PC to have an auditor whose confront is very unnatural and who shatters under an upset in session.  Upsets are often assignable to faulty TR-4.  An auditor who Q and A’s gives PCs withholds by not simply acknowledging.  One Q and A equals one missed withhold.  The PC’s statement has not been acknowledged, just acknowledged.  The reason some auditors take a long time to learn not to Q and A isn’t really out-TR-4.  It is out-TR-0.  The auditor can’t stand up to the session.  Whenever something in the session looks odd, the Auditor retreats.  TR-0 is out!

The coach must have considerable perception to coach TR-0 on a useful gradient.  He has to see confront go out, look at something the student is doing, and punch the button.

LRH has noticed auditors who Q and A in the presence of an ARC break, because there is too much there to confront.  This is as disastrous as it is likely to happen.  A coaching gradient on this would start with the coach shaking his hand in front of the student’s eyes.  Somewhere on the gradient, the student will demonstrate his ability to dodge flying E-meter cans, while still confronting.

For an auditor to freeze and go totally silent is worse for the PC than auditor Q and A.  It is a no-auditing situation.  We should give at least fifty percent of our coaching time to the fellow who goes into wood.  A good coach can recognize the difference between someone confronting and someone going into solid granite.

The next worst thing to going wooden is fleeing.  This amounts to the same thing.  Don’t think someone is doing TR-0 because he has gone into apathy.  You can add aliveness to being aware.  This point is easy for a coach to miss.  Someone whose TR-0 is granite won’t be able to handle what comes up in a session because he is not really confronting.  When you find an auditor who is having trouble with TR-0, you know what kind of response he is getting in auditing, because when something happens in session, the auditor flees.

Good auditing, as opposed to bad auditing, will show up most clearly under duress.  TR-0 is the first thing to go.  The auditor will start making mistakes, which is one thing you can’t afford to do.  If the auditor’s TR-0 is poor, the auditor will make wrong judgments, no matter how well he is taught.

There is a gradient of bad TR-0, consisting of three grades:

1. TR-0 of doing the drill, not associated with anything.

2. The person who clams up and can’t act.

3. Obsessive motion as a form of a and A.  

All three of these must be cured with coaching.

There is something else you could do, different from TR-1 or TR-2: a talking confront.  You see if the student can go on counting while you throw the cans at him, or whether he loses count.
Auditors must be trained to expect ARC breaks and to keep going, because auditors get ARC breaks, as well as getting wins and results.  LRH was aware, recently, of thinking less swiftly when a pc ARC broke.  He analyzed the phenomenon as his not wanting to confront it, because it was counter to his intention for the session.  So he experienced a small impulse not to confront it.  This gave LRH a subjective reality on how an auditor could go from there to not thinking and making a goof.  R2-12 ARC breaks can be sudden, violent, and apparently inexplicable.  So TR-0 must be beefed up in order to cope with this.

How much and how long should you run TR-0? Until the student comes to the independent conclusion that he can do TR-0 and has the ability to do TR-0 while doing all the other TR’s, and until he can maintain TR-0 when everything is going wrong and there is lots of duress.  Bad TR-0 leads to a and A, lack of comprehension of what is going on, and no-auditing for the PC.

It takes awhile for someone to learn R2-12.  If he is learning his TR’s at the same time, you are liable to have a mess on your hands.  A co-audit with R2-10 [See p. 359, above.] can be done, but only because guidance is very stringent, And they don’t have very much responsibility.

For TR-1, go get a good recording of a lion roaring and then play it, with the student putting intention into the middle of the speaker.

The degree of ARC breaks the PC will have on R2-12 is proportional to the outness of the auditor’s TR’s.  Bad TR’s lead to bad judgment.  If the auditor’s TR’s are perfect, he will never have them tested by a violently ARC broken PC.

Psychiatrists are trying to make the third dynamic safe by protecting it from the first dynamic, i.e. from the patient.  He is “curing” motion.  He is totally sold on the idea that insanity equals motion.  He tries to get the patient into quietness, into apathy. 

6302C13 SHTVD-16; SHSpec-237 X-Unit: Ruds and Havingness

[Demo tape of ruds and havingness.]

6302C13 SHSpec-238 Discussion by LRH of X-Unit: Ruds and Havingness TVD

There are two reasons why a session doesn’t start:

1. There is something wrong with the room.

2. The PC has something to say and is holding it back, waiting for the session to start so that he can say something. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 FEBRUARY 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise
R2—R3
LISTING RULES

An idiocy of long long lists can creep into Routine 2 and Routine 3. This is not as harmful as under-listing but it can make pcs pretty green or black and certainly holds up auditing.

You must realize that “listing to a still Tone Arm” takes several things for granted:

1. 	That the auditor has his sensitivity at about 4 (Mark IV about 6) during listing.

2. 	That the auditor does not adjust the TA for surges (cognitions, etc).

3. 	That the TA is adjusted only when it has to be to get the needle into a readable position.

4. 	That the pc is answering the auditing question and not varying it or running havingness on himself.

5. 	That the rudiments are reasonably in, particularly SUPPRESS, INVALIDATE, PROTEST and DECIDE.

6. 	That the pc is capable of being in session.

7. 	That the pc isn’t fiddling with the cans, yawning, stretching, etc.

In other words, if an auditor has his pc under calm control the TA rule applies. As the control of the pc diminishes the TA rule grows less workable.

But even so all is not lost.

TA shifts because of body motion, yawning, asking questions, and particularly because of PROTESTS! do not count in reading TA position. The TA position that must be steady is for the list. So if you read it “TA position for the list must be motionless” you have it absolutely correct. The TA will also read for other attention positions such as on the auditor, on the room, on the body. The pc shifts his attention from the list and you get TA motion. The thing we want to know is: did the TA go right back to List Position when the pc put his attention back on the List. Or, with the pc’s attention on the list, did the TA now move. If so, that’s TA motion for the list and the list is incomplete.

It’s really very easy even if the pc is out of session, to find a motionless TA on the list. Understand this and you’ll stop endless listing.

“TA action out” is, however, not the first rule of a complete list.

The rules of a complete list for R2 or R3 are:

1. 	TWO ITEMS (RR and RS) ARE NOT FIRING WHEN THE LIST RR AND RS ITEMS ARE READ BACK TO THE PC.

2. 	ONLY ONE ITEM RSes or RRs ON THE LIST WHEN RRs AND RSs NOTED DURING LISTING ARE READ BACK TO THE PC. THE OTHERS DO NOT READ.

3. 	THE LIST HAS THE RELIABLE ITEM ON IT.

In Routine 2 these Rules apply:
4. 	ON A COMPLETED R2 SOURCE LIST, ONE RSing ITEM ONLY WILL RS WHEN READ BACK TO THE PC.

5. 	ON A COMPLETED R2 LIST TAKEN BY OPPOSING (EITHER WAY) A ROCKSLAMMING ITEM, THE RELIABLE ITEM WILL BE THE LAST ROCKSLAMMING ITEM ON THE LIST. IF IT IS NOT, THE ITEM BEING OPPOSED IS WRONG OR THE OPPOSITION WORDING IS WRONG WAY TO OR THE LIST IS INCOMPLETE.

In Routine 3 these Rules apply:

7. 	ON A COMPLETED R3 SOURCE LIST, ONE ROCKET READING ITEM ONLY WILL RR WHEN READ BACK TO THE PC. NO RS OR OTHER RR ON THE LIST SHOULD NOW READ.

8. 	ON A COMPLETED R3 LIST TAKEN BY OPPOSING (EITHER WAY) A ROCKSLAMMING ITEM, THE RELIABLE ITEM WILL BE THE LAST ROCKET READING ITEM ON THE LIST. IF IT IS NOT, THE ITEM BEING OPPOSED IS WRONG OR THE OPPOSITION WORDING IS WRONG WAY TO OR THE LIST IS INCOMPLETE.

9. 	AN ITEM OR GOAL WHICH WAS SEEN TO ROCKET READ WHEN BEING WRITTEN DOWN BUT WHICH RSes WHEN READ BACK TO THE PC WILL ROCKET READ AGAIN IF GIVEN A BRIEF BIG MID RUDS PREPCHECK.

The above are the rules which must apply.

As some variability can result in various auditors’ interpretation of a “still TA” and in how good a session the auditor can run, the TA rule is secondary. It still applies, it is still valid. But a pc on PROTEST! varies his TA all over the place and an auditor that can’t handle a pc with a few deft mid ruds or get his question answered will get TA action when the list is flat. When you get the hang of it you will see that listing to a motionless TA is valid, but that of course is in an auditing session.

On one of these overlong lists, you can tell if it’s overlong by seeing if you have gone 50 Items (25 Items opposing RR RIs) past the last RS or RR, making sure that you don’t get two Items on the list that fire, and thus find your Reliable Item.

It’s finding RIs that counts, not how long can we list.

Also, avoid buying a pc’s “hard sell” on an Item or condition. If it follows the above rules buy it. If not, just ack and go on. Auditors with low sales resistance need not apply. Often the pc says “It’s a terminal” when it’s an Oppterm. Apply the tests and do a decent test list before you make up your mind. Pcs don’t really know—RIs have an aberrative value you know—so why buy a dramatized sales talk. The auditor is necessary because an auditor isn’t in the RI and can think. So an auditor who buys a sales talk isn’t an auditor. Get it?

Audit R2 and R3 by the rules. If the rules don’t seem to apply, take a walk and think over why. Don’t just keep on in haggard hope.

LRH:gl.rd							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright (© 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6302C19 SHSpec-240 Rundown on Processes

High-toned items are oppterms.  It is the low-toned item that is the terminal.

You can run the TA out of CCH’s. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 FEBRUARY AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise
ROUTINE 2 & 3 MODEL SESSION

Here is a needed revision of Goal Finder’s Model Session which is canceled herewith.

The changes are:

1. 	Omitting Life or Livingness Goals completely.

2. 	Running general O/W until PC comes back up to PRESENT TIME and not just until needle is smooth.

3. 	Added—Run “Since the last time I audited you” Mid Ruds if TA is in a higher position from the last session pc had.

4. 	Put Havingness after goals or gains for the session.

5. 	Added a note that suppress is always done repetitively, as is the Random Rud.

SESSION PRELIMINARIES

All auditing sessions have the following preliminaries done in this order.

1. 	Seat the pc and adjust his or her chair.

2. 	Clear the Auditing room with “Is it all right to audit in this room?” (not metered)

3. 	Can squeeze “Squeeze the cans, please.” And note that pc registers, by the squeeze on the meter, and note the level of the pc’s havingness. (Don’t run hav here. )

4. 	Go into the session start.

ROUTINE 2 & 3 MODEL SESSION

Where the pc has been well Prepchecked and is well under auditor control, an Auditor in a Routine 2 or Routine 3 session may omit rudiments in Model Session, using only goals for session, and havingness, goals and gains at end and general O/W, Mid Ruds and Random Ruds where needed in the session. This salvages about an hour’s auditing time per day. Start and end of session commands are used, just no rudiments; general O/W may be found necessary on some pcs at session start in lieu of rudiments to get a cleaner needle.

This does not apply to Rudiments and Havingness Sessions or Prepcheck Sessions and Problems Intensives.

For a pc who is well smoothed out by staff auditors, then, and who is well under the goal finder’s control, the following may be used, particularly with a Mark V Meter.

START OF SESSION:

Is it all right with you if I begin this session now?

START OF SESSION. (Tone 40)

Has this session started for you? If pc says, “No,” say again, “START OF SESSION. Now has this session started for you?” If pc says, “No,” say, “We will cover it in a moment.”

RUDIMENTS:

What goals would you like to set for this session?

Please note that Life or Livingness goals have been omitted, as they tend to remind the pc of present time difficulties and tend to take his attention out of the session.

At this point in the session there are two actions which could be undertaken: the running of General O/W or the running of Mid Rudiments using “Since the last time I audited you”.

One would run General O/W if the pc was emotionally upset at the beginning of the session or if the session did not start for the pc, the latter being simply another indication of the pc’s being upset or ARC broken, but those symptoms must be present, as sometimes the session hasn’t started merely because of poor Tone 40 or because the pc had something he wanted to say before the auditor started the session.

RUNNING O/W:

If it is alright with you, I am going to run a short, general process.
The process is: “What have you done?” “What have you withheld?”

(The process is run very permissively until the needle looks smooth and the pc is no longer emotionally disturbed.)

Where are you now on the time track?

If it is alright with you, I will continue this process until you are close to present time and then end this process. (After each command, ask, “When?”)

That was the last command. Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this process?

End of process.

RUNNING THE MID RUDIMENTS:

One would use the Middle Rudiments with, “Since the last time I audited you”, if the needle was rough and if the Tone Arm was in a higher position than it was at the end of the last session.

Since the last time I audited you has anything been suppressed? (This is always done by the repetitive system.)

Since the last time I audited you, has anything been invalidated? Since the last time I audited you, has anything been suggested?

Since the last time I audited you, is there anything you failed to reveal?
Since the last time I audited you, is there anything you have been careful of? (These latter four rudiments are done by fast check.)

The “In this session” Mid Ruds can be used to straighten up a session that has completely gone out of the Auditor’s control, after he has gotten in the Random Rudiment. “On this list” Mid Ruds, particularly with suppressed or invalidated can be used to get a pc to continue listing.

RUNNING THE RANDOM RUDIMENT:

In this session have I missed a withhold on you? In this session is there anything I failed to find out about you?

In this session have you thought, said, or done anything I failed to find out? In this session have I nearly found out something about you?

Any of the above versions may be used. The Random Rudiment is always run repetitively.

END OF SESSION:

Is it alright with you if we end off ......now? Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I do so?
End of ........

If the pc from the Auditor’s observation is very agitated or upset, the Auditor would run General O/W as given above.

If the session has been an extremely difficult session with the pc having been ARC broken badly and frequently, one would get in the “In this session” Mid Ruds in order to clean up the auditing, even though the pc may now be alright.

Have you made any part of your goals for this session? 
Have you made any other gains in this session that you would care to mention?

(After adjusting the meter) Please squeeze the cans.
(If the squeeze test was not alright, the Auditor would run the pc’s Havingness process until the can squeeze gives an adequate response.)

Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this session? Is it alright with you if I end this session now?
Here it is: END OF SESSION (Tone 40). Has this session ended for you?
(If the pc says, “No,” repeat, “END OF SESSION.” If the session still has not ended, say, “You will be getting more auditing. END OF SESSION.”) “Tell me I am no longer auditing you.”

Please note that Havingness is run after Goals and Gains as this tends to bring the pc more into present time and to take his attention to a degree out of the session.

(Bulletin done by Mary Sue Hubbard after we worked it out)

LRH:dr.bh	 L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Tape: 6303C05 SHSBC 245
R2 AND R3 URGENT DATA
is not currently available

The Editor

6303C07 SHSpec-247 When Faced With the Unusual, Do the Usual.

Psychiatry never got anyplace because they never learned to do the usual when faced with the unusual.  Every desperate remedy devised by Man occurred because the practitioner Q and A’d with the patient.  The psychiatrist says that he practices Freudian analysis, but he does it with Adler’s twists on Jung’s version as interpreted by Karen Horney -- only he does it his way! There might once have been a technology of psychiatry, but you could never find it now, under all the stress-induced Q and A and alter-is that has been added.

If you do something unusual every time you see something unusual in a PC, you will never make him clear.  He will be wrapped around a telephone pole. The more precise the process and the more you figure-figure on it, the goofier it will get.

There is no constant number of items in a GPM.  This makes it possible to end one GPM and go on into the next one without knowing that you are doing so, especially if the PC’s ruds are out when you end the first GPM, so that there is no F/N, or it is so brief (say, 3 1/2 seconds) that you don’t see it, or you miss seeing the BD.  If you jam the second goal like that, you will get a high stuck TA.  After awhile, no items will be findable and the goal stops rocket reading.

[More comments on specific goofs on running goals.]

If the PC gives you a goal, you always take it, but you don’t necessarily do something with it.

The only time you find no item on a list is when the item has already been found.

The PC isn’t different.  He has the same bank, or he wouldn’t be here in this time-stratum at this time.

Auditors are to be congratulated for their willingness to persist on a case, but when one persists simply because one doesn’t know what else to do, one is doing the unusual.  What you are trying to do, with a GPM, is to run it out, not just to find RI’s.  The goal built the GPM, so you have to knock out the RI’s aligned to the goal, so the GPM will disappear.

The clear check procedure is given in HCOB 22Feb63 “Routine 3M -- Rundown by Steps”.  

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 MARCH AD 13
Central Orgs
Franchise
USE OF THE BIG MIDDLE RUDIMENTS

The Big Mid Ruds can be used in the following places:

At the start of any session. Examples:

	“Since the last time I audited you_________”
	“Since the last time you were audited_________”
	“Since you decided to be audited_________”

In or at the end of any session. Example:

	“In this session_________”

On a list. Examples:

	“On this list_________”
	“On (say list question)_________”

On a goal or item. Example:

	“On (say goal or item)_________”

Never say

	“On the goal, to catch catfish_________” or
	“On the item, a catfish_________”

Say simply the goal itself or the item itself.

ORDER OF BUTTONS

Here is the correct wording and order of use for the Big Mid Ruds.

	“	has anything been suppressed?”
	“	is there anything you have been careful of?”
	“_________is there anything you have failed to reveal?”
	“_________has anything been invalidated?”
	“_________has anything been suggested?”
	“_________has any mistake been made?”
	“_________is there anything you have been anxious about?”
	“_________has anything been protested?”
	“_________has anything been decided?”

In using the first three buttons (Suppressed, Careful of and Failed to Reveal), the rudiment question should be asked directly of the pc off the meter (repetitive). When the pc has no more answers, check the question on the meter. If the question reads, stick with it on the meter like in Fast Rud checking until it is clean.

The last six buttons are cleaned directly on the meter as in Fast Ruds.

LRH:dr.bh 
Copyright ©1963                             				L. RON HUBBARD 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 MARCH 1963

Central Orgs
Franchise	URGENT

ROUTINE 2—ROUTINE 3
ARC BREAKS, HANDLING OF

(HCO Secs: Check this out thoroughly on all students and staff. D of T: Use this drill early in Practical, add to all Check Sheets.)

Some day you will be awfully glad you read and learned this HCO Bulletin.

The only things that can ruin the future of R2 and R3 are:

1. 	ARC Breaks because of bad R2 and R3; and

2. 	The Sad Effect.

THE ARC BREAK

There is nothing more nerve-racking to an auditor than an R2 or R3 ARC Break. They are not like other ARC Breaks from a common missed withhold. They are nerve-shattering and far reaching in consequence.

If you can’t handle an R2 or R3 ARC Break you have no business using the techniques as you’ll wrap more than one pc around a telephone pole. The only real damage R2 and R3 can do to a case is when one fails to handle an R2 or R3 ARC Break. Good R2 or R3 repairs bad R2 or R3, but one sometimes has to be awfully clever to repair a case once the auditor has let an ARC Break go by.

Indeed, so important is the ARC Break in R2 and R3 that it is actually used as one means of testing the correctness of the R2 or R3.

CAUSE OF ARC BREAKS

The untried auditor is always sure the R2 or R3 ARC Break happens because of auditing blunders (Mid Ruds, etc), failure to pull ordinary missed withholds or auditor auditing goofs. This is not true.

The truth is that R2 and R3 ARC Breaks are caused by a mistake in Goals, Items or GPMs, and that’s the whole cause.

The pc, however, unable to grasp this, turns his reasoning upon the auditor and blames the auditing. Therefore, this rule must be thoroughly learned and experienced by the auditor before he or she is “safe” in auditing R2 and R3.

ARC BREAK RULE

IN R2 AND R3 WHEN THE PC CRITICIZES OR ATTACKS THE AUDITOR OR GOES INTO GRIEF OR APATHY, AN R2 OR R3 ERROR HAS JUST OCCURRED. THE AUDITOR MUST IGNORE THE PC’S STATEMENTS AS TO THE CAUSE OF THE ARC BREAK AND QUICKLY REMEDY THE R2 OR R3 AND DO NOTHING ELSE.

There are no exceptions to this rule in R2 and R3. The auditor, having goofed in some other way, is liable to see reason in what the pc is saying, do something like missed withholds or Mid Ruds and drive the ARC Break into heights that can make the pc much more upset.

MID RUD RULE

IN AN R2 OR R3 ARC BREAK, MISSED WITHHOLDS AND MID RUDS ARE USED, IF AT ALL, ONLY AFTER THE ARC BREAK HAS BEEN HEALED BY CORRECTING THE R2 AND R3.

If an auditor tries to get in his Mid Ruds or pull missed withholds in the face of an ARC Break in an R2 or R3 session the pc is likely to be driven down to the Sad Effect which is harder to salvage.

THE SAD EFFECT

We could call this Tearaculi Apathia Magnus and everyone would be in great awe of it. But I see no reason to follow the Latinated nonsense of yesterday’s failured sciences. Call it something simple and the auditor will feel he can do something about it and even the pc will cheer up a bit. So it’s “the Sad Effect”.

This is a state of great sadness, apathy, misery and desire for suicide and death.

I have been on the trail of the causes of this condition for about 20 years. Like nearly everything else in Scientology this is a new high point in achievement. We have the highest state, OT, and we have the lowest states of being recognized and know the roads to them.

RULE

NEGLECT OR OVERWHELM AN R2 OR R3 ARC BREAK (PC ANGER OR ANTAGONISM) AND YOU WILL CAUSE THE PC TO DROP INTO THE SAD EFFECT.

THE SAD EFFECT IS CAUSED BY NEGLECTING OR OVERWHELMING AN R2 OR R3 ARC BREAK AND THE STATE WILL CONTINUE UNTIL REMEDIED BY CORRECTING THE R2 OR R3.

ALL PCS WHO ARE SAD, HOPELESS, ETC HAVE HAD THEIR R2 OR R3 MISHANDLED BY LIFE OR AUDITING.

ARC BREAK CAUSE RULE

ALL R2 OR R3 ARC BREAKS STEM FROM WRONG ITEMS OR GOALS, INCOMPLETE LISTS, WRONG WAY TO OPPOSE OR NO AUDITING.

ALL THESE ARE IN ESSENCE MISSED WITHHOLDS OF THE GREATEST POSSIBLE MAGNITUDE AND THEREFORE CAUSE ARC BREAKS OF THE GREATEST POSSIBLE MAGNITUDE.

Bad auditing only serves to key in an existing R2 or R3 Error.

In actual fact, a missed withhold can amount to a whole section of the GPM (goal error or leaving the GPM section before it is clean), a wrong goal, a wrong Item, a wrong way to Item or, of lesser degree, not finding an Item.

THE COMMON DENOMINATOR OF ALL R2 R3 ARC BREAKS CONSISTS OF A MISSED OR WRONGLY DESIGNATED GPM, GOAL OR RELIABLE ITEM. THERE ARE NO OTHER SOURCES OF R2 OR R3 ARC BREAK.

Bad sessioning, poor auditing, ordinary life missed withholds are only contributive to R2 and R3 ARC Breaks and are incapable of doing more than keying in and intensifying the magnitude of the ARC Break which has already been caused by errors in R2 and R3.

THE FIFTEEN PRINCIPAL CAUSES

The fifteen principal causes of ARC Break in R2 and R3 are:

1. 	Failure to complete a list;
2. 	By-passing an Item;
3. 	Giving the pc a wrong Item;
3a. 	Opposing an Item wrong way to;
4. 	Giving the pc an Item with altered wording;
5. 	Giving the pc no Item;
6. 	Failure to complete a goals list;
7. 	By-passing the pc’s goal;
8. 	Giving the pc a wrong goal;
9. 	Giving the pc a goal with altered wording;
10. 	Giving the pc no goal;
11. 	Failure to complete a GPM before going to the next;
12. 	By-passing a GPM;
13. 	Getting the pc into the wrong GPM;
14. 	Going too far into a GPM without finding a goal;
15. 	No auditing.

The fifteen apply to both R2 and R3, all of them.

They can be made up into an assessment list (shortly to be issued), which list, assessed by elimination, will give you the exact cause of the ARC Break (which I think is pretty clever of me) and permit you to heal it rapidly. While you will feel on occasion that the assessment result is no more easily interpreted then fortune telling, you will find that it is always right. It spots the missed R2-R3 missed withhold. If it comes up “By-Passed Item” you’ll have a scramble trying to find it, but you at least know why the pc ARC Broke and the pc will permit you to look (even while screaming at you).

THE CYCLE OF THE ARC BREAK
STAGE ONE:

The ARC Break starts always in the same way. The pc finds something wrong with the auditor, the subject, or tools of auditing or the auditing room. He does this in varying intensity, ARC Break to ARC Break.

STAGE TWO:

This is followed by misemotion, also directed at the auditor, subject, tools or room.

STAGE THREE:

If the auditor continues on with auditing the pc will drop into grief, sadness or apathy.

This is an inevitable cycle and may be followed by the pc with greater or lesser intensity of emotion, or loudness or lack of response.

A skilled auditor will recognize and stop it at Stage One above. It is sometimes not possible to stop the cycle because it enters the stages and completes them too swiftly, but it must be cared for, and no further R2 or R3 may be done until the R2 or R3 is corrected.

THE AUDITOR’S VIEW

The auditor must realize that the ARC Break is caused by an error which has just occurred—within seconds or minutes, and must not go back a half a dozen sessions unless the pc has been pretty upset all along. Something has just happened, usually, that is wrong R2 or R3.

The auditor must stop all forward action and must not do anything except correct what has already happened. Do not continue on, do not get in Mid Ruds, do not pull missed withholds or do anything else but correct the R2 and R3. Do not do new lists or new approaches or new actions until the old action is straightened up.

To continue is to produce the Sad Effect. If the pc is already in the Sad Effect at session start, treat it as an ARC Break with the Drill given.

The pc does not realize that anything has been missed. He or she thinks it’s the auditor, the subject or the tools and will target only these. The fact of the ARC Break must be noted and the substance of the criticism must be ignored by the auditor.

If the pc knew what had been missed there would be no ARC Break. The missed withhold of the Item or whatever is not only missed by the auditor but by the pc. The pc won’t ever spot it, left on his own. It’s up to the auditor.

The auditor only must make up his or her mind as to what’s wrong. The directions of the pc (even a skilled Scientologist as a pc) are nearly always wrong. The auditor is there to listen and compute. As it’s the pc’s bank, the pc can’t compute on his or her own case. Taking the pc’s directions will always involve and prolong the ARC Break. What really caused it will be occluded to the pc. Don’t always do something different than what the pc says. By averages the pc might have accidentally hit on it. Just do what is necessary to straighten out the R2 and R3. Just don’t depend on the pc to tell you. Know your R2 and R3. You, the auditor, are the only one present who can think clearly. That’s what you’re for.

THE D OF P’S VIEW

The D of P has a different view of an ARC Break. It is by sessions according to auditors’ reports.

To get a case going again that has gone into Stage Three, examine yesterday’s reports. Look for a change in pc’s goals and gains and correct the session before the one in which they changed.

When an auditing supervisor becomes an auditor he or she carries this habit forward into auditing and presented with an ARC Breaking pc in session, tends to look to yesterday. But in a session, the ARC Breaking action usually occurs only seconds or minutes before the ARC Break. Look there when auditing.

THE DRILL

This drill is to be used in all Practical Sections before the student is turned loose on R2 or R3.

Designation: R2 and R3 Drill One.

Purpose: To prevent errors in R2 and R3 and to prevent upsets in the pc’s case.

Theory: The effort of a pc at the start of an ARC Break is to stop the auditor. The pc’s effort is aimed at the auditor’s skill, person, the subject, auditing tools or the room. The comments are critical, whether jocular or misemotional. When this effort fails to stop the auditor, and the auditor presses on with auditing, the pc is overwhelmed and goes rapidly down tone scale. In a severe R2 or R3 ARC Break the pc will stay down scale for minutes, hours, days, weeks or months until the ARC Break is repaired by correcting the R2 or R3 error made immediately before the ARC Break. The correct action is to prevent all possibility of the auditor becoming too enturbulated to think, prevent all engagement in refutation of the pc’s accusations, give the auditor time and calm to correct the R2 or R3, test the correction by seeing if it stops the ARC Break, and only then re-commence the session. The key is that even the most startled auditor, seeing an ARC Break begin, can associate it with the word “Break”.

The drill is always used in actual sessions even when the auditor thinks he knows the reason for it.

Drill:

Auditor: List the Items in this room.

Coach: Privately makes up his mind which of the ARC Break points is wrong. Does auditing command briefly and then unexpectedly criticizes (with greater or lesser violence) auditor, room, tools, subject or self or drops into simulated tears or apathy.

Auditor: Thank you. We will now take a short break. (Gathers papers and leaves room. Shuffles papers and returns into room.)

Auditor: I would like to do a short assessment on you.

(Auditor does actual E-Meter assessment from a standard HCO Bulletin question list which will be provided from time to time, based on the Principal Causes of R2-R3 ARC Breaks. Finds the one the coach was hiding by actual meter reaction.)

Auditor: I find we have (gives cause found) and we will now locate it. Is that all right with you?

Coach: Okay.

Auditor: The session is resumed.

Coach: That’s it.
In actual practice the auditor would have examined the papers of the pc to come to some conclusion about the case in private and seen what was wrong or seen the D of P or somebody else for help. And then would have confirmed it by assessment.

History: Developed at Saint Hill by L. Ron Hubbard in March AD 13, to prevent severe upsets in R2 and R3.

LRH:gl.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 18 MARCH 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise
R2—R3
IMPORTANT DATA
DON’T FORCE THE PC

Never force a pc to list when doing R2- 12 or 3-M, especially 3-M.

If the pc has difficulty listing, three things may be wrong:

1. 	The Item being listed is wrong way to;

2. 	It may be a Wrong Item (even from another GPM);

3. 	It may be an Item from some other GPM.

A pc actually can’t help but list easily if it’s the right Item that the list is coming from.

In the usual case, listing from a right Item requires only the most occasional giving of the auditing question by the auditor. Once at the start of the list, once after each interruption to check something. Between, the pc just gives Items in a steady flow. Occasionally the pc asks for the question.

If the auditor has to give a question for each Item he gets, Man there’s one of the above 3 wrong.

WRONG WAY TO

Mass moves in on a wrong way to list question. It’s being given, “Who or what would loud voices oppose” and it should be “Who or what would oppose loud voices”.

If it’s wrong: (1) the mass moves in; (2) the pc starts to discolor; (3) the pc has to continuously repeat the question to himself; (4) the pc can’t wrap his mind around the question; (5) the pc discolors or darkens; (6) the tone arm goes unreasonably high (above 5 in some cases); (7) the pc may ARC Break.

If in the presence of such symptoms the auditor forces the pc to go on listing, real trouble can then develop, as the mass caves in on the body.

BODY VS THETAN

To understand this trouble we have to review what we have known for years about bodies and thetans. The thetan is not the body.

The bank belongs to the thetan, not to the body.

You are running a thetan and his bank while helped and hindered by the body.

The body helps the auditor because it provides a communication relay to a thetan who cannot yet speak, hear or act without a body. The E-Meter cans are held by the body’s hands, the body’s voice box magnifies the thetan’s speech and body lips, larynx, etc, add diction. The ears magnify the auditor’s voice. The body relays various senses and somatics to the thetan. The body discolors when mass from the bank is brought in on it.

Further, because he is in a body you can tell if the pc is sitting in the pc’s chair (joke).

The body hinders the auditor by being fragile.

Life, long before auditing, has been keying the thetan’s masses in on this body. 

In auditing, masses are released off the body and out of the thetan’s bank.

The body, accustomed after all to masses keying in on it in life, can still survive a lot of bad auditing. But why?

As you go earlier and earlier in the bank the “power” of the thetan’s mock-ups increases. Earlier on the track the thetan was more powerful and made more formidable mock-ups.

Thus the earlier the GPM you are addressing (certainly beyond the 3rd), the more care you have to use not to pull masses in on the body, which is to say the more accurate you have to be.

Now, as the thetan, by clearing GPMs, becomes more and more able to handle and recognize goals and Items, the auditor tends to more and more abandon the safety points of R3-M. These are, testing the goal, making the oppterm-terminal test for each RI, watching the tendency of the needle to tighten, watching for pc’s darkening. Abandoning these, the auditor tends to race on, finding more GPMs, goals and RIs, cleaning up nothing behind him. This is wrong.

Test the goal after every RI you find; test every RI you find for terminal or oppterm; really stay alert for the tightening needle and high TA that shows an error; watch carefully for pc darkening. The more advanced the GPM, the more careful you have to be of the body.

Don’t go plunging on after an ARC Break. Find why by the ARC Break assessment and straighten it up.

When you complete a GPM, go about 2 Items deep into the next one, find its goal and then go back and put in the BMRs on every Item in the former line plot. and give the gone goal an 18 button prepcheck. Only then, proceed on into the next GPM whose goal has been found.

Items get easier to find as you advance into new GPMs, lists get shorter, but the RIs are harder and harder on the body when done wrong.

So be sure and then proceed.

And if the pc won’t list for any reason (even his own balkiness) find out what’s wrong before the current action and be sure that was it before proceeding. It’s easier to lose session time in looking for former errors than in trying to revive a pc or heal a screaming ARC Break.

Even the most accurate auditing gives the pc heavy somatics. That’s ok. Just don’t force the pc beyond where he can easily go. The real howling ARC Breaks only come after you have forced the pc onward after something has gone wrong.

If you have howling ARC Breaks with a pc you have forced the pc into a channel where the pc cannot easily go.

WRONG ITEM

Listing a completely wrong Item (which did not fire or which did) can happen in a number of ways:

If you list an RI wrong way to you will get a high TA and fewer RRs on the list. Further, you may just run out of RRs on the next list or one or two lists down.

And, a real catastrophe, you can find, on a wrong way oppose, an Item out of an adjacent GPM for which you have no found goal. The Item you find won’t fit the goal of the GPM you are supposed to be running. Best thing to do is abandon it (but put on the plot) and go back and find which RI behind you was wrong way oppose (it will tick or fire), put in the BMRs on it and list it the other way to.

On later GPMs the pc will easily overlist and list beyond the one you are trying for and get the next in line. The way to tell is test the listing question for clean every five Items the pc gives. The moment it’s clean, stop listing.

For instance, in the 4th GPM, you are listing “Somebody Who Can’t Whisper” (Line plot HCO Bulletin of March 13) and you overlist. You will get “Loud Voices” on the list but you will find “A Whisperer” as the last RRing Item which will read. Then, if you omit the term-oppterm test and assume “A Whisperer” is an oppterm, you will do a wrong way oppose and may get into another GPM entirely.

However, especially after BMR on it, “A Whisperer”, wrong way opposed, will now fire again with an RR.

But the pc still ARC Breaks. Why? You overshot on the “Somebody Who Can’t Whisper” oppose list and you have a by-passed RI, “Loud Voices”.

BMR the RRs earlier on the “Somebody Who Can’t Whisper” oppose list and you’ll find “Loud Voices” probably fires now. Or do it by pc’s recognition (but the Item recognized has to fire with an RR). Or when you do “A Whisperer” right way oppose, you’ll also get “Loud Voices”.

Auditing on 3-M is like threading through a mine field with the pc ready to explode if you stray.

Experience will let you relax.

TRAVELLING RR

In Listing the RR travels down the list. It comes from the goal charge. Therefore it can travel. You can sometimes bring it back up a list with enough BMR to an earlier RR seen on listing.

The most weird thing in 3-M is the Goal as an RI behaviour (on Mar 13 HCO Bulletin, “To Scream” as an RI, bottom of plot, page 2).

As you list it, as an RI in its proper sequence on the plot, not as a goal oppose, it behaves as an RI oppose list, not as a source list.

On it the pc will put, usually, the goal of the next GPM. On it will usually be found, as the last RR Item on the list, “Happy People”. But the goal of the next GPM on that list will not RR when said to pc! Not until you take all the goals off the RI oppose list and nul them as a goals list. Then the goal of the next GPM will fire and prove out.

In short, only the last RR seen on nulling on an RI oppose list, will fire with an RR.

This does not mean the remaining Items seen to RR while listing are not RIs in their own right. It only means that on any list, the RR travels to the last RRing Item seen on listing when the list is complete.

Items which RRed on listing will not fire as part of the list but, taken off the list and known by the pc to be off the list and called as themselves will RR.

When you get a pc into the 5th GPM this becomes very invariable and gets vastly in your road, as you can by-pass the next RI you should get and find the one after that, or you can lose the next GPM’s goal as it doesn’t RR on the RI oppose list from the last goal while still on that list.

It’s okay if you know it can happen. It will help you cure an ailing line plot or goals list in a hurry.

RRs travel on 3-M lists down to the last RR. And if it has travelled, the earlier RRs (Items or Goals on an RI List) seen on listing will not RR until they have been taken off that list and are called in their own right.

WRONG WORDING

Always be sure you have the right wording for an Item or a goal.

A slightly wrong wording for a goal will cause it to RS and fizzle out.

Get the pc to change the wording on it and it may RR on and on.

If a pc ARC Breaks on a goals list, you had and passed the goal or you had the goal with a slightly wrong wording. The pc still ARC Breaks on a wrong wording as it’s a missed withhold.

Pcs usually put down varied wordings on goals lists. Encourage it, even though it’s representing an RRing Item. If a goal fires, RSes, fizzles, vanishes, get other wordings for it. And it may RR beautifully.

Example: To Succeed. On checking, RRed six times, blew TA down, RSed madly. RSed, dwindled and then ticked. Auditor went on. Pc ARC broke. Auditor went back over list, got wording for To Succeed as “To be successful”. Goal RRed beautifully. No ARC Break. Onward bound into next GPM.

Items with the article “A” or “The” omitted or added, or plural for singular, will not fire well or at all.

Example: Item listed “A Sensation”. Checked out as “Sensation”. No fire. Pc recalls it should be “A Sensation”. Item fires and is an RI.

Accuracy of listing exactly what the pc said is important. He usually said it right the first time. Say it back and check it out the same way.

Sometimes a pc wants to change a word in an Item being called. Always let him but check both versions, the one listed and the one changed. The one listed is usually right if recorded right by the auditor.

ITEM FROM ANOTHER GPM

A STRAY RI is an RI from a GPM of another goal than the one being worked.

You can get a goal or Item from another GPM by backwards oppose or overlisting.

In finding the goal of another GPM than the one you want to enter, this is easy. It fires very badly, ticks and fools around.

An RI from another GPM on the other hand fires well. When you do the “How does the goal relate to       “ step and the pc can’t relate it, or mass appears when he tries, watch it. You probably have a backwards oppose behind you or have by-passed an RI by overlisting or underlisting, or, more probably, both.

What to do? Put the stray RI on the plot marked as a “Stray” and locate the wrong way oppose or by-pass on your Line Plot and correct.

It will do no harm to 4 way package the STRAY RI. But it probably won’t do any good either. Two GPMs later you suddenly find it as a new RI.

The pc will probably ARC Break at this time. But the reason for the ARC Break lies in an earlier wrong way oppose or a by-passed RI or RIs.

Use the STRAY RI as a signal that a wrong way oppose exists behind you or an RI has been by-passed.

The proper order of actions, if the above happens, is to

1. 	Locate the By-Passed Item;

2. 	Use it to continue your RI oppose (spiral staircase);

3. 	Ignore the wrong way oppose Item (don’t instantly right way oppose it) and any stray RI, letting them come up in their proper sequence, no matter how much later that is.

MINIMIZE GOAL OPPOSE LISTS

Only do a goal oppose list at the start of the first GPM and that’s it. You don’t need any more if you go right. You’ll go into GPMs in proper sequence on the spiral staircase with no further goal oppose lists for any goal.

You will find, however, that the goal as an RI (see “To Scream” as an RI, page 2, HCO Bulletin March 13, 1963) operates as an RI oppose list and will be done in its proper time and place. This is not a source list and behaves as an RI oppose list.

Take the goals off it to another list and nul them for the next GPM.

Only one Goal Oppose List is needed for a case.

After that, always use the last RI that still fires with an RR as your source for RI oppose lists.

CLEAR TEST

You don’t need to do a Clear Test. It might mess up the bank.

A natural free needle without prepcheck begins to appear around the fifth GPM.

Check out a first goal clear by his or her Line Plot. If it compares in all respects to that of HCO Bulletin March 13, and the goal is clean saying it to the pc, call it a first goal clear.

A bracelet clear would be, actually, a theta clear, and would emerge after the 5th to 8th GPM had been cleaned up.

By present calculation a free needle, totally stable theta clear emerges after the 8th GPM has been run.

No calculation on Operating Thetan exists at this moment, but at a guess, it’s well beyond the 8th GPM.

Up to the 6th GPM a clear test is liable to foul up the case a little. So save it for later and really send up rockets in celebration.

Thetans have done a lot of living.

----------

Routine 3-M is complex and, unless the auditor is well trained, has pitfalls.

But we have years to learn it.

Clearing is the real thing.

It’s worth it.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

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

6303C20 SHTVD-18; SHSpec-252 Ruds and Havingness Session

[LRH demo with Reg Sharpe.  LRH does model session and beginning rudiments, then finds a suitable havingness process and runs it to a stabilization of the TA.]

Don’t ever nag a PC with a dirty needle.  It cleans up as the PC’s confidence and ARC with the auditor comes up.  Auditors who punish the PC because they can’t read his needle only make the dirty needle worse.  Take what the PC says and get out.  The PC might have a missed withhold, but here is the test: he is not mad at the auditor, so that is not it.  You don’t need an axe to clean up a needle.

You may think that a needle gets cleaned up because you pick up all the thoughts of the PC.  That’s wrong!  A needle cleans up because the PC has more ARC and more confidence in the auditor.  It isn’t cleaned up on the significance of what the PC says.  So, in a ruds and havingness session, the primary purpose of the session is to build ARC with the PC by reason of auditing.  It is not what you do, it is how you do it.  You are smoothing out his needle.  A PC’s ARC determines his reads on the meter.  It is based on smooth basic auditing.

The first requisite of all auditing is to be able to give a PC a smooth session on ruds and havingness, a session which ends up with the PC in better ARC, the needle cleaner.  If you can do that, the PC will have confidence in you.  The PC has to be able to confront his auditor before he can confront his bank.  The effect scale is at work here.  If you are a smooth basic auditor, you can run any process.  Ruds and havingness aren’t just practice.  They raise the PC’s ARC if they are done right.  

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 MARCH AD13

Franchise

CLEAR & OT

DON’T TRY TO MAKE AN OT BEFORE YOU MAKE A CLEAR.

One of the enduring observations which has arisen in clearing and which will always remain true is summed up in this line:

DON’T TRY TO MAKE AN OT BEFORE YOU MAKE A CLEAR.

Stressing this conclusion is vitally important and will always be important. Why?

In their understandable enthusiasm to do “the most for the pc” and obtain the “highest gain” auditors tend to get as many RIs and goals as possible. The “face” acquired in making a “third goal clear” also operates.

On the part of the pc there is always some pc pressure to “get on with it”, find more RIs, find more goals. There is also “face”. “I’m a 3rd goal clear.”

The auditor, in his own enthusiasm for more GPMs, heeds the pc’s protest against case repair and prepchecks and commits the following crime:

WITHOUT MAKING A FIRST GOAL, ATTEMPTS TO MAKE AN OT.

He does this in gradients. Without making an actual first goal clear, the auditor, with the pc’s full insistence, makes a “Third Goal Clear”.

This law takes over in the face of such “press on” tactics:

RULE: YOU CANNOT HAVE AN ANY GOAL CLEAR WITHOUT CLEARING THE GOAL AND ALL ITS GPM.

To do this it is necessary to observe this rule:

RULE. A GOAL IS NOT CLEAR UNTIL ALL ROCKET READING ITEMS IN THAT GOAL HAVE BEEN FOUND, PROPERLY ALIGNED AND DISCHARGED, AND THE GOAL HAS BEEN FULLY PREPCHECKED.

The next Goal is available and easily found, RIs in the next GPM are readily found, there seems to be no reason to waste auditing time by cleaning up the last GPM. This is true of any next GPM.

However, just going on and on carries its penalties.

IF WE PERSIST IN FAILING TO FULLY CLEAR EACH GPM, WE CAN EXPECT A GENERAL BOG DOWN IN ALL OF SCIENTOLOGY.

Why? Because we will all become subject to the very real penalties of failing to clear GPMs before going on.

It is alright to find 2 RIs into the next GPM and to find its goal. That is as it should be. But it is not alright not to go back and fully polish up the GPM just left. This is true for all GPMs.

You haven’t got a first goal clear if you haven’t cleared the first GPM and Goal.

 So don’t announce first goal clears if you haven’t cleared fully the first goal. Having the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc, goals and some RIs in each still doesn’t make a first goal clear.

The following liabilities occur when the GPM just left is not fully cleaned up:

1. 	The pc drags mass from the last GPM into the next GPM;

2. 	Accuracy of RI finding in the next GPM is diminished;

3. 	The pc, being more subject to errors in auditing, is far more likely to heavily ARC Break;

4. 	Body mass (weight) does not diminish;

5. 	Pc’s reality on the next GPM RIs is diminished;

6. 	A feeling of lassitude (a shadow of the Sad Effect) comes over the pc and he or she does his own work in life with less enthusiasm;

7. 	The pc’s health and actions are better but one does not see what one expects from clearing. Therefore clearing is downgraded by the auditor and pc and others;

8. 	The actual soaring gains of clearing are not observed, since the GPM and its goal are not actually cleared but only de-intensified.

Clear tests, which will be issued from time to time, should be scrupulously passed before going on to the actual running of the next bank.

If these simple precautions are observed, clearing is formidable to behold. If they are not observed, then clearing won’t be observed-because it hasn’t been done.

Don’t try to make an Operating Thetan before you make a clear. The results will be far, far below that of just first goal clear.

A lot of time and agony went into discovering these things. I hope you will benefit by them.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LREl:dr.bh 
Copyright © 1963 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Tape: 6304C23 SHSBC 259
GOALS PROBLEM MASS
is not currently available

The Editor

Tape: 6304C25 SHSBC 260
FINDING GOALS
is not currently available

The Editor

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 APRIL 1963
Central Orgs
Academies
METER READING TRS

DEFINITIONS

An Instant Read

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.

HCO B May 25, 1962

An Instant Rudiment Read

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

HCO B July 21, 1962

A Needle Reaction

Rise, fall, speeded rise, speeded fall, double tick (dirty needle), theta bop or any other action.

HCO B May 25, 1962

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”.

HCO B May 25, 1962

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.

HCO B May 25, 1962

E-METER TR 20

PURPOSE.

To familiarise student with an E-Meter.

POSITION:

Coach and student sit facing each other with an E-Meter in front of the student, either on a table or a chair.

COMMANDS:

“Reach for the meter” “Withdraw from the meter”. Questions given alternately.

TRAINING STRESS:

Coach to see that student does command each time. Coach asks from time to time, “How are you doing?” Coach also takes up any comm lag or physical manifestation with a “What happened?”

HISTORY:

Developed by L. Ron Hubbard, September 1962, at Saint Hill. Recompiled by Reg Sharpe, Course Secretary Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, April 1963.

E-METER TR 21

PURPOSE:

To train student to read an E-Meter accurately, speedily and with certainty.

POSITION:

Coach and student sit facing each other. Student has an E-Meter (switched on) and coach holds the cans.

PATTER:

Coach: “Define a needle reaction.”

Coach: “Define an instant read.”

Coach. “Define a rudiment instant read.”

Student should give with a high degree of accuracy the definitions in this bulletin. If it is not so, coach reads definition and has student repeat it.

Coach:  “Take a phrase from the bulletin, say it to me and observe the meter.”

When the student has done this coach asks the following questions:

1. 	“Did you get a needle reaction?” “What was it?” “Where was it?”

2. 	“Did you get a rudiment instant read?” “What was it?”

3. 	“Did you get an instant read?” “What was it?”

TRAINING STRESS:

Coach needs to keep control of the coaching session. He should not depart from the above questions. If student is in any doubt at any time coach asks for a definition of whatever is being handled. Example: Student: “I’m not sure if I had a reaction.” Coach: “Define a needle reaction.” When student has done so, coach repeats question, “Did you get a needle reaction?” and continues thus until student gives a definite answer.
Any hesitancy or any failure on the part of the student to observe a read is queried with a “What happened?” Occasionally ask student, “How are you doing?”

This drill needs to be coached exactly as outlined above. Student is very likely to start blowing confusion. Don’t Q & A with it. No flunks, no evaluation or invalidation.

HISTORY:

Developed by Reg Sharpe from the materials of L. Ron Hubbard at Saint Hill, April 1963, to improve E-Meter reading rapidly and without student being invalidated by another student who does not know how to read a meter.

								L. RON HUBBARD

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

6304C30 SHSpec-261 Directive Listing [Part II]

Finding the pattern of the GPM has been pure slaughter.  You have to hunt and punch around among various banks, stirring everything up.  LRH was horrified in the past to find so many items.  He wondered if some were locks. Now it is all shaken out.  It is mysterious that the noun form declines into “-ity” forms, then the goal as an oppterm.  The goal declines through the same pattern, all the way down through “absolute” and “perfect” into the “ivities”.  Then you get to the end of the goal, which doesn’t decline, mysteriously.

Body weight and machinery get knocked around sometimes, when doing directive listing.  It is the unrun items which, slamming into the body, increase the body’s mass.  This is one of the oldest findings in havingness processing, like mock-ups being shoved into the body increasing the body’s weight.  A partially-run GPM, being in restimulation, impinges on the body more than it did, so you get more body weight.  Mental mass and physical mass are the same stuff, but mental mass is thinner.  GPM mass looks like a steel shell, or is a sphere covered with a black or grey cloud.  The mass on a half-discharged bank looks like grey cotton-wool.  It has finite dimensions. The mass alternates: black banks and grey banks going back down the track.  A black bank, partly discharged, turns greyish and murky-brown while there are still some items.  It shakes and shivers and tries to fall apart.  The best items are those that turn on a little mass.  The first items off take off proportionally more charge than the later ones.  However, leaving lower RI’s undischarged is dangerous, because the lower items hold it all together, and it will charge up again.  The top items are uncomfortable and upsetting, but not that important.  The lowest oppterm is the keystone that keeps the bank in its channel, because it is a cross between the failed goal of the next GPM down and the one you are in. That is how the goals stay in sequence.  What keeps the bank charged up is the goal.  When you reach the goal as an RI, you can’t just leave it.  You have to list what would oppose it.  But don’t let the PC start to run what comes up as the item, because it is the next bank, and before going into it, the PC has to come up to PT.  Acknowledge it very thoroughly. Don’t null the list.  Go back to the top of the first bank you ran, and find its goal, find the opposite “oppose”, and go on to PT.  It is always harder to go the other way, going later, rather than earlier, but that is the way to do it.

The reason is that you are trying to clear the PC by obtaining for the PC the greatest possible auditing gains per unit of time.  It is mechanically true that the more items you get off, the more banks you run, the more charge you discharge, the more the PC will cognite.  But we are running the PC under special conditions that you, as a scientologist recognize as special, but that no one else would see as out of the ordinary.  You are running a thetan in a body.  That just about ruins ninety percent of the things you could do.  You are auditing a bank with a frail human body interposed between the bank and the PC, but you need the PC’s body to hold onto the cans.  That is what has given LRH trouble in research.  The PC is put into danger, in that you can’t audit a dead body, end if the PC dropped his body half way through a bank, he would probably be sufficiently restimulated so that he would have trouble picking up a new body.  He would key-out, but he would feel betrayed, because the hope factor was ‘way up.  So auditing is monitored by the consideration of what gains you can achieve in spite of the fact that the PC has a body between himself and the bank.  This is a real problem.

The bank is capable of influencing the body.  That is why the E-meter can be used.  The E-meter is not connected up to the auditor, but the auditor can, accidentally, start looking at or into his own bank to figure out the PC, and kick in some restimulation.  The auditor’s bank and the PC’s are on different wavelengths, so they don’t collide.  MEST has wavelengths, also.  Someone whose wavelength is near to yours is someone you feel very close to [ -- a soul-mate].  You can influence each other more than average, being both more pleasing and more irritating.  There is also the possibility of having known the other person before.

So there is a thetan plus a body plus a bank.  The bank consists of free track that hasn’t been drawn into the GPM’s, all the goals, all the GPM’s, all the locks, secondaries, engrams, and circuits.  Then there is the thetan, the body, and the physical universe, with all its PTP’s.  So, in a sense, in auditing the PC, you are auditing the whole Physical universe and everything in it.  It is seldom necessary for the auditor to handle the PC’s environment, except when handling a very neurotic or psychotic PC, or a PC with a psychotic family.  

If you were auditing a thetan with no body, you could run him back to his earliest bank, knock it out, and then run off the later ones more easily.  The body gets in the way of this, because when the thetan made his earliest bank, he didn’t have a body, and his adventures were more strenuous than a body could take.  So you can make someone quite ill by chasing them down into early banks and badly handling them.  The body is a useful adjunct, though a nuisance, in some ways.  So you should safeguard it by staying with standard procedures.  Whatever you come up with to run, run it well, with a minimum of stress on the body.

What could you do to overstress the body?  You could fail to clear the bank you are working on and go off into other banks.  You could not run banks closer to PT before going earlier.  You could not try, as far as possible, to run a bank from its extreme top to the bottom.  You could keep auditing the PC over and over, finding nothing and not discharging the bank.  You could find wrong items and run wrong goals.  You could fail to follow the pattern, but assume that your PC is different.  Your PC simply won’t rocket read well on some parts of the GPM.  It is just charge that prevents the right item from firing.

Just as the PC has many goals and many banks, he has many RI’s in one GPM.  Instead of worrying about all the GPM’s there are to run, you should be worrying about cleaning up the RI’s you have your hands on.  Just as if you half-ran half of the PC’s banks, so if you half-run half the RI’s in a bank, the PC will sooner or later feel queasy.  The monitoring consideration is that you should audit what you have your hands on.  Don’t “run R3 on a PC”.  Audit the PC with R3!  That goes for every auditing skill we have.  “I never sec check a PC.  I audit the PC with sec checking.  I don’t find goals on a PC.  I audit a PC with goals finding.” If you keep that frame of reference, you will win all the way.

With Routine 3, it is almost possible to audit the PC with scarcely a somatic, if you use everything you are doing, at the moment you are doing it, to clear the PC of what you have your hands on.  It will go something like this:  The first RI takes 2 1/2 hours; the next thirty RI’s take half an hour apiece; the next thirty RI’s take twenty minutes apiece; the next thirty take fifteen minutes apiece.  The next bank takes you 45 minutes to get your first Rl, half an hour each for the next half-dozen, fifteen minutes each for the next thirty, etc., etc.  This happens because you are building, on a gradient scale, the thetan’s confidence, and leaving nothing behind you to worry about.  This state of affairs is attainable, if you follow some rules.  Say you have spent two sessions trying to get the top oppterm to fire.  You’ve still got the whole bottom of the GPM and various points to cut in, where the PC can get rocket reads.  By auditing the lower parts of the GPM, you could unburden the case and then progress forward.  You should be aware that you can always go down in a bank, no matter how hard you try to list upward.  Your first interest is to get charge off.  If you get charge off, the PC can confront more.  Now he can find that missing top oppterm.

You’ve got countless locks, which will fire when you first enter a bank. Any part of the goal, anything will fire, because you are looking at the whole mass, and it is so cross-charged that anything will fire. That makes the top oppterm the hardest to find.  After you have taken some charge off, all these weird combinations don’t fire. The more bank, the more things will fire, and the more restimulated the PC will be in life.  

[Details on directive listing procedure.]

Some PCs will have to be taught the language, if they don’t understand the words in the pattern.  Eventually they will get the words. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 APRIL 1963

Central Orgs
Academies
MODERNIZED TRAINING DRILLS
USING PERMISSIVE COACHING

Much of the difficulty experienced in teaching the TRs and getting students proficient in the TRs is due to bad coaching. This bulletin is issued to overcome this difficulty. It is in fact an amendment of HCO Bulletin of April 17, 1961, which as itself remains valid.

The essence of this bulletin is that the drills do not permit the coach to “flunk” a student, instead an exact patter is laid down for the coach and instructors should ensure that the coach keeps to the patter.

TR 0 has been subdivided into 4 parts.

One new drill is introduced—”The Coaches’ Drill”.

The TRs are important because:

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 the HPA/HCA BScn/HCS Courses, THE BALANCE OF THE COURSE WILL FAIL AND INSTRUCTORS AT UPPER LEVELS WILL BE TEACHING NOT THEIR SUBJECTS BUT TRS.

4. 	Almost all confusions on Meter, Model Sessions and SOP Goals stem directly from inability to do the TRs.

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

6. 	SOP Goals 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. Seven weeks on a Comm Course until he does the TRs perfectly lets the student receive at least one week’s training in the eight. A poor Comm Course in one week can wipe out the whole eight weeks.

NUMBER: TR 0. Revised 1961 and 1963.

NAME: Confronting Preclear.

COMMANDS: None.

POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart— about three feet. Student has an E-Meter.
PURPOSE: To train student to confront a preclear with auditing only or with nothing. The whole idea is to get the student able to hold 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, 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 Confront 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. After a student has become able to just sit there for two hours “bull baiting” can begin. Anything added to being there is queried by the coach with a “What happened?” Twitches, blinks, sighs, fidgets, anything except just being there is promptly queried with the reason why, if necessary. TR 0 has been divided into four parts. Each part is drilled for about 15 minutes in turn and then begun over again and again.

TR 0 (A)

This is exactly as given above except that “bull baiting” is omitted. Whenever student speaks, fidgets, giggles, is embarrassed or goes anaten coach says, “That’s it, what happened?” Coach listens carefully to what student has to say, acknowledges and says, “Start.” In fact, coach will do the foregoing whenever he sees any physical action or change, however small, manifested by the student. It is also desirable from time to time that the coach says, “That’s it, how are you doing?”, listens carefully to what student says, acknowledges and then says start.

No flunks, no invalidation or validation other than giving a win from time to time as merited.

TR 0 (B)

Exactly as TR 0 (A) with the addition that student is required by coach to answer the following questions which are given alternately:

“What can you see about me that you like?” 
“What can you see about me that you don’t like?”

Coach acknowledges each answer without invalidation, validation or evaluation. Coach asks “What happened?” whenever there is any physical manifestation on the part of the student or whenever there is an overlong comm lag. Coach also asks from time to time “How are you doing?”

TR 0 (C)

In this part bull baiting is introduced, otherwise it is exactly as TR 0 (A). Patter as a confronted subject: The coach may say anything or do anything except leave the chair. The students’ “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).

Instructors should have coaches let students have some wins (coach does not mention these) and then, by gradient stress, get the coaches to start in on the student to invite flunks. This is “bull baiting”. The student is queried each time he or she reacts, no matter how minutely, to being baited.
TR 0 (D)

This drill has been designed to put the finishing touches to a TR 0. It needs to be done very thoroughly and with plenty of interest on the part of the coach. It is run as follows:

1. 	Coach says to student, “Define a good auditing attitude.” He accepts student’s definition.

2. 	Coach says, “Show me a good auditing attitude.”

3. 	After a few minutes coach asks the following questions:

(a) 	“Did you show me a good auditing attitude?”
(b) 	“What did you do?”
(c) 	“What happened?”

4. 	Actions 2 and 3 are repeated two or three times, then start over again at 1.

5. 	When the “Good auditing attitude” is being done well substitute “an interested attitude” or “a professional attitude” or “an understanding attitude”. All these “attitudes” should be drilled thoroughly. Further, coach should take any attitude the student presents, e.g. if student uses in his definition the words “It’s being there” coach makes a mental note to use it later. Example: “Define a ‘being there’ attitude.” “Show me a ‘being there’ attitude.” 

The whole of TR 0 should be taught rough-rough-rough and not left until the student can do it. Training is considered satisfactory at this level only if the student can BE three feet in front of a person without flinching, concentrating or confronting with, regardless of what the confronted person says or does.

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 SOP Goals required for its success a much higher level of technical skill than earlier processes. Revised 1963 by Reg Sharpe.

NUMBER: TR 1. Revised 1961 and 1963.

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.

POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart. Student has an E-Meter.

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.

(A) 	When student has delivered a phrase coach asks student the following:

1. 	“Did you own the phrase?”
2. 	“Did you deliver it in a new unit of time?”
3. 	“Where did the communication start from?”
4. 	“Where did the communication land?”

If student is in difficulty or confused by the drill, coach reads the purpose of the drill and the training stress and has student clear the purpose and the training stress.

(B) 	After a short while the following is introduced.

Coach tells student, “Create the space of the coaching session by locating 4 points in front of you and four points behind you.” This is done on a gradient scale until student is doing the drill comfortably. Coach just asks, “Did you do that?”

Then “A” above is reintroduced and the coach asking from time to time, “Did you create the space?” If student has difficulty coach goes back to getting student to locate the four points in front and the four points behind.

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. Revised 1963 by Reg Sharpe with the advices of L. Ron Hubbard.

NUMBER: TR 2. Revised 1961 and 1963.

NAME: Acknowledgments.

PURPOSE: To teach student that an acknowledgment is a method of controlling preclear communication and that an acknowledgment is a full stop. Also that an acknowledgment lets a pc know that he has answered an auditing command.

COMMANDS: The coach reads lines from “Alice in Wonderland” omitting “He saids” and the student thoroughly acknowledges them.

POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other at a comfortable distance apart. Student with an E-Meter.

TRAINING STRESS: To teach student to acknowledge exactly what was said so preclear knows it was heard. To ask student from time to time what was said. To curb over and under acknowledgment. To 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.

To teach further that one can fail to get an acknowledgment across or can fail to stop a pc with an acknowledgment or can take a pc’s head off with an acknowledgment. Patter: The coach says, “Start,” reads a line and says after student has acknowledged:

1. 	“What did I say?”
2. 	“Did you understand it?”
3. 	“Did your acknowledgment let me know I had originated something?” 
4. 	“Did it end cycle?”
5. 	“Where did the acknowledgment start from?”
6. 	“Where did the acknowledgment land?”
7. 	“Did you own the space?”

In questions 5 and 6 student must indicate as in TR 1. Ask “What happened?” as required in previous TRs. Coach checks carefully, “Are you really satisfied that you are giving good acknowledgments?” He reads the purpose of the TR and the Training Stress for the student to check over.

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. Revised 1961 by L. Ron Hubbard. Revised 1963 by Reg Sharpe with the advices of L. Ron Hubbard.

NUMBER: TR 3. Revised 1961 and 1963.

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. Student has an E-Meter.

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. 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 and receive an answer and to acknowledge it in one unit of time.

The student should not fail to get an answer to the question asked, or fail to repeat the exact question.

Coach instructs student to run the command “Do birds fly?” or “Do fish swim?” etc. Student is required to acknowledge in such a way that the coach knows he has answered the command and if he doesn’t answer the command to repeat the command, letting the coach know it is a repeat. Coach just answers the command to start. Patter is as follows:

S. 	“Do birds fly?” 
C. 	“Yes.”
S. 	“Good.”
C. 	“Did I answer the command?” 
S. 	“Yes.”
C. 	“Did you feel that you had let me know that I had answered the command?”
S. 	“No” or “Yes.”
C. 	“OK, start again.”

This patter is repeated over and over until student has a certainty that he is doing the drill.

Then coach starts giving commands which are not answers. These communications must all be directed at the student, i.e., something to do with the pc’s attitude, appearance, private life (real or imaginary).

Example of patter:

S. 	“Do birds fly?” 
C. 	“Your breath stinks.” 
S. 	“I’ll repeat the question. Do birds fly?” 
C. 	“That’s it. Did I answer the question?” 
S. 	“No.” 
C. 	“Did you let me know I hadn’t?” 
S. 	“By not acknowledging, repeating the command.” 
C. 	“OK, start.” And so on.

Coach continues until student is easily doing the drill and with great certainty. Coach can use such originations always directly concerned with the student personally and if he finds a button he continues until the student is tolerating it quite happily. If student breaks up or becomes misemotional coach merely asks “What happened?”

No flunks. No evaluation, invalidation or validation.

Ask “What happened?” as required. 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, acknowledgment and, as needed, the repeat statement is queried. Unnecessary use of the repeat statement is queried. A poor command is queried. A poor acknowledgment is queried. Student misemotion or confusion is queried. Student failure to utter the next command without a long comm lag is queried. A choppy or premature acknowledgment is queried. Lack of an acknowledgment (or with a distinct comm lag) is queried.

“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 queried.

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 acknowledgment.

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 queried. By queried is meant coach asks student “What happened?”

HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956 to overcome variations and sudden changes in sessions. Revised 1961 and 1963 by L. Ron Hubbard. The old TR had 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 and 1963.

NAME: Preclear Originations.

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.

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 at a comfortable distance apart.

TRAINING STRESS: The student is taught to hear originations 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 coach 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 queried. 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.) If the student does more than (1) Understand, (2) Acknowledge, (3) Return pc to session, he is in error.

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 remarks aimed only at the student is queried.

Student’s failure to persist is always queried 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.

TR 4 and anti-Q & A is what bothers auditors the most. Q & Aing is a fault which causes ARC breaks and therefore throws the pc out of session. The reason is that when you Q & A the pc is not permitted to let go of an origination and is therefore left with a Missed Withhold. Q & A = Missed Withholds = ARC Breaks.

Coach starts by asking student to define TR 4. If student doesn’t know it then coach gives the definition as follows: TR 4 is to hear an origination, to understand it, to acknowledge it and return pc to session. Similarly coach asks for a definition of Q& A, which is: Double questioning, changing because pc changed, following pc’s instruction.

Coach then tells student to run the process “Do birds fly?” or “Do fish swim?” Coach frequently introduces an origination. When student has dealt with origination or has tried to deal with it, coach asks searchingly the following questions:

1. 	“Were you tongue-tied? startled? thrown off session?”
2. 	“Did you hear origination?”
3. 	“Did you understand it?”
4. 	“Did you acknowledge it?”
5. 	“Did you return me to session?”
6. 	“Did you double question me?”
7. 	“Did you change because I had changed?”
8. 	“Did you follow my instruction?”
9. 	“What did you do?”
10.	“What happened?”

Question 10 can be asked randomly throughout the drill whenever coach sees or hears something that indicates student is in trouble of any sort.
Coach is permitted to “lead student up the garden path” for a little while before asking the above question.

This drill needs to be done very thoroughly. If coach notices that student is using a method or pattern, coach can add in the question “Are you using a method or pattern in this drill?”

The drill is continued over and over until student is doing it comfortably and happily. 

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. Revised 1963 by Reg Sharpe with the advices of L. Ron Hubbard.

Coaches’ Drill

Coach and student (who is in this case the student coach) seated as in the normal TR drills.

Coach has the copy of the drill in front of him. He tells student to coach a TR. Whenever student departs from the script coach says, “That’s it. The correct question there should be_____.” “The correct action there should be_____. “ This is continued until student coach is thoroughly conversant with the script.

Coach keeps student on the drill and at the end of each cycle asks student, “Did you notice any physical changes on my part?” “What were they?” “Did you ask me ‘What happened?’ each time?”

Drill is continued with each TR in turn until student is administering all the TRs efficiently, interestedly and competently.

Ask “What happened?” as required.

HISTORY: Developed by Reg Sharpe with the advices of L. Ron Hubbard in April 1963 at Saint Hill to teach students how to coach the TRs.

Training Note

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

								L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 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

6305C16 SHSpec-265 The Time Track

[Some of the data in this tape is contained in HCOB 15May63 “The Time Track and Engram Rum ing by Chains: Bulletin I” and HCOB 8Jun63” ... Bulletin II -- Handling the Time Track”.]

One basic tenet has never changed: you have never successfully audited anything but the time track.  There is nothing to audit but the time track. There is no grand key to the release of things but the time track.  Locks, valences, machinery, etc., are all phenomena of the time track.

The time track is the continuous record of time of the individual, from the first moment he began to experience, on through until now, an interrupted three-D fifty-two perception movie.  Things happen to that movie.  It gets grouped and becomes unavailable to the PC for various reasons, e.g. his inability to confront the fact that it can get grouped, etc. All that auditing ever does is to straighten out the time track, make it available, and as-is it.  The track gets collapsed and looped by chains, which consist of related incidents, until you get a solid wad of experience which is unavailable to the PC and thus has command value over him.  There are only two classes of things involved in the time track:      

1. The mechanical things.  The matter, energy, space, and time that is the time track.     

2. The significance of it.  People who can’t confront the track at all, e.g. psychologists and psychiatrists, conceive it to consist of thought only.  The time track is not imaginary and shouldn’t be treated as imaginary.  It has mass.

In the physical universe, a brick wall is the product of various people and forces.  Where it all come from needn’t be investigated, for practical purposes.  The time track has remained undiscovered and undescribed by mental health practitioners, because they have lacked the confront to get past certain mechanisms that make it unavailable.

Nothing is holy, to a scientologist.  There is nothing that should not be investigated.  Nothing is unavailable, although psychiatrists think so.  They don’t know that the time track is real.  They have fallen for the first trick that the time track employs to make itself unavailable:  the idea that there is “nothing in the mind but thought”.  That is a trick of debarment.  The consideration is, “Anybody who says that he is looking at a brick building in the mind ... isn’t looking as a brick building, and it must therefore be imaginary, so therefore he is living in the field of illusion or delusion, so therefore he must be slightly mad....”  “Insane people must be mad because they are seeing things,” says the psychiatrist.  Then he compounds the insanity by saying, “No, you are not seeing these things.” He makes the time track less available. 

“The direction of sanity lies in the capability of confronting the time track and the PT environment.” For any individual, “existence consists of the physical universe, PT and everything that is in it at this exact, precise PT 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.”

Archeology studies “a suppositional reality”, but it is not outlawed for that reason.  You can take some ruin and say, “What has it been?” But that is not the isness.  It is a suppositional reality, subject to error.  However, archeology is not outlawed as a science for that reason.  Furthermore, all futures are suppositional.  If they are suppositional enough, they come true. LRH used to tell fortunes by looking at a person’s facsimiles and mocking something up.  The future is always enforceable with altitude and authority. This is just a trick method of making a postulate stick.  It is still a suppositional reality.  There is isness, and there is suppositional isness. “The time track often gives people the feeling that the ‘was’ can return.” It can be quite solid, when there is extra awareness jammed into a particular moment.

You also have to look at a borderline phenomenon:  creating.  Someone says he will build a building, and he does.  His saying he will nearly puts it there.  But a creation is a suppositional reality until it is actually created, at which point it becomes an isness, and remains an isness for whatever period of time it endures.

Part of the thought of reality is the adjudication of whether it is good, bad, or whatever.  Thought is not separate from reality.  It is woven solidly into reality and is part of the isness of reality.  One can establish the isness of a reality at time by asking about it.  Some people can’t even confront that.  [Here, LRH recounts an anecdote about the CIA or the police following students and PCs around for weeks, as they ran “Union Station”, an outdoor objective process. (Command was, “You invent a way of destroying that (indicated person).” See HCOB 6Feb58 “HGC Clear Procedure Outline of February 6”.  The process was done to take over destructive automaticities.) They were trying to find out what the scientologists were doing without ever taking the trouble to ask.] “It never occurred to them to establish an isness....  They couldn’t even view the thought in the isness.” This is even worse than only being able to view the thought in the isness.  So there is a descending gradient of ability to confront an isness:

1. Able to confront or view an isness.

2. Able to confront or view only the thought in an isness.

3. Unable to confront or view the thought in an isness, or even to ask about it.

Opinions are.  There are thoughts and opinions abroad in the world that we may not agree with, but which are part of the isness.  A wrought iron fence is a thought woven into the physical universe, as, to some degree, is all else.  When someone creates something in the physical universe, part of its isness is the expression of his thought.  Thought is expressed by the formation of the MEST.  So thought is, to some degree, part of the physical universe.  Likewise, the time track is composed of matter, energy, space, time, and thought.  So both the physical universe and the time track are composed of MEST and thought.  Added onto these are many complexities such as suppositional isnesses, befores and afters, purposes, and aesthetics.

“The degree that [an individual] is on a suppositional kick measures directly his confrontingness.” How much suppositional isness is added to actual isness? A critic says, “The artist should have....” The “should have” measures the amount of non-confront the critic is doing.  This is also true of PCs, who typically say, “Well, it looks as if there might have been...  there could possibly have been ... a wreck of some kind here at one time or another.  Maybe.  I think it was an airplane.” (It turns out that it was a building.)  The PC is very suppositional.  He doesn’t give the isness of it.

Someone who criticizes anything is doing a supposition about how something should be.  They are not confronting the isness.  “The time track straightens out and erases in direct ratio to the amount of isness confronted by the PC, and that is how sane and capable [he] gets.  [It is] measured directly by the amount of isness the individual is [able to] confront.”

In view of the fact that he PC’s track is in terrible condition, there are two factors at work:

1. The PC’s own feelings of incompetence.

2. The unrecognizableness of the track.  

These combine to give you a cat’s breakfast.  An extreme form of this problem is seen in the PC who supposes all sorts of horrible things, who thinks it is so uncomfortable that he doesn’t even show up for session.

A thetan’s state is not really pinned mechanically by anything.  He is not made less of a thetan or more by MEST.  But when you surround him as intimately as the time track does with a tremendous amount of suppositional unconfrontability, he is enforced into a state of low morale, where he doesn’t think that he can do anything.  And the isness, then, is that he can’t.  The PC supposes that the time track is not confrontable, that the auditor is not going to be able to do anything for it, that he won’t be able to handle it, etc.  “All the time he’s supposing, he’s not confronting.” He knows what will happen.  He has had all these unconfrontable experiences, and his attention is still fixed on something, and he knows he mustn’t take his attention off of it.  He also knows that if he doesn’t take his attention off of it, he will go to pieces.  Then he has forgotten that he has his attention on it.  He feels degraded by all this.  In addition, the state of his track is horrible.  It is scrambled, shredded, snarled up.  The thetan, in the middle of it all, is convinced that if he moves or looks at any of it, something horrible will happen.  All of it has command value over him.  Yet, at the same time, it is valuable to him.  It has become his havingness.  “It’s all the old tin cans he’s got.  It’s all his knowingness....  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 without [it].” That dependency and the why of it is also in the record department.

The great savants who have remained ignorant of the time track have just Q and A’d with its unconsciousness by remaining unconscious of it and unwilling to approach its pain.  The time track is unavailable to the being, so the savant supposes that it is unavailable to him.  But the auditor mustn’t do this Q and A.

“The only real tragedy of life, I suppose, is that absolute unconsciousness and absolute unknowingness are unobtainable.” The fact that a thetan can’t remember, at first, what happened in an engram doesn’t mean that he was unconscious at the time.  If absolute unconsciousness and unknowingness were possible, we would probably be all right.

Don’t underestimate the violence that is there on the time track, and don’t force the PC into it.  But if you get the earliest moment of the earliest GPM, it runs like hot butter, even though there’s as much charge on it as there is on a later one.  The difficulty you hit with the later one is that it has the charge of all the earlier ones, in addition to its own, so it is far harder for the PC to confront.

It is important not to give the PC loses, early on.  You should know the mechanics of engrams and the time track.  Be sure your commands mean what you intend them to mean.  “Through the incident” does not mean “through the incident to the end,” and if you just say, “Move to the end,” the PC won’t go through the incident.  The bank follows the “You think you are there, so you are there” mechanism of the thetan, so the difference between “to” and “through” is very important.  Use “to” in scouting and “through” in running engrams, and don’t mix them up.

LRH found that some PCs can’t run GPM’s until they have run an early engram.  Also, if you can run the overt engram that relates to these GPM’s, as an engram, a fantastic amount of charge will come off the implants themselves, and they will run like hot butter.

Here is a datum:  That particular implanting outfit was located down towards the center of this galaxy and was founded 52,863,010, 654,079 years ago.  It was destroyed 38,932,690,862,933 years ago by the 79th wing of the 43rd Battle Squadron of the Galactic Fleet.  It was a wildcat activity.  They used to drag Magellanic clouds out of the center hub of the galaxy, let them follow lines of force and come over a system, and then send planes in with speakers. The place would be caved in for thousands of years as a result of radioactive clouds.  You are not likely to find any implant earlier then or even near 52 trillion years ago, or closer to PT than 35.9 trillion years ago.  Any other kind of implant is a different kind or a dramatization of it someplace else.  The Helatrobus implanter had the dream of everyone in the universe being good.  They used the Ice Cube.  [See A History of Man, pp. 64-5.] This is the implant that really keyed in the time track. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 MAY AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise

ROUTINE 3
R-3 MODEL SESSION

Here is the new Routine 3 Model Session as outlined in HCO Bulletin May 13, AD13. All other Model Sessions are canceled herewith. This form is to be used in all auditing in the future.

SESSION PRELIMINARIES

All auditing sessions have the following preliminaries done in this order.

l. 	Seat the pc and adjust his or her chair.

2. 	Clear the Auditing room with “Is it all right to audit in this room?” (not metered).

3. 	Can squeeze “Squeeze the cans, please.” And note that pc registers, by the squeeze, on the meter, and note the level of the pc’s havingness. (Don’t run hav here.)

4. 	Put in R Factor by telling pc briefly what you are going to do in the session.

START OF SESSION.

5. 	“Is it all right with you if I begin this session now?”

“START OF SESSION.” (Tone 40)

“Has this session started for you?” If pc says, “No,” say again, “START OF SESSION. Now has this session started for you?” If pc says, “No,” say, “We will cover it in a moment.”

RUDIMENTS:

6. 	“What goals would you like to set for this session?”

Please note that Life or Livingness goals have been omitted, as they tend to remind the pc of present time difficulties and tend to take his attention out of the session.

7. 	At this point in the session there are actions which could be undertaken: the running of General O/W or the running of Mid Rudiments using “Since the last time I audited you”, or pull missed W/Hs as indicated. But if pc cheerful and needle smooth, just get down to work.

One would run General O/W if the pc was emotionally upset at the beginning of the session or if the session did not start for the pc, the latter being simply another indication of the pc’s being upset or ARC broken, but these symptoms must be present, as sometimes the session hasn’t started merely because of poor Tone 40 or because the pc had something he wanted to say before the auditor started the session.
RUNNING O/W:

“If it is all right with you, I am going to run a short, general process. The process is: ‘What have you done?’, ‘What have you withheld?’ “ (The process is run very permissively until the needle looks smooth and the pc is no longer emotionally disturbed. )

“Where are you now on the time track?”
“If it is all right with you, I will continue this process until you are close to present time and then end this process.” (After each command, ask, “When?”) “That was the last command. Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this process?”
“End of process.”

RUNNING THE MID RUDIMENTS:

One would use the Middle Rudiments with, “Since the last time I audited you”, if the needle was rough and if the Tone Arm was in a higher position than it was at the end of the last session.

ORDER OF BUTTONS

Here is the correct wording and order of use for the big Mid Ruds.

	“	has anything been suppressed?”

	“	is there anything you have been careful of?”

	“	is there anything you have failed to reveal?”

	“ 	has anything been invalidated?”

	“	has anything been suggested?”

	“	has any mistake been made?”

	“	is there anything you have been anxious about?”

	“	has anything been protested?”

	“	has anything been decided?”

	“	has anything been asserted?”

In using the first three buttons (Suppressed, Careful of and Failed to Reveal), the rudiment question should be asked directly of the pc off the meter (repetitive). When the pc has no more answers, check the question on the meter. If the question reads, stick with it on the meter like in Fast Rud checking until it is clean.

The last six buttons are cleaned directly on the meter as in Fast Ruds.

PULLING MISSED WITHHOLDS

Use: “Since the last time you were audited has a withhold been missed on you’?”

“Since the last time you were audited is there anything someone failed to find out about you?”
“Since the last time you were audited has someone nearly found out something about you?”

Any of the above versions may be used. They are always run repetitively. They can also be used without the time limiter, e.g. “Is there anything someone failed to find out about you?”

BODY OF SESSION.

8. 	Now go into the body of the session.

END BODY OF SESSION:

9. 	“Is it all right with you if we end off ...........now?” “Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I do so?” “End of .........”

SMOOTH OUT SESSION:

10. 	Smooth out any roughness in the session if there has been any, favouring Suppress, Failed to Reveal, Protest, Decide, Overts, Assert, using prefix “In this session .......?”

GOALS & GAINS.

11. 	“Have you made any part of your goals for this session?”
	“Have you made any other gains in this session that you would care to mention?”

HAVINGNESS:

12. 	(After adjusting the meter) “Please squeeze the cans.” (If the squeeze test was not all right, the Auditor would run the pc’s Havingness process until the can squeeze gives an adequate response.)

ENDING SESSION:

13. 	“Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this session?”

14. 	“Is it all right with you if I end this session now?”

15. 	“Here it is: END OF SESSION (Tone 40). Has this session ended for you?” (If the pc says, “No,” repeat, “END OF SESSION.” If the session still has not ended, say, “You will be getting more auditing. END OF SESSION.”) “Tell me I am no longer auditing you.”

Please note that Havingness is run after Goals and Gains as this tends to bring the pc more into present time and to take his attention to a degree out of the session.

Wording for the above follows the tradition of earlier model sessions. 

Adhere severely to this session form. It is nearly an irreducible minimum and is very fast, but it is all necessary.

The Random Rudiment here is “What happened?”

Session Mid Ruds are simply “Protest, Assert and Decide”.

RI rudiments are “Suppress and Invalidate”.

ARC Break handling is in accordance with HCO Bulletin of March 14, 1963. Don’t continue a session until you find out why the ARC Break.

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

6305C23 SHSpec-268 State of OT

There isn’t a government on earth that has the right to “permit” our survival as an organization.      [Cognition: The only reason you have a present time problem is that you don’t have enough time.]

The Helatrobus implants -- you can call them the “heaven” implants -- had a big effect on thetans, with their cold energy, or frozen energy.  The Helatrobus government had gold crosses on their aircraft.  No one could find out who “they” were.  They couldn’t find out who was behind and actually doing the implanting.  The implants were based on cold energy with significance placed in it.  The implants tended to talk.  The Helatrobites had figured out something that looked to everyone else like a natural phenomenon:  the Magellanic (radioactive) clouds, with which they surrounded planetary systems.  

The stars in a galaxy tend to be collected towards the center of the galactic wheel.  When you look at the Milky Way, you are looking towards the center of this galaxy.  In the opposite direction, you see other galaxies.  We are awfully far out from the center of this galaxy.  Our sun is a “rim star”. Galaxies are condensations of radioactive clouds into suns and planets. Planets sometimes shatter, to become a belt of asteroids.  Suns range from “dead” suns, to red, yellow, white, and blue suns, as they get hotter and brighter.  Bodies could exist that are suited for conditions on other planets.

Some science fiction writers have very good memories but have fallen victim to the implants that reverse time, such that the past equals the future.  The “boogie man” is a standard mechanism for keeping people from going places and looking at things, confronting.  For instance, the Phoenicians spread sea-monster rumors to prevent competition with England in the tin trade.  Scare stories about terrible beings are quite standard.  They are used to keep people out of things that others want to keep hidden.  Most planets run by animal forms have classifiable types of forms, similar from system to system, depending on the environment.  Someone built for Jupiter-type conditions would look, perhaps, Eskimo-ish.

You could become very disheartened and caved in about this universe and see it as a trap, until you recognize that the thetan is helped all the time by MEST.  It gives him location, consecutive scenery, and persistent structure of matter.  This universe has solved a lot of problems for the thetan.  When he gets too far down on the tone scale, therefore, he gets on a stuck one-way help flow, with respect to the physical universe.  The thetan doesn’t help the universe.  You could run him on, “How could you help the physical universe?”, and he would feel better about it.

Degraded beings come to the conclusion, because of the above situation, that the trouble with this universe is that it has free beings in it.  They feel that the universe is too good for free beings, so every now and then, someone decides to make it evil.  If a thetan is that degraded, what he sees as wrong with the physical universe is that it has free beings in it, so he tries to make them unfree.

The origin of the physical universe in the first place is probably a collision of home universes.  The problem of why everybody stays in a single present time was one of the more fantastic problems.  The “why” is a response to a vibration.  There is one underlying vibration that the universe, your bank, and you are vibrating at.  The only variation in that vibration relates to the progression of time.  Therefore, you can move someone on the time track.  One overwhelmed others with vibration, a very minute vibration the size of the vibration of a light particle.

The time track is formed by an involuntary intention.  In studying the power of an operating thetan, LRH has had pauses in thinking, although intellectually such power is conceivable.  Recently, LRH has been exploring the actual potentialities of an OT.  The problem of an OT may be analogous to the problem that one encounters if one tries to pick up the cellophane wrapper from a pack of cigarettes, without denting it at all.  You could  only do this if you could estimate or measure the exact force necessary to pick it up without denting it.  This is probably the basic problem of an OT, and it may give him his time track.

The power of a thetan is such that if he were to pick up a steel cylinder capable of resisting a pressure of several thousand pounds per square inch, it would be like you with the cellophane wrapper.  The problem is -- how to touch something without crushing it.  The thetan is “being careful” in handling MEST.  He seeks another method of handling.  He feels that he is quite destructive.  People who have lost their OT abilities and strength will try, and did try on the time track, to convince free thetans that they were dangerous.  People who haven’t that level of action would believe that a free thetan was destructive and would trap him with the idea by causing him to use a new trick:  doing things by intention, instead of directly.  We have always thought of intention as primary, but it is secondary.  The postulate, and action through postulates, is secondary to action through energy.  You should be able to do both, but it is more natural for a thetan to just pick something up, than to pick it up by an intention or postulate that it be up.  It is a great downgrade.  Intention is unnatural.  It would be natural to just move things.  However, this is hard to do if the thetan is afraid that he will destroy the thing in the process.  Instead, he develops the safer method of operation by intention alone.  He can do this, but it enforces a great restraint on him.  It is like putting yourself on a terrific withhold of self.

The thetan trains intention to become involuntary.  It is not imaginary. It is like involuntary nerves or muscles that work automatically.  MEST is fragile.  Recently, in New York or Melbourne, when they started running the goal “to forget” in a co-audit, the E-meter got fused.  The PC melted the lines.  Some involuntary intention was triggered in him, and “Zap!”

Unless you understand this as too great power, within the ethical limits of the individual, you won’t understand the problems of an OT.  A thetan is stronger than the fragility with which he is surrounded, and he compensates by reducing his power.  This was the wrong solution.  He developed an automatic action.  E.g.  the phone rings.  He doesn’t touch it.  It springs into the air, and he talks.  The postulate does things without his having to intend them.  There is “no difference between an involuntary intention to act and an involuntary intention to duplicate and an involuntary intention to create, and that’s where the time track comes from.” This is an hypothesis to account for the time track.

Then someone gives the thetan things for the automatic machinery to mock up which would be bad for the thetan.  Or someone jams the machinery and makes the thetan fight his own automatic intention.  The next thing you know, he has a messed-up time track.  He goes solid.  He picks up a meat body.  The withhold begins with the steel cellophane.

A rational solution would have been not to make everything so damned fragile.  Withholding all the time has all sorts of ill effects, including putting engrams on your track.

These matters have a lot to do with scientology organizations.  Seeing the character of an OT, we see that these matters could be upsetting in various directions.  We have some responsibilities to start things out right, if we are going to make OT’s.

Early on, conceiving that free thetans were very dangerous and should be shot down, people like the Helatrobites started laying in implants and weakening people, working with great industry.  Before these implants, planets were suddenly surrounded with radioactive cloud masses from the center of the galaxy.  Waves of black and grey clouds would sweep over the planet, engulfing it in radioactivity.  The dark horse nebula in Orion is one huge radioactive cloud like this.  This could go on for a million years.  Universes have lines of force -- vectors, like spokes -- which were used by the Helatrobus group, to move Magellanic clouds.  They just set them loose.  No one found out that it was being done by someone.  It was all explained as a natural phenomenon.  Because of these theories, no one thought to look for anyone doing it.

At least a hundred years after a system had been engulfed, Helatrobus would send capturing troops in ships with little orange-colored electronic bombs that would talk.  Speech was frozen into electronic capsules.  The clouds would talk, “Hark! Hark!  Look out!”, etc.  It sounded like a fun house.  Its unbelievability made detection of its origin all but impossible. It confused the thetans all to Hell.  For some reason, the symbol of airplanes goes through this.  This symbol goes earlier, to implants at 80 trillion years ago, where aircraft symbolized needing a machine to get you off a planet.

So for some years, after years of radioactivity, the clouds were there with speech in them, containing contradictory commands, like “come here -- can’t come”, “go -- mustn’t go”.  It was doubletalk.  The Helatrobites put traction beams on thetans.  Eventually, after many incidents of resisting it, the thetan got sucked up into small capsules via bubbles and thence into spaceships.  “All of this assaulted his credulity.  He couldn’t understand what was going on.” This had never happened before.

Then, in one to six months, the Helatrobites would get him into an “implant area, fix him on a post, wobbled him around, ran him through an implant of goals on a little mono-wheel pole trap with the effigy of a body on it.” He had no body at that time.  Eventually he would get home.  Then he would get picked up again and put through more series of implants.  Probably the Helatrobites Knew who had been implanted already, because we find implants in pairs of two and four, never three or one.  Once this started, the planet would be in turmoil and revolt, and things got very insane.  The heaven implants, then, were preceded by tremendous periods of unrest, with radioactive clouds, orange bombs, warfare, wild anarchy, etc.  It was chaos -- rather like twentieth century earth.  It was Hitler-like stuff.  It got more and more crazy and out of control.  They were very worried thetans.

Before the clouds came, there would be occasional theta-trapping, etc., but things were generally pretty peaceful.  It was only when the free thetans were threatened that they became restive and ungovernable.  Free thetans in themselves are easy to put up with.  In PI, radioactive fallout is a key restimulator of this whole scene.  But how does a partly-freed thetan feel, when he sees the old situation seeming to repeat itself, with all the symbols from the track?  It makes him mad at fallout, government, wars, etc.

Earth is in for a period of chaos, which scientology can render less extreme than it would otherwise be.  But we can’t entirely eliminate the chaos, since some earlier chaos will be restimulated.  But the planet is doomed if we don’t operate.  LRH’s attention is, therefore, on organizational concerns.  How do we move through such a period? The scientology organization is set up to handle this period of chaos.

As long as thetans have rage in their hearts about the situation, their power is curtailed.  This is a safety factor.  If we just let chaos happen, we will slow our forward progress.  Sooner or later, there will be the rest of the galaxy to deal with.  Earth has already blasted off into meat-body space opera, which may not be appreciated by someone out there.  Earth people get hysterical when they think that there is an invasion from space, so it represents a real threat, not something people think is unreal or impossible. Orson Wells’ radio broadcast of The War of the Worlds resulted, in Ecuador, in the radio station that broadcast it being torn down by enraged Ecuadorians. They knew about space opera, even though they didn’t have science fiction to educate them.

With things as they are, several factors confront us.  If we handle things as they are, we may be able to have things as we would like to have them.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 MAY 1963
CenOCon	
Franchise
ALL AUDITING
STAR RATING HCO BULLETIN FOR ACADEMIES AND SHSBC

CAUSE OF ARC BREAKS

LUCKY IS THE PC WHOSE AUDITOR HAS UNDERSTOOD THIS HCO BULLETIN AND LUCKY IS THE AUDITOR, MAY HIS OWN CASE RUN WELL.

I have just narrowed the reason for ARC Breaks in auditing actions down to only one source.

RULE: 	ALL ARC BREAKS ARE CAUSED BY BY-PASSED CHARGE.

RULE: 	TO TURN OFF AN ARC BREAK FIND AND INDICATE THE CORRECT BY-PASSED CHARGE.

Charge can be By-Passed by:

1 . 	Going later than basic on any chain without further search for basic.

Example: Looking for the pc’s first automobile accident, finding the fifth instead and trying to run the fifth accident as the first accident, which it isn’t. The By-Passed Charge here is the first accident and all succeeding accidents up to the one selected by the auditor as the first one or the one to run. To a greater or lesser degree depending on the amount the earlier material was restimulated, the pc will then ARC Break (or feel low or in “low morale”). One can run a later incident on a chain briefly but only to unburden earlier incidents, and the pc must know this.

2. 	Unknowingly ignoring the possibility of a more basic or earlier incident of the same nature as that being run after the pc has been restimulated on it. Or bluntly refusing to admit the existence of or let the pc “at” an earlier incident.

3. 	Cleanly missing a GPM, as one between two goals run consecutively in the belief they are consecutive.

4. 	Missing an earlier GPM and settling down to the assertion there are no earlier ones.

5. 	Cleanly missing one or more RIs, not even calling them.

6. 	Failing to discharge an RI and going on past it.

7. 	Accidentally missing a whole block of RIs, as in resuming session and not noticing pc has skipped (commoner than you’d think).

8. 	Accepting a wrong goal, missing the right one similarly worded.

9. 	Accepting a wrong RI, not getting the plot RI to fire.

10. 	Misinterpreting or not understanding data given to you by the pc and/or acting on wrong data.

11. 	Misinforming the pc as to what has or has not fired and discharged.

12. 	Locating the wrong By-Passed Charge and saying it is the source of the ARC Break.

13. 	Failing to follow the cycle of communication in auditing.

These and any other way charge can be restimulated and left prior to where the auditor is working can cause an ARC Break.

Charge left after (later) (nearer pt) than where the auditor is working hardly ever causes an ARC Break.

The burden of skilled auditing then, is to get RIs (and GPMs and incidents) discharged as close to basic (first incident) as possible. And always be prowling for something earlier.

In contradiction of this is that any GPM fairly well discharged by RRs unburdens the case, ARC Break or no ARC Breaks. And any incident partially discharged lets one go earlier.

The pc never knows why the ARC Break. He may think he does and disclaim about it. But the moment the actual reason is spotted (the real missed area) the ARC Break ceases.

If you know you’ve missed a goal or RI, just saying so prevents any ARC Break.

An ARC Breaky pc can always be told what has been missed and will almost always settle down at once.

Example: Pc refuses to come to session. Auditor on telephone says there’s a more basic incident or RI or GPM. Pc comes to session.

The auditor who is most likely to develop ARC Breaks in the pc will have greater difficulty putting this HCO Bulletin into practice. Perhaps I can help this. Such an auditor Qs and As by action responses, not acknowledgments after understanding. Action can be on an automaticity in the session. So this HCO Bulletin may erroneously be interpreted to mean, “If the pc ARC Breaks DO something earlier.”

If this were true then the only thing left to run would be Basic Basic—without the pc being unburdened enough to have any reality on it.

A drill (and many drills can be compiled on this) would be to have a lineal picture of a Time Track. The coach indicates a late incident on it with a pointer and says, “Pc ARC Break.” The student must give a competent and informative statement that indicates the earlier charge without pointing (since you can’t point inside the reactive bank of a pc with a pointer).

Drawn Time Tracks showing a GPM, a series of engrams along free track, a series of GPMs, all plotted against time, would serve the purpose of the drill and give the student graphic ARC Break experience.

The trick is TO FIND AND INDICATE the RIGHT By-Passed Charge to the pc and to handle it when possible but never fail to indicate it.

It is not DO that heals the ARC Break but pointing toward the correct charge.

RULE: 	FINDING AND INDICATING AN INCORRECT BY-PASSED CHARGE WILL NOT TURN OFF AN ARC BREAK.

An automaticity (as covered later in this HCO Bulletin) is rendered discharged by indicating the area of charge only.
This is an elementary example: Pc says, “I suppressed that.” Auditor says, “On this incident has anything been suppressed?” Pc ARC Breaks. Auditor indicates Charge by saying, “I’m sorry. A moment ago I didn’t acknowledge your suppression.” ARC Break ceases. Why? Because the source of its charge that triggered an automaticity of above the pc’s tone, was itself discharged by being indicated.

Example: Auditor asks for a Joburg overt. Pc gives it. Auditor consults meter at once asking question again, which is protested giving a new read. Pc ARC Breaks. Auditor says, “I did not acknowledge the overt you gave me. I acknowledge it.” ARC Break ceases.

Example: Auditor asks for RI No. 173 on First Series Line Plot. Pc ARC Breaks, giving various reasons why, such as auditor’s personality. Auditor asks meter, “Have I missed an Item on you?” Gets read. Says to pc, “I’ve missed an Item.” ARC Break ceases. Whether the missing item is looked for or not is immaterial to this HCO Bulletin which concerns handling ARC Breaks.

If an auditor always does in response to an ARC Break, such as instantly looking for specific earlier Items, that auditor has missed the point of this HCO Bulletin and will just pile up more ARC Breaks, not heal them.

Don’t be driven by ARC Breaks into unwise actions, as all you have to do is find and indicate the missing charge that was By-Passed. That is what takes care of an ARC Break, not taking the pc’s orders.

If the ARC Break does not cease, the wrong By-Passed Charge has been indicated.

The sweetest running pc in the world can be turned into a tiger by an auditor who always Qs and As, never indicates charge and goes on with the session plan.

Some Qs and As would be a source of laughter if not so deadly.

Here is a Q and A artist at work (and an ARC Breaky pc will soon develop) (and this auditor will soon cease to audit because it’s “so unpleasant”).

Example: Auditor: “Have you ever shot anyone?” Pc: “Yes, I shot a dog.” Auditor: “What about a dog?” Pc: “It was my mother’s.” Auditor: “What about your mother?” Pc: “I hated her.” Auditor: “What about hating people?” Pc: “I think I’m aberrated.” Auditor: “Have you worried about being aberrated?” Pc: @!!*?!!.

Why did the pc ARC Break? Because the charge has never been permitted to come off shooting a dog, his mother, hating people, and being aberrated and that’s enough By-Passed Charge to blow a house apart.

This pc will become, as this keeps up, unauditable by reason of charge missed in sessions and his resulting session dramatizations as overts.

Find and indicate the actual charge By-Passed. Sometimes you can’t miss it, it has just happened. Sometimes you need a simple meter question since what you are doing is obvious. Sometimes you need a dress parade assessment from a list. But however you get it, find out the exact By-Passed Charge and then INDICATE IT TO THE PC.

The violence of an ARC Break makes it seem incredible that a simple statement will vanquish it, but it will. You don’t have to run another earlier engram to cure an ARC Break. You merely have to say it is there—and if it is the By-Passed Charge, that ARC Break will vanish.

Example: Pc: “I think there’s an incident earlier that turned off my emotion.” Auditor: “We’d better run this one again.” Pc ARC Breaks. Auditor: (Consults meter) “Is there an earlier incident that turns off emotion? (Gets read) Say, what you just said is correct. Thank you. There is an earlier incident that turns off emotion. Thank you. Now let’s run this one a few more times.” Pc’s ARC Break ends at once.

Don’t go around shivering in terror of ARC Breaks. That’s like the modern systems of government which tear up their whole constitution and honor just because some hired demonstrators howl. Soon they won’t be a government at all. They bend to every ARC Break.

ARC Breaks are inevitable. They will happen. The crime is not: to have a pc ARC Break. The crime is: not to be able to handle one fast when it happens. You must be able to handle an ARC Break since they are inevitable. Which means you must know the mechanism of one as given here, how to find By-Passed Charge and how to smoothly indicate it.

To leave a pc in an ARC Break more than two or three minutes, is just inept.

And be well-drilled enough that your own responding rancor and surprise doesn’t take charge. And you’ll have pleasant auditing.

ARC BREAK PROCESSES

We had several ARC Break processes. These were repetitive processes.

The most effective ARC Break process is locating and indicating the By-Passed Charge. That really cures ARC Breaks.

A repetitive command ARC Break process based on this discovery I just made would possibly be “What communication was not received?”

Expanding this we get a new ARC Straight Wire:

“What attitude was not received?”

“What reality was not perceived (seen)?”

“What communication was not acknowledged?”

This process IS NOT USED to handle SESSION ARC BREAKS but only to clean up auditing or the track. If the pc ARC Breaks don’t use a process, find the missed charge.

Indeed this process may be more valuable than at first believed, as one could put “In auditing ......” on the front of each one and straighten up sessions. And perhaps you could even run an engram with it. (The last has not been tested. “In auditing” + the three questions was wonderful on test. 2 div TA in each 10 mins on a very high TA case.)

“ARC Break Straight Wire” of 1958 laid open implants like a band saw, which is what attracted my attention to it again. Many routine prefixes such as “In an organization” or “On engrams” or “On past lives” could be used to clear up past attitudes and overts.

We need some repetitive processes today. Cases too queasy to face the past, cases messed up by offbeat processes. Cases who have overts on Auditing or Scientology or orgs. Cases pinned by session overts. The BMRs run inside an engram tend to make it go mushy. And Class I Auditors are without an effective repetitive process on modern technology. This is it.

A Repetitive Process, even though not looking for basic, implies that the process will be run until the charge is off and therefore creates no ARC Breaks unless left unflat. Therefore the process is safe if flattened.
RUDIMENTS

Nothing is more detested by some pcs than rudiments on a session or GPM or RI. Why?

The same rule about ARC Breaks applies.

The Charge has been By-Passed. How?

Consider the session is later than the incident (naturally). Ask for the suppress in the session. You miss the suppress in the incident (earlier by far). Result: Pc ARC Breaks.

That’s all there is to ARC Breaks caused by Session BMRs or Mid Ruds.

Example: “Scrambleable Eggs” won’t RR. Auditor says, “On this Item has anything been suppressed?” Pc eventually gets anxious or ARC Breaks. Why? Suppress read. Yes, but where was the suppress? It was in the Incident containing the RI, the pc looked for it in the session and thereby missed the suppress charge in the incident of the RI which, being By-Passed Charge unseen by pc and auditor, caused the ARC Break. Remedy? Get the suppress in the incident, not the session. The RI RRs.

Also, the more ruds you use, the more you restimulate when doing Routine 3, because the suppress in the incident is not basic on Suppress, and if you clean just one clean, even to test, bang, there goes the charge being missed on Suppress and bang, bang, ARC Break. Lightly, auditor, lightly.

Q AND A ARC BREAKS

Q and A causes ARC Breaks by BY-PASSING CHARGE.

How? The pc says something. The auditor does not understand or Acknowledge. Therefore the pc’s utterance becomes a By-Passed Charge generated by whatever he or she is trying to release. As the auditor ignores it and the pc re-asserts it, the original utterance’s charge is built up and up.

Finally the pc will start issuing orders in a frantic effort to get rid of the missed charge. This is the source of pc orders to the auditor.

Understand and Acknowledge the pc. Take the pc’s data. Don’t pester the pc for more data when the pc is offering data.

When the pc goes to where the auditor commands, don’t say, “Are you there now?” as his going is thereby not acknowledged and the going built up charge. Always assume the pc obeyed until it’s obvious the pc did not.

ECHO METERING

The pc says, “You missed a suppress. It’s ......” and the auditor reconsults the meter asking for a suppress. That leaves the pc’s offering an undischarged charge.

NEVER ASK THE METER AFTER A PC VOLUNTEERS A BUTTON.

Example: You’ve declared suppress clean, pc gives you another suppress. Take it and don’t ask suppress again. That’s Echo Metering.

If a pc puts his own ruds in, don’t at once jump to the meter to put his ruds in. That makes all his offerings missed charge. Echo Metering is miserable auditing.

MISSED WITHHOLDS

Needless to say, this matter of By-Passed Charge is the explanation for the violence of missed withholds.

The auditor is capable of finding out. So the pc’s undisclosed overts react solely because the auditor doesn’t ask for them.

This doesn’t wipe out all technology about missed withholds. It explains why they exist and how they operate.

Indication is almost as good as disclosure. Have you ever had somebody calm down when you said, “You’ve got missed withholds”? Well it’s crude but it has worked. Better is, “Some auditor failed to locate some charge on your case.” Or, “We must have missed your goal.” But only a meter assessment and a statement of what has been found would operate short of actually pulling the missed withholds.

APPARENT BAD MORALE

There is one other factor on “Bad Morale” that should be remarked.

We know so much we often discard what we know in Scientology. But way back in Book One and several times after, notably 8-80, we had a tone scale up which the pc climbed as he was processed.

We meet up with this again running the Helatrobus Implants as a whole track fact.

The pc rises in tone up to the lower levels of the tone scale. He or she comes up to degradation, up to apathy.

And it often feels horrible and, unlike an ARC Break and the Sad Effect, is not cured except by more of the same processing.

People complain of their emotionlessness. Well, they come up a long ways before they even reach emotion.

Then suddenly they realize that they have come up to being able to feel bad. They even come up to feeling pain. And all that is a gain. They don’t confuse this too much with ARC Breaks but they blame processing. And then one day they realize that they can feel apathy! And it’s a win amongst wins. Before it was just wood.

And this has an important bearing on ARC Breaks.

Everything on the whole Know to Mystery Scale that still lies above the pc finds the pc at effect. These are all on Automatic.

Therefore the pc in an ARC Break is in the grip of the reaction which was in the incident, now fully on automatic.

The pc’s anger in the incident is not even seen or felt by the pc. But the moment something slips the pc is in the grip of that emotion as an automaticity and becomes furious or apathetic or whatever toward the auditor.

None is more amazed at himself or herself than the pc in the grip of the ARC Break emotion. The pc is a helpless rag, being shaken furiously by the emotions he or she felt in the incident.

Therefore, never discipline or Q and A with an ARC Broken pc. Don’t join hands with his bank to punish him. Just find the By-Passed Charge and the automaticity will shut off at once to everyone’s relief.

Running Routine 3 is only unpleasant and unhappy to the degree that the auditor fails to quickly spot and announce By-Passed Charge. If he fails to understand this and recognize this, his pcs will ARC Break as surely as a ball falls when dropped.

If an auditor has ARC Breaky pcs only one thing is basically wrong—that auditor consistently misses charge or consistently fails to anticipate missed charge.

One doesn’t always have to run the earliest. But one had better not ignore the consequences of not pointing it out. One doesn’t have to discharge every erg from an RI always but one had better not hide the fact from the pc.

The adroit auditor is one who can spot earlier charge or anticipate ARC Breaks by seeing where charge is getting missed and taking it up with the pc. That auditor’s pcs have only the discomfort of the gradually rising tone and not the mess of ARC Breaks.

It is possible to run almost wholly without ARC Breaks and possible to stop them in seconds, all by following the rule: DON’T BY-PASS CHARGE UNKNOWN TO THE PC.

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

6305C25 SHSpec-269 Handling ARC Breaks

[Some of the data in this tape is contained in HCOB 27May63 “ ... Cause of ARC Breaks”.]

LRH has discovered the common denominator to all ARC breaks:  by-passed charge.  An ARC break is defined as “the PC’s transfer of attention from the bank to the auditor and a dramatization of the bank directed at the auditor.” Charge that has been restimulated in session may provide a background booster for a session upset.  When you drag the PC’s attention to the auditor, the charge that has been deliberately restimulated in the session doesn’t get as-ised, and the PC ARC breaks.  Thus, something that, outside the session, could not cause an ARC break, may and will cause an ARC break if it happens in session.  The ARC break is not caused by a social faux pas.  It is caused by the sudden shift of attention, the unleashing of charge that was held back by the fact that the PC’s attention was on it.  As long as the PC has his attention on the bank, he is cause over its charge.  “The moment his attention is flicked off of it he is ... the effect of that charge ... and the PC then dramatizes [it].”

Any tone level or know-to-mystery scale level that is higher than the chronic tone of the PC, being higher than the PC, is cause over the PC and is therefore dramatized.  It should be noted that apathy is a high tone for a PC.  The tone level contained in the incident is what the PC, unintentionally, dramatizes.  He could dramatize anything, e.g. boredom, effort (e.g. breaking a chair), or a manic.  And the auditor is a good target.  The PC himself is helpless to restrain himself from dramatizing.  He will be surprised at himself, amazed to react that way, etc.

An ARC break comes about whenever charge is bypassed that then puts the PC at its effect point.  The PC dramatizes the charge that has been bypassed. [This charge is unknown to him and can therefore affect him adversely.] The remedy is to locate and indicate the exact bypassed charge, at which point the ARC break ceases.  That is the mechanics of it.  You don’t have to go into a “do” and run the ARC break and run all engrams connected with it, etc.  No. You only have to indicate bypassed charge.  The remedy is not continuous auditing.  

You know now how to turn off someone’s anger by saying that someone missed his withholds.  That often works, but when it doesn’t, it is because you indicated the wrong bypassed charge.  You could assess a number of possibilities, e.g. “missed GPM”, “missed goal”, “missed RI”.  He will stop being ARC broken when you get the right one.  In session, only a few charges can be missed: goals, RI’s.  engrams, refutation of reality, rejection of affinity, more basic incident, failure to acknowledge.  That pretty well covers it.

These things occur in life also.  “Rage is an automaticity...  in such a delicate balance that almost anything can make it slip.” A neurosis is actually hard to maintain.  That explains the simple effectiveness of correctly locating and indicating bypassed charge.  The psychiatrist’s failure comes about from two sources:

1. Lack of technology.

2. An interest in insanity’s being very hard to solve.

ARC breaks are not hard to handle if you know the cause and handling of them.  Don’t back off or fear them.  Just develop the skill to find and indicate the right BPC, or you will get loses in auditing and eventually give up.  “Temporary or permanent conditions of misemotional stress are something that you have to face up to as an auditor, ... 0r just get out of the auditing chair.  [So] I want you to get confidence that ... you can find the BPC, ... and then, by indicating it to the PC, realize the tool that is in your power!” That a PC ARC breaks is no guarantee that the PC is in poor case shape or difficult to get gains on.  Just indicating the correct BPC turns off the ARC break.

You may find that the charge was bypassed two sessions ago, or the ARC break doesn’t get handled because you can’t find what it was until somewhat later.  Then, when you indicate it, the PC calms down.  But “you shouldn’t let an ARC break last more than two or three minutes,” because ARC breaks multiply on a steep curve.

Governments these days are run by riot, because they are so scared of ARC breaks.  England’s matter-of-fact handling of the “ban the bomb” movement is an exception to this rule, like an auditor who doesn’t get thrown by or governed by ARC breaks.  Governments have also been run by fear of assassination.  This is just a dramatization of the Helatrobus implants.  You, as an auditor, could be governed by ARC breaks if you can’t handle them.  “You are never governed by that which you can handle with ease.” So learn to handle ARC breaks until ARC breaks become just another phenomenon, like a runny nose.  “Your attitude on ... ARC breaks must never be one whereby you are driven by the ARC break, because you will be driven, then, into not getting the items clean, ... into taking the PC’s orders, ... [which] are the direct result of dramatizations.  The orders are the significance contained in what you just put him at the effect of:” the BPC.

Don’t, for instance as a registrar, get reasonable in the face of dramatization.  Hunt and peck around for bypassed charge.  The rage is an automaticity.  Psychosis is very tenuous and easy to break.

Number of ARC breaks is not correlated with the success of auditing.  ARC breaks multiply as the square of time.  The greater the facility with which you handle ARC breaks, the less you are governed by them.

PC’s who are continually ARC broken in session can be run on the three-way ARC break process.  This process, however, is not for use every time the PC ARC breaks.  For instance, for an auditor messed up with ARC breaky PCs, you could run the following:

“In auditing, what attitude has been refused?”

“In auditing, what reality has been rejected?”

 “In auditing, what communication has not been acknowledged?”

This works better than mid-ruds.  It is the successor to ARC break straightwire, which, in 1958, could go into engrams and even implants.  It works, because what it does is directly to locate and indicate BPC.

If you let the ARC broken PC control you, you will be taking his orders, because he is dramatizing not only the emotion but also the significance contained in the BPC.  This is dangerous to the PC.  So you should:

1. Learn to handle ARC breaks.

2. Be good enough as an auditor never to bypass charge.

You can bypass charge by not finding any.  You press on with the session in the teeth of a PC who is dramatizing apathy.  Then the PC gives you a wrong goal and you take it, thereby bypassing more charge.  “The harder you are driven [by ARC breaks] into doing a bad job, the more charge you bypass.” It won’t run well.

Bypassed charge is always prior to the charge on what you are doing.  So the ARC break is a blessing in disguise, since it tells you that there is more charge, which you have bypassed.  It is more accurate than the meter, in this case.  ARC breaks are cumulative in their effects.  You do still have to peel enough charge from later incidents to get to the earlier ones, but the PC won’t ARC break if you indicate to the PC, as an R-factor, what you are doing.  If you tell the PC that there is a basic on the chain, he won’t ARC break, even if you don’t run the basic, because you have indicated the earlier charge.  Indicating that there is earlier charge also makes it possible for the PC to run the later stuff.
The PC can ARC break in the rudiments because he has out-ruds in the incident.  That is just BPC, and you can indicate it.  So when you chicken out of cleaning an Rl because the PC is protesty and ARC broken, you have set yourself up for more ARC breaks on subsequent items.  Don’t buy an RI that doesn’t rocket read a full dial.  If it won’t, there is BPC to clean up.

Bypass the charge? ... Keep it a secret? ... You will get an ARC break. Don’t bypass charge! 

6305C29 SHSpec-270 Programming Cases [Part 1]

The subject of programming cases is almost as old as the discovery of the engram.  “Programming is the overall action taken to resolve the case, regulated by the state of the case and the necessary steps.” If a guy stubs his toe and you decide to give him an assist, that is programming.  The assist is auditing.  The two are not the same.

These are the things to be adjudicated in programming:

1. Time.  How much is available?

2. What will the case accept, stand for, or tolerate as auditing?

3. What will the case progress on as auditing?

4. Order of actions.  This comes back to time, (1).

5. When you will start auditing.

You can’t leave out any of these adjudications.

You need a good grip on programming before you can actually make clears, even if you have a technique that works on everybody.  Because programming is easy to do, LRH has never put it out as itself, so it has been missed as a factor in getting all cases to run well.  Programming is easy, unless you don’t do it.

Programming is based on some fundamental principles.  It is based on:

1. The behavior of the time track.

2. The abilities and disabilities of the PC, related to the time track.

The time track is the world’s longest movie, in 3D.  Included in the movie are things which apparently destroy some of the movie.  So between, say, reel 16 and reel 80, everything is missing.  With improper programming, you will never find that section.  And you can audit reel 80 and reel 16 and everything beyond reel 80, and though the PC gets lots of auditing, nothing happens to his case, because what is wrong with him is what is between reel 16 and reel 80.

This film has a total effect on the PC.  He lives it as you run it.  You can only be effective if you run the parts that are personal to the PC.  That is running the reality of the PC.  There are things you can run that are unreal to him, but that nevertheless affect him, e.g. the Helatrobus implant. But don’t exceed the PC’s reality by too much.  The program is not monitored by what the PC has a reality on before you audit him.  It is monitored by what the PC can obtain reality on during auditing.  After all, you want to increase his reality.  Don’t omit PC change and volition in your calculations.  And remember: his reality might exceed yours!  If you don’t try to increase the PC’s reality, you neglect his capacity to change.  It does the PC no good to audit him no farther than where he is at.  Yesterday’s mental sciences made this mistake continually.  They treated patients only from and on the viewpoint of their own reality, then denied the patient’s capacity to change.

Programming is based 100% on the following:

1. The capability of the auditor.

2. The capability of the PC to receive auditing.

3. The amount of time available.

4. The maximum result to be obtained, given these limits, in terms of increase of A, R, C.  

The increase in affinity can be seen in the person’s change in position on the know-to-mystery scale, of which the tone scale is the middle guts.  A person has no personal reality, except for a possible intellectual reality, on those tones that lie above his position on this scale.  He only has reality on those tones that lie below his chronic tone.  His chronic tone can be the tone of the body plus thetan or a chronic tone as a thetan.  The body plus thetan tone can be considerably higher than his tone as a thetan.  The chronic tone of the body plus thetan combination can be at 4.0, while the level of the thetan is at “unconscious”.  “Any level above the chronic tone is susceptible [of] being dramatized....  Dramatization is a thetan -- or thetan plus body -- performing evolutions not under the thetan -- or thetan plus body’s -- control:  non-volitional actions.” Old mental studies fixated on these and believed that there is nothing else, but there are volitional actions.  “They lie below the chronic tone of the individual on the tone scale.”

There are two chronic tones: that of the thetan and that of the thetan plus body combination.  The body plus thetan can dramatize any tone above the chronic tone, but most likely it will be the half tone above the chronic tone.

The above is A, of ARC.  Therefore, increasing affinity is making the PC less susceptible to dramatization, and gives the PC reality on more tones that are now below him.  You have added levels on which he has reality and subtracted levels which he may dramatize.  Previously, as a certain tone was above him, he was the effect of it.  Now, being above that tone, he has reality on it and he is no longer the effect of it.

The body plus thetan tone is an apparent tone, and it never goes above 4.0.  So you could have a PC flying along at 4.0, enthusiastic, and the next day you will get the thetan alone, and he drops from 4.0 to zilch.  He has come up to degradation as a thetan!  He feels awful for no apparent reason, because you are now seeing the thetan, who has come up above unconsciousness to degradation as a thetan for the first time.  This is case gain, in terms of affinity.  To go somewhere by Route One, you have to get the thetan’s chronic tone level upscale enough to do it.  

You can measure a person’s reality by measuring significance, since reality is matter, energy, space, time, and significance, the five parts of a universe.  Psychological testing measures reality on significances.  You can test reality by solution of problems.  If a person’s conversation is full of “can’t understand” and he gets very reasonable about unreasonable things and he can assume no viewpoint but his own?, while he doesn’t really have one, his reality level is low.  He may demonstrate this by the fact that, as the PC comes to others’ viewpoints, he begins to recognize his own overts and to suffer on that account.  That is a big reality increase and occurs because understanding more, and being more able to take other viewpoints, the PC becomes more responsible.  He cognites.  “Cognition is actually the process of a changing reality of significance.” It is necessary to case gain.  Cognition = more understanding = case gain.

A PC saying that the session was wonderful has not necessarily had any case gain.  He may have been beaten into propitiation.  But if he says, “You know ... My Mom must have had quite a hard time!.” That is a cognition.  If the PC is able to assume a new viewpoint (in this case, that of his mother), he has had case gain.  Getting the PC’s goals and gains at the end of the session is a little psychometric test, a measure of case gain.  Communication

There is obvious gain when the PC is more willing to talk to people, but his increased perception of walls, etc., isn’t really changed reality so much as it is increased communication.  Reach and withdraw, willingness to receive, etc., is what is involved, here.  Even if the case is delusory and sees the room as full of polar bears, it would be case gain at the end of the session if he could see the polar bears better.  If you are operating from the platform of the reality that the room is not full of polar bears and that you must therefore get rid of the polar bears, you will have dropped the PC’s communication.  This was one of Freud’s errors.  “He can’t communicate with you, but he can communicate with these polar bears.  If he could communicate with the polar bears well enough, he wouldn’t have to communicate with them, and they would depart.  That’s the way to get rid of polar bears!”  

Psychiatrists try to convince the patient that he doesn’t have any bugs crawling on him.  This is the same as saying, “There must only be this one reality, and unless we can hold the status quo of this reality, we have lost.” This “has been the criterion in all mental activities for the many trillenia, and an auditor may be holding onto it with both fists and not realize it.” This consideration is that our only gain would be from the platform of where we are.  If we could continue the alteration to making things more like they are here and now, we we would get case gain.  This consideration is a way to clobber people by holding them on the time track.

These are the technical data underlying programming.  Auditing is done by:

1. Unburdening basics.

2. Discovering what basics there are.

3. Disentangling them so as to erase basics.  

This includes CCH’s.  It includes all processing.  Discovery of basics end eradication of basics is done by discovering what basics can be found before the basic that disentangles the basic that you are trying to untangle.  A basic will almost blow by inspection, unless there is a more basic one holding it in.  However, “basic” on a chain contains elements that are not basic to the basic.  Say you have the basic on the chain of some somatic.  It is basic on the chain you are running, but it has something in it that comes from a more basic chain on another subject.  When this happens, you can slip the basic out from under the earlier basics by finding the basics of remaining elements in the basic of the original chain.  Frequently this can be done by dating.  By the time you are through, you have practically cleared somebody. If you can keep track of what you are doing, you will be very successful.  If not, the whole track collapses, and the PC goes under.

The first action you should undertake on a case is the most advanced action that can be undertaken, in your estimation.  Always enter a case more boldly than you think is wise and you will usually be right.  If you don’t, you will never find the ceiling at which the PC can operate.  If you get away with it, you are all set.  You have saved time.  That is what you are doing with the Helatrobus implants.  If the PC can’t manage it, pull back.

So all there is to auditing is “unburdening, finding a chain, finding the basic on the chain, and taking apart the basic.  I don’t care what process you are using.” Running a chain back is unburdening it.  “It’s taking off charge ... so that you can lay your paws on basic.” You are after the first GPM, and if the PC can’t recall what he had for breakfast this morning, you have to unburden the case.  How long should you continue unburdening the case?  “Until you can get your hands on an implant; not one second longer.  That you run the charge off of, at least one dial-wide disintegrating rocket read per item.  If and when you get stuck, you probably have too early an implant, one that is too close to Basic.  Remember:  you are trying to unburden.  Pick up the last incident in the second chain, if you know what it is, and run that one with a fast pass.  Or lets use straightwire to give him some locks, or find overts on this.  Let’s see if we can chase him earlier and find the first.  It is all unburdening, you see.  Let’s run the three-command process for awhile.  We are just trying to get our hands on an implant so we can run some charge off of it and find an earlier implant so that we can get to the basic implant. 

You have to go later and unburden the basic implant, because you are asking the PC to walk through a wall of fire.  Between PT and basic, there is a wall of fire.  You can’t push the PC through the wall of fire.  You have to get him through.  To get the PC through it, you have to put some fire out on a gradient.  That is done by programming. 

6305C30 SHSpec-271 Programming Cases (Part II)

[Some of the data in this tape is contained in HCOB 8Jun63 “The Time Track and Engram Running by Chains -- Bulletin 2: Handling the Time Track”. In particular, p.3 of this bulletin contains a Scale of Case States that is relevant to this tape.]

There is a gradient scale of cases.  It is not complete.  There are interim points that are not shown on this scale.  The lowest level on the scale, Level 8, is that of total unconsciousness.  The next one up, Level 7, is awareness of own evaluations.  This is where the “mental sciences” are at. A psychiatrist listens to someone chatter and becomes aware of his own? evaluation of the person as crazy.  What he perceives is his own evaluation of what he perceives, or of what is there to be perceived.  “It’s an incapability of observation, because it’s an observation of own evaluation....  You see it most flagrantly in the fields of arts and aesthetics....  The less that is known of a subject, the more [it] has authority or evaluation as its sole reality or adjudication.” This is where most anti-scientology wogs lie.  “I had an uncle who said you shouldn’t mess with the mind.” That uncle is perceiving, not scientology, but his evaluation or another’s evaluation of it.

The next level up, Level 6, is dub-in of dub-in.  Here, a person has dub-in of his own? nightmares.  That is all he sees.  It is someone forming his opinion on newspaper articles.  Actually, that is dub-in (the reader’s) of dub-in (the reporter’s) of dub-in (the source’s).  This level is below, but approaching, unconsciousness, as a thetan manifestation.  The body plus thetan can go lower scale than a thetan, whose unconsciousness lies just above this level of dub-in of dub-in.  Body plus thetan can apparently stay conscious longer than the thetan can, as far as awareness of being a thetan is concerned.  A lot of boil-off occurs above Level 6.

Level 5 is dub-in of the time track.  The facsimile does exist, but what the person or PC sees is a dub-in of the facsimile that is there: a second facsimile.

Above this, at Level 4, is non-perception, where the PC gets blackness, invisibility, small rockets, etc.  It is a non-visibility.  What used to be called the Black V is at this level.

Above this, at Level 3, is spotty, partial-perceptic glimpses of the time track, with only some visio, no sonic or tactile, etc.

Then, at Level 2, there is a totally visible time track with no interruptions.  There is no blackness in this track unless the blackness was really there in an incident.  A fifty- or sixty-goal clear would be in this condition; he could monitor the time track the way one monitors the physical environment.

Above this, at Level 1, there is no time track.  The lowest two levels are gross lower scale harmonics of Level 1.

The above is “a Scale of Perception of the Time Track.” It is what makes cases different.  Auditing time estimates should be based on PCs’ location on this scale.  You could probably use the physical universe to test where a PC is on this scale.  For instance you could have him look at a wall with a picture on it, close his eyes, and tell you what he gets.  The result will be about half a tone or a tone higher than where he really is.  E.g. if he can’t see it: “What wall?”, he is at Level 4, above, though actually he will tend towards Level 5 in running track.  There is a tendency to slip one level.

The only levels that are fairly serious are Levels 7 and 8, because it is very hard to get into communication with those cases.  But establishing communication at one level moves the person up to the next level, and so on up to the top, ultimately.  Don’t expect this to be done swiftly and accurately, however.

Most of the cases that you will be dealing with will have invisibility and sporadic track.  If you consider the amount of auditing necessary to audit a sporadic track case as one unit of time, invisibility would take two units; dub-in of track would take four units of time, etc.  I.e. the time required to get a given auditing result doubles at each level, as you go down the scale. For instance, if it took one hour to audit out one engram on a PC with sporadic track, it would take thirty-two hours to audit out an engram in an unconscious case.  Actually, that is optimistic at both ends.

The case result that we are interested in is OT.  We already have the fait accompli of clearing, so we are going beyond it.  Any effort to get an ultimate result in processing leads to OT.  That upgrades the number of hours to OT to, say, 500 hours to OT for the sporadic track case.

Insanity, neurosis, or ability to respond to a communication play no part in that scale of cases, because those conditions are found only at one level of the scale, the “own evaluations” level: Level 7.

Any “objective” test of case state that has a human observer adjudicating pass or fail works out poorly where the observer is, himself, at Case Level 7.  Have you ever been flunked on TR-1 by a coach that couldn’t coach?

The concepts of “insanity” or “neurosis” are contained as goals in the Helatrobus implants.  Therefore, they cannot be used to evaluate state of case.  “Wisdom” based on the Helatrobus implants is nuts.  Other goals from that implant include, “to die”, “to be sick”, “to move”, “to escape”, “to ‘get it’ “ (i.e. to get a sickness, etc.), etc.  Almost any one of these goals has been the source of learned treatises dramatizing them, to “explain all of Man’s ills”, e.g. treatises on “escapism”.  The History of Man contains references to a few implants.  It remains valid, though, and the engrams described in it did exist.  They just got collected together during implants.

What causes different people to be at different positions on this scale? It could be the length of time that they have spent in this universe.  This implies a universe that accumulated from the successive collisions of home universes with it.  The MEST universe picks up different home universes at different points on the track.  “Older” thetans are in worse shape.  State of case, then, would be monitored by number of overts, different statuses of thetans at the time of entry, etc.  The why doesn’t need to be known to solve the situation.  How these thetans came to be there in this universe can be stated easily: charge.  This is a quantitative matter.  You pump charge into a case when the eighteen (prepcheck) buttons go out, i.e. inval, eval, etc.  If there were no thought involved, you could probably short-circuit it all.  But there is also thought, which includes volition.  As the universe pumps charge into a thetan, he pumps it into other thetans and other things.  Then he inhibits himself from doing so.  The result is overts and withholds.  The charge gets encysted as a composite picture of the number of things done to the being, held in place by the number of things done by the being.  This produces X amount of charge on the case that, in the absence of auditing, just keeps on growing.  The thetan gets a lot more or a little more in a given lifetime, but it is always additive.  That is what makes the universe a trap.  If charge didn’t keep accumulating, the universe would be therapeutic instead of aberrative.  You can have an attitude about the charge, too.  The attitude doesn’t alter the charge, but it can affect how you feel about it.

In view of the fact that an OT has fantastic power, it is funny that charge would bother him, until we figure out the basic overt of the thetan. “Any overt a thetan commits is also mixed up with the energy a thetan is emitting....  All of his overts have particles connected with [them].  So the only way to really get him is to hit him with particles, [because that is] the path of his overts.  So most implants are mainly connected with particle flows of various types.”

People, therefore, have different amounts of charge.  One person has quantity A of charge; another person has quantity B, etc.  The more charge a person has, the more difficult it is to release it.  That is why it takes so much longer to get results on the unconscious case.  This depends, to a degree, on whether the case condition is chronic (i.e. lasting more than a lifetime) or acute (temporary -- one lifetime or less).  E.g. the PC may be spastic now as an acute condition relating to his body.  The question is whether he is always going to be that way, no matter what body he picks up (chronic).  If a condition is chronic, it will add a lot of time to auditing. You could put a deaf man on a meter and ask him whether he was deaf last lifetime and the one before that.  If he was, you have a deaf thetan on your hands, not a deaf body, and it will take time to fix.

Charge is what causes a case to be the way it is.  Just because a thetan plus body is low on the state of case scale, the thetan itself is not necessarily low on that scale.  Environmental factors can also make someone look downscale when they are not.  [LRH relates an anecdote of a time when he audited a girl who was acting very nutty and brought her through in a short space of time.] You have to estimate this to program someone’s case.  What you are going to program is the person’s case, so you have to estimate the case to determine how to get the charge off the case.  “A case is programmed in relation to the amount of charge on the case.” That is what determines how you are going to take the charge off the case.  Since auditing requires the cooperation of the being, you have to estimate his cooperativeness, his ability, etc.  This does affect the ease of auditing and the speed of auditing.

Sample program:  The case dubs in track.  Charge can be run off.  We get dial-wide rocket reads on Helatrobus implants.  If the PC can run it, run it! It is dicey, because the case can easily go to smithereens.  It is better to pull overts on this lifetime and run any stretch of track on which the PC has reality.  Be very sure that the case has no withholds from the auditor, especially this-lifetime ones.  Muzzle the auditing.  Don’t force this PC.  Run rocket reading implants as long as they run easily.  “When things get difficult, fall back swiftly to patching up roughed-up track.  Return to an ARC-type process if the going gets too rough on RI’s.  Running RI’s is dangerous.  That would be a very extreme and daring programming for this case.  It is quick, but dicey.  The safe way is using straightwire, havingness, withholds, etc.  An alternate approach is: if you got a goal, run all the charge off the goal.  Never look for earlier goals when you have found one.  Don’t try pushing the case to get all the charge off of an implant.

Take a case with sporadic track:  You can run it pretty hard.  You can move around on the track from one GPM to another without messing things up much.  This level of case (Level 3) could even stand leaving goals without running them.  He may ARC break, but you can do it.  The case can be pushed hard.

The invisibility case (Level 4) can be pushed a bit, but not as hard as the sporadic track case.

With the dub-in case (Level 5), you need lots of track repair, O/W running, havingness.  You must readily cut and run if implants get rough.

With the dub-in of dub-in case, don’t let him near implants.  This isn’t a common case (Level 6).  Use straightwire and ARC break processes.  Run the case lightly for wins every session.  You are running the case too steep if you are not getting session wins.  Unless this case is aware of having regular wins in session, the case’s reality is not coming up.

The aware of own evaluations case (Level 7) is suited only for havingness and CCH’s -- room processes, contacting PT processes.  This case can’t detect an overt as such.  He has no responsibility.  He will tell things to you, but not as overts.  To get daring with this case, run straightwire!

With the unconscious case (Level 8), establish communication.  Animal processing is the same sort of thing:  establish comm; get the animal to reach.

Always be a little optimistic in estimating where someone is on the scale.  Then program to get as much charge off as you can, with the PC winning.  How much charge is being gotten off is measured by the TA and needle action.  Charge is important because “it’s what restimulates when he tries to outflow and ... prevents his outflow....  It’s what educates him not to reach.” In getting off charge, processing lets him reach and do.

Total self-determinism is only possible at the highest level given above (Level 1).  There there are no automaticities, no time track, no charge on the case.  The result is unlimited reach.  

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 (1 ) 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

6306C11 SHSpec-272 Engram Chain Running

“I finally found out why you can’t run engrams....  I found out you’ve been trying to run engrams and you never run engrams.  You run chains of engrams....  This is the way I ran engrams in 1949.” This got crossed up with repetitive processing.  “Flatten the process” became “Flatten the engram”, when it should have been “Flatten the chain.” You flatten the chain by getting the basic.  Engrams never exist all by themselves.  There is always a chain.

An engram is only part of a chain of similar incidents, which, in turn, is part of a time track.  You are essentially running a time track.  You never handle an engram all by itself, because it is too closely related to the rest of the track to be treated that way.

If you are a skilled auditor, you can quickly pick up BPC when the PC ARC breaks, indicate it, and have the ARC break disappear.  Until you can do this, you will have rough sessions.  In engram running, the BPC is always the earlier incident on the engram chain.

Charge is able to make the PC feel worse or better, depending on whether it gets restimulated and encysted or blows.  You can let the PC learn more by entering a lot of engrams and not finding basic.  The result is that the PC knows more but feels worse, because you haven’t erased basic on the chain. Running a chain of engrams is not the same as finding out about a lot of incidents.

Every time you run an engram, you open up a valve into the next earlier engram, letting its charge get restimulated and partially leak into the one you are running.  If you continue to run the later engram, it gets sticky, TA ceases, and it gets solid and will eventually collapse on the PC.  The BPC from the earlier engram causes the PC to ARC break.  Moving back to the earlier one blows some of the charge.  Charge always flows later, from its source, not earlier.  We can only find the earlier engram because the later one was run.  As we go back on the chain, each incident seems to be the earliest incident, when it is actually just the earliest available incident.

If two engrams or any two pictures collapse, the cause is BPC, and the PC will, very shortly, ARC break.  The converse is also true: if the PC has BPC and is ARC breaky, you have two pictures collapsed.  Out-of-valenceness -- “that’s me over there” -- is also a problem of BPC.  If an earlier engram is tapped, it will bleed charge into the one you are running; the somatic will strengthen.  But this phenomenon won’t cause out-of-valenceness.  An out-of-valenceness is caused by an earlier portion of the same engram that you are working on, that hasn’t been seen.  It is assisted by charge bleeding from an earlier incident.  You could even run a dub-in case and get him earlier than the dub-in.  However, it is safer to use straightwire or MEST processes.

Suppose you are running an engram where the PC hit his head and, when the PC goes through the incident, the part where he actually hits his head gets skipped.  This indicates that the engram is part of a chain of “hit head”.  So we work our way back through earlier incidents.  As he gets back to basic, he gets full perceptics.  When we get to basic, we run it over and over, and his somatic blows.  If we came back up through the chain, you could send the PC through each engram on the chain and now he would get the somatic each time.  

The only way to flatten an engram is to flatten a chain of engrams. Chains of overts follow the same principle, as was done in sec checking. [This involved the withhold system, used in prepchecking, old style.  See HCOB 1Mar62 “Prepchecking (A Class II Skill)” and pp. 208-209, above.] These also go much earlier than this life.  Chains of overts include overt engrams.  It doesn’t matter which you run, because the overt-motivator sequence is an installed mechanism.  It is very old.  It is not as deeply laid in as obsessive create, but it is equally implanted and engramic.  Either overt chains or motivator chains can be run.  They rarely entwine.  Sometimes the PC will jump chains from motivator to overt.  When that happens, you should follow it down to the basic overt, but you should then also pick up and complete the motivator chain.
Running engrams is very simple.  Here is how LRH would do it:  Get a crude date, e.g. 89 trillion years ago.  Get the PC to return to this incident.  Ask him what he is looking at.  Ask, “How long is this incident?” Get the duration by meter.  Get the PC to move on through the incident to the end.  There will be a long pause.  The PC says, “I did.” Ask him what it is all about.  The PC tells you.  Ask for an earlier beginning.  Get when it was.  Send the PC to the earlier beginning, then through the incident.  The PC goes through the incident and tells you about it.  PC has a somatic.  LRH dates, with the meter, an earlier incident with the same somatic.  He sends the PC through that incident.  You go earlier; date it, etc.  If you don’t complete the chain in one session and the PC doesn’t get the picture, run a few commands of, “Since the last time I audited you, is there anything you were unwilling to duplicate?” Run this to a clean needle.  The picture will now be on.  Don’t harass the PC to find all the unknowns in the incident.  It is not necessary to do this.  When you have had a rough session, try “Since (the day before that session occurred), what have you been unwilling/willing to duplicate?” Alternate these commands.

If the PC can’t run engrams, it is because he is at the wrong place on the scale of case levels to be able to confront it.  Even a dub-in case can run earlier than the dub-in, but it is dangerous.

Engram running is important, because you won’t make OT’s without it.  All the fancy stuff was developed to handle cases that were too heavily charged to run real track.  The least common denominator of the case scale is no-duplicate, which is right in the middle of the communication formula.  “The swan song of this universe [is] that that which you are unwilling to duplicate tends to go on automatic.” An ARC break is an unwillingness to duplicate.  If you show students a bad TVD, they will flub the first five minutes of their next session, because they were unwilling to duplicate the bad TVD and therefore it went on automatic in their next session.  This is what happens when you show a bad example.  You could clean up earlier bad auditing by running, “Since (a few days before the bad auditing), what have you been unwilling/willing to duplicate?” It will clean up.

“Resistance to duplication can be caved in.” One can become what one resists or the effect of what one resists.  “A person’s ability to duplicate is what determines [his] ability to run engrams, because the engram itself is a duplication of the actual event.” The PC duplicates the event, but if the picture he is running is an altered copy of the original, it is dub-in.  All engrams have some dub-in in them and develop new material.  You can get some surprising changes.  One is particularly unwilling to duplicate dangerous things.  So one then gets lots of them.

The person who is totally unaware has tried to whip the mechanism of obsessively duplicating everything.  The trouble with this strategy is that his duplication goes on total automatic.  Some people have very heavy engrams indeed, over which they have no control.  These engrams are very inaccurate. They stub their toe and have a picture of being run over by a truck.  That is all they run, if anything.  Since there are very incredible things on the track anyway, such as the Helatrobus implants, it would be very inaccurate and dangerous to determine whether or not a PC can run engrams by looking for factualness.  For instance, basic on prenatals is an incident from the Helatrobus implant, in which the thetan, on a pole, is tumbled through a series of tubes, all curled up.

One way to see if a guy can run engrams is to try him out.  If it is no go, you can get out the ARC triangle in a hurry.  A better test is simple duplication.  For instance, you can call off a series of numbers: “3, 6, 2, 9, 7” to a person and ask him what you said.  If the PC didn’t duplicate you, you can forget about running engrams.  Or you can go by the Chart of Attitudes, or any test of duplication.  But you shouldn’t go by the material he runs.

You can use an ARC process to improve someone’s reality.  All sorts of other processes will also do this.  The duplication process [See p. 414, below] also works well.  CCH’s are effective, when rightly used to show the PC that it is safe to duplicate.  If the case cannot run engrams, and if you are running them correctly, engram running is probably too steep a gradient for the PC.
The reason these data on engrams is important is that the Helatrobus implants are a long chain of engrams, each one with a basic, and they tend to bunch the whole track.  On some cases, you can only run six GPM’s before the rocket read shuts off, and at this point, you have to start running engrams.

When do you go earlier?  Whenever the PC recognizes that there is something earlier, however he states it.  He may say so directly or he may say something that shows that he is looking for something earlier.  If the PC sees something earlier, you go earlier.  Never ignore this.  If you ignore the indication that an earlier incident is available, the one you are running will get harder to run.  Besides, you risk an ARC break.

Charge is registered on the E-meter by needle and TA motion.  You must get TA action, or you are just restimulating the case without blowing anything.

There is no absolute basic on engram chains.  When you get to basic on a chain, there may be portions of it that, themselves, have earlier basics.  Go ahead and run those out, too.  There is only one basic basic.  It contains those impulses which eventually became aberration.

There are two things you can do with dating:

1. Relieve charge.

2. Identify something.  

If you do a total dating, it goes down to the second.  You get the exact number of years, plus days, minutes, seconds ago.  Get the date accurately, and the incident gets placed right where it should be on the track, thus relieving charge.  Dating also contains identification.  You can use rough dates for this purpose, e.g.  89 billion or 450 million, as long as you don’t have a bunch of incidents close together in a row.

“Blocking out” an incident has these steps:

1. Get an approximate date.

2. Move the time track to that date.

3. Ask the PC what is there.  Accept whatever he gives you in every case.

4. Find its duration fairly accurately.  If it is “days”, get the number.

5. Move the PC through it, not “to the end.”

6. Then establish what was there.

7. Move the PC to the beginning and send him through again.  

Don’t vary the routine and don’t Q and A with the PC’s unknownness.  If the PC keeps saying, “I’m stuck,” forget about holders and denyers.  He has just gotten in over his head.  Bail him out and revert to lighter processes.

Always suspect that there is something a bit earlier.  Ask for it. “Blocking it out” is done by going through it once.  After that, the PC may be expected to tell you if there is something earlier.  Generally, run the PC through the incident twice.  Once through is plenty if it is gummy.  Having to go through an incident more than twice is suspect.  Don’t try to keep getting more out of it.  It is OK to keep running an incident, as long as we are getting motion on the meter, but don’t strain to get more perceptics out of the incident.  More will turn up as you go earlier.  You can keep running an engram as long as the PC is interested in it and finding out more, but the instant he says there may be something earlier, go earlier, or you will stick him in the later incident.  If you don’t go for earlier incidents, you blunt the PC’s ability to go earlier and stick him where he is.  But don’t force him earlier.  If he is starting to bounce up to PT, let him, and run ARC processes.

Basic isn’t generally the more powerful incident.  It is just the first incident.  It seems so unimportant to the PC, yet later incidents built up on it, bigger and bigger.  Basic is the shorter, lighter incident.

Theoretically, you could run back to basic-basic.  If you found and erased this, the PC would then have no pictures and no track.

If a PC seems to be trying to escape running engrams by going earlier, he is over his head and needs more preparation.  If you get the PC fully interiorized into the engram, say by putting his attention on a large object in the incident, he will get it all fully charged up, in 3D.  This is not what you want.  You will never get him out of the universe that you are packing around him. 

6306C12 SHSpec-273 ARC Straightwire

ARC straightwire is the oldest broad-nature repetitive process.  It is possibly the first repetitive process.  The ARC triangle was originated in July, 1950 in Elizabeth, N.J.  It was expanded in September or November of 1950 at the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation in Los Angeles.  It was an important tool for understanding the mind.  It is best described in Notes on the Lectures [See pp. 9-16].

The ARC triangle is the most fundamental statement of significance, although it also embraces MEST.  When a prime postulate impinges on MEST, it becomes involved with ARC.  The MEST can be in the physical universe or in the time track.
  
Affinity is so much itself and so relative that we get into difficulties trying to interpret it in an auditing command.  “Affinity embraces everything from the know-to-mystery scale.” It is “feeling for”, or “feeling with”, or lack of those.  It has connotations of “feeling about”.  It is not enough to say “emotional response”.  Sympathy and empathy come into it.  It is a very broad and new concept.  If you will substitute the know-to-mystery scale for “affinity”, and use the words “emotion” and “misemotion”, PCs will respond to it.  The emotions scale, being just a part of the know-to-mystery scale, is included in “affinity”.  The word “affinity” is really inadequate to embrace the whole concept, because the concept has not been expressed in any language.  How many words can be used in a command to express the concept of affinity?  Lots!  Everything on the know-to-mystery scale can be used, including the whole tone scale.  We find the PC chronically situated at one of these levels, and that is the level to which he will respond in processing.

“Reality” could pertain to significance alone, as in “His reality is poor,” or to actual chunks of matter.  Reality is normally considered to consist of considerations about something or someone, on up to the more solid concepts of matter, energy, space, and time.  In clearing this word, you will have less trouble than in clearing “affinity”, unless the PC is really in “thought”.  But if you bad to vary it, you would have a harder task on your hands.  You would have to specify which part of MEST you meant, or which consideration.

Communication is anything that fits under the communication formula.  It involves cause, effect, duplication, etc.  In clearing “communication”, you could specify which type or kind you meant.  You could use various parts of the communication formula in the third (“C”) command of ARC straightwire.

Clearing commands doesn’t just mean, “Can the PC define the word?” It is a matter of substituting words in the command so that the PC’s level of reality is met by the command.  The question we should ask is, “which word communicates to the PC what we are trying to communicate to him?”

A, R, and C make understanding, when combined.  This was worked out mathematically in the fall of 1950.  They actually compute mathematically. When the PC cognites, he has reached a point of ARC, expressed as a new understanding.  You won’t get a cognition if you omit one of the legs of the ARC triangle.  If you run only R and C and not A, you don’t get cogs.  If you wish to raise any one point that is low, you can and should work on the other two points.  That is a terribly valuable datum that must be observed in any ARC process.  Any point that is overrun or more difficult will give you trouble, unless you preserve the balance amongst the three.  No one leg will ever flatten by itself.  It is the three that you are trying to flatten.  So flatten all three.

In flattening a process, you can run it to:

1. Three equal comm lags.

2. A cognition.  Leave the process right there!  Don’t ever overrun a  cog.  For instance, don’t put in the last mid-rud if the PC cognites on the next-to-last.  The ARC processes unflatten easily, so if you go past a cognition, the process will be unflat.

3. TA motion runs out.  For ARC processes, this is the least reliable and the most desirable.  You can run by blowdown, but you can’t depend on

TA motion to run out at the same time on each leg.  The way to flatten one leg is to give equal time to the other legs, not to beat the slow one to death. 

The first thing that ARC straightwire was found to do was to break neurosis.  If it is going to have that effect, it will work fairly fast.  The only difficult cases on the 1950 positive process are the ones who ground down to a finite number of answers and gave those over and over without ever cogniting.  The reason for this is that their positive ARC moments are quite few, and they run out quickly.  They are pleasure moments and won’t flatten. You have to run the reverse side of it.

Around 1958, LRH started running a lot of reach and withdraw.  The way I.Q. was being raised was to run, “What could you withhold?” on someone, a funny phenomenon.  Or you could plunge people into an engram and run it half way.  That will also raise I.Q. scores, as a person who needs mass to think gets more mass to think with.  The upsets you run into on a case are not the case’s pleasure moments.  They are times of separation and individuation.  The most fundamental forms of ARC breaks are:

1. Times when the PC was knocked away from being part of things.

2. Times when the PC was forced to part of things that he wanted nothing to do with.  

His power of choice to connect or disconnect was overthrown.  This gives an ARC break.  He was there but didn’t want to be there, or he wanted to be there but couldn’t be there.  An implant is the biggest kind of ARC break.  You can run, “Recall an ARC break” on someone, and it will run him into implants, into times when he was held in a place where he didn’t want to be and told things that he didn’t want to hear, a fundamental overthrow of his power of choice.

The ARC straightwire processes were revised to saw out pieces of implants, in order to help handle the Helatrobus implants.  LRH discovered that the big mid-ruds [See HCOB 8Mar63 “Use of the Big Middle Rudiments] or the 18-button prepcheck mush an engram.  They mess it up, spoiling the record.  The engram frays around the edges.  It turns into pure energy, without giving the PC any memory of what happened in the incident.  This showed that. if you were going to use big mid ruds and big prepchecks on PC’s stuck in engrams, you weren’t going to unstick them.  You need a steam shovel, not a hand shovel.  Thus the negative ARC processes were invented.  Negative ARC processes do handle implants.

LRH also discovered that a PC is operating on entanglements with the physical universe.  It is one thing to bail him out of this and another thing to get him to look at his considerations about being entangled.  It’s not what happens to a person that is important; it is his considerations about it that count.  People, especially sociologists, get caught up in the idea that the environment determines people’s states of mind.  This is the philosophy on which foreign aid is based.  Power of choice is senior to this by miles.  It has to do intimately with A, R, and C.  Enforced R, or A, or C, will wreck the triangle.  But given the same environment and predicament, two people can have quite different reactions.  The goodness or badness of the surroundings doesn’t necessarily reflect in the happiness or unhappiness of the inhabitants.  This messes up social planning because the happiness of the individual involves his preferences and his considerations about his surroundings -- whether or not he has ARC for them.  The PC has had all these preferences and considerations present with regard to all his circumstances all up and down the track.  That is an adequate statement of power of choice.

This raises the question of whether there is such a thing as an ideal state or condition.  In scientology, the possibility of such a state exists as it has never existed before in the universe.  An ideal state is a state that someone wanted to be in, over which he had full power of choice.

The attainment of happiness for a PC is parallel to attaining clear.  The two factors are:
1. The environmental conditions of the PC.

2. The PC’s A, R, and C with regard to the matter, energy, space, time, and postulates of his condition.  This is a channel that has remained fundamentally unknown to this universe.  

These are born out of an interplay between the PC’s postulates and the experiences he has netted.  We are still on an interactive basis between postulates and conditions of experience.  The person’s power of choice is his affinity, reality, and communication with regard to a set of circumstances, existences, or environments.  We should give this fact more attention in processing.

We needed a process that could easily be ground out by the hour by any old auditor, but which would give fantastic results.  ARC straightwire approaches this ideal as a process, though it does require some skill, and it can be done very wrong.  ARC straightwire does give fantastic results, although unfortunately it does not go the whole route, because it doesn’t actually handle the conditions of existence.  It only handles a PC’s attitudes, reality, and power of communication, relative to these conditions. But it handles enough to cut away lower levels of case, especially Levels 4, 5, and 6.  [See] p. 402-405, above for a description of the eight levels of cases.] At Level 7, its usefulness is doubtful.  At Level 8 it is useless.  It brings cases upscale to where they have their own time track to run and are able to run it.  At that point, power of choice is less our concern, because the PC believes now that his power of choice is alterable and that he can do something about his conditions.  Now he can handle the real stuff that has aberrated him.  Sooner or later, too, one has to actually handle the conditions of existence.

Auditors who don’t understand ARC straightwire can dream up all sorts of wrong ways to do it.  For instance, they skimp on one leg because the PC has trouble with it.  Although cases at Level 3 can run the process commands in the order: 1, 2, 3 / 1, 2, 3 /, you will get more TA with the order: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 / 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 / 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 /.  That is the only way it will run on lower level cases, so you might as well run it that way, with equal time on each leg until flat.  Or, run an equal number of questions on each leg, to get over the fact that the PC may have long comm lags on one leg.  You are after a similar amount of run for each.  You depend on the other two legs to fix up the tougher one.  Letting them get out of balance defeats the process.  How long you should spend on each leg depends on the PC and how long he takes to flatten something.  Listen for a cog to end off on.

The number of variations that there could be is great.  Always try to get the PC to run the simplest, most fundamental version -- the one that is closest to pure A, R, and C.  The less you change the command, the happier the PC will be, since this produces the minimal change of process.  If you find the PC struggling with a wording, get it changed early, if you are going to change it at all.  A good question for affinity is, “What attitude has been rejected?” Don’t change the question too much.  Settle down for the long run. Make sure the PC has a question he can run.

Another keynote of ARC straightwire is that it is always run muzzled. The auditor’s sole concern is understanding and acknowledging what the PC says.  It is true that sometimes the PC will ARC break if you don’t talk with him, but don’t Q and A or change from an unflat process.  Only talk with the PC to avoid ARC breaks, and don’t violate the Auditor’s Code.

If you run into trouble, you can put big mid ruds in on the ARC process. This won’t mush an engram.  It takes chunks out of parts of the engram chain. It picks up parts of the engram chain that belong to other chains anyhow. Don’t try to run ARC straightwire as a cyclic process, cycling to PT on every leg.  He hasn’t been in PT for trillenia!  You can get him to PT any time by giving him the command, “Move to (PT date).” Theoretically, he will only get to PT when the process is flat.  The process is flat when all ruds are in on the process, and it produces no departure from the PC’s clear read on any leg.  You are not really after this flat point with the process.  You are only trying to get part of the charge off, so that the PC can run engrams. Remember that can unmoving tone arm early on in the process is meaningless. TA has to be run in before it is run out.  During the course of running this process, the TA may well go up and stick on each leg.

Your main concern is, “Is the PC answering the auditing command?  Does he understand it? Can we keep it balanced so that we can bring him through it?” You can ask the PC, “Is there any question or command you haven’t answered?”

The process can be prefixed with any combination of words, e.g.  “In auditing”, “On your job”, or “In marriage”.  This makes it more powerful than a Problems Intensive, especially if it is assessed against the problem areas of the person’s life, taking an area that reads well.

The Helatrobus implants contain words like “remember” and “think”, so you avoid these in auditing commands as much as possible.

Rougher cases will be happy to run this.  There are cases that cannot recall or remember: Levels 7 and 8.  They need reach/ withdraw and CCH’s.  You can use these principles in discussing whether or not they wish to be here, whether they like you, whether they wish to talk to you.  Using the above prefixes, you can run ARC straightwire as a PT 2WC process. 

6306C13 SHSpec-274 Levels of Case

Here is where we are at, technically:  We are developing dianometry to a point where one can give a series of tests and decide what you need to do with a case.  There are six types of processes that are learnable and workable. Direct processing of postulates is not included, although rising scale processes do sometimes work, especially on Level 1 cases.

The scale of Case Levels is invaluable, and the six types of processes handle all levels.  The six processes are the only ones that raise a case up the levels.  The only problem lies in how well they are known? and how reliably they are executed.  We are working on how you can tell where a PC is so you can tell what to use on him.  Lacking this data, you can just process the PC and go up or fall back to hit his level.

Here are the case levels:

1. OT.  No track.  You can even go higher than Level 1.  For instance, you can tell the thetan how to handle a theta trap.  You can also teach him how to maintain a game, so he won’t have to go downscale to have one.  What you can do with this level consists of education and  practice only.

2. This is a theoretical state.  Usually parts of the time track are missing, and those parts that are there are under handling, although the thetan at this case level is theoretically supposed to have total access to his time track with nothing aberrative on it.  The perfect  time track is unobtainable.  It would fold up before it got there.  At  this level, we work to get the person over the idea that he has to have a time track by handling engrams.  The thetan learns to block out  facsimiles.  No special process is used here.

3. At this level, the PC has a partly visible time track that is,  however, very aberrative.  He has lots of engrams, but he can run  them.  At this level, you would use engram running by chains -- blocking that sort of thing out.

4. This is an occluded case, with a black, invisible, and/or spotted  field.  Lower levels can also have such fields, so be careful.  At  this level, you can still run engrams, if you have made sure that you  are not actually dealing with a Level 7 or 8.  You can run him on  R3N.  [R3N is a stripped-down directive Routine 3 which uses line plots.  It has to do with Implant GPM’s.  R3N2 is an abbreviated form  of R3N.  See 6305C14 SHSpec-263 “Implant GPM’s” and 6305C21  SHSpec-266 “The Helatrobus Implants”.  

5. Dub-in case.  Easy to restimulate.  This case should be run on ARC break straightwire, Duplication (“What  There are processes that produce change in the PC, without necessarily giving a change in case level.  Processes can be powerful enough to overwhelm the PC’s power of choice.  So you can change the case, but the PC may not recognize it, so his reality and confront haven’t improved.  That is what occurs when you run a higher-level process on a lower-level case.  That is why it is idiocy just to cure someone of an illness.  He will just get sick again.  You have just worked directly against his hidden standard.  Your real object is to advance the case up the reality scale, so you had better use the process that corresponds to the PC’s case or reality level.  You should see improvement, both directly in terms of upgrade of case level, attitude towards existence, etc., and indirectly by seeing TA motion.  If there is no TA, the PC is not improving, with regard to his viewpoint of existence, level of communication, etc. Level 4 or 3 cases can also be run on ARC break straightwire, for repair or a boost.  

6. Dub-in of dub-in.  This case is distinguished from a Level 5 by the  degree of franticness and the terrible automaticity of the bank.  It  is not a common type of case, but it is a struggle to audit because the track won’t hold still to be looked at.  Nothing bites because of  this constant motion of the time track.  The Level 6 case no longer  has the power of stopping motion.  You could call this type of case  the grouped automatic time track or the moving time track case.  You  can’t run straightwire on him because of the constant motion of the  track.  Such cases should be run on CCH’s.  Repetitive processes work,  as do sec checks and, to a lesser degree, prepchecks.  So does general  O/W, done as an excuse for sec checks and prepchecks.  It is not done as a strictly repetitive process.  The overts you get are very light and feathery.  That is OK.  The bottom rung on Level 6 has passed beyond the ability to run bank.

7. This case can only confront his own evaluations.  These cases can get  enormously interested in CCH’s, because that stuff is dangerous to  them.  They can’t run the bank.  It is not there to be run.  It is  utterly unconfrontable.

8. The unawareness case.  This case can only be run on reach and withdraw, being virtually or actually unconscious.  If you have  someone who is in a coma, take his hand, and, with commands, have him  touch the blanket, touch the sheet, etc.  The perpetual boil-off case  needs reach and withdraw, just like the guy in the coma.  Reach and  withdraw runs several levels above Level 8, for instance, it runs up  to Levels 5 and 6.  But here, on Level 7, you must flatten CCH’s, or  you will leave the PC parked.  The PC at this level will run heavily  on these processes.

You can run processes at levels higher than the case level for which they are primarily intended.  They don’t do much damage if left unflat, if the case level is several levels higher than that of the process.  But don’t overestimate the case level and get loses.

The six types of processing are:

1. Reach and withdraw.

2. CCH’s

3. Sec check

4. Repetitive processes

5. R3N (implants).

6. R3R.  Route 1 could be added as a way of handling a Level 7 case.

Almost any case reacts to almost any of these processes, but what you want to do is to improve the level of the case, with economy of time.  There are certain processes that will do it fastest and a host of others that don’t fit the PC’s case level.  The fastest process is the one that we are after. For instance, we just run enough R3N to clear off implants so that we can get at other parts of the track.  You can run someone on implants for a long time, but what you are after is unburdening the track enough so that you can run GPM’s.  

There are more implants per unit time in the PT area, i.e.  the last 5000 years then there were earlier but the only really thorough, workmanlike job that was done was in the Helatrobus implant.  Darwin’s theory of evolution came from one implant.

Case level improves to the degree that charge is removed.  Case level is determined by the amount of encysted and unreleased charge, not by the inherent power of the thetan concerned.  Different cases may have different tolerance of charge, but the levels will still be determined by the amount of charge.  The auditor’s sole interest is to relieve charge in order to change case manifestations.  The index of charge off is amount of TA, or dial-wide rocket reads that start out like mad and turn into a fall.  If you are running engrams without getting TA, watch it.  You are just stirring up the bank and not discharging anything.  The PC will get unhappy with you.  Just give the PC the R-factor that you are going to run more implants to get them out of the road, so we can get this earlier material discharged.  Let the TA run into the case on ARC break straightwire.  This may take two sessions.  If necessary, you can drop back to CCH’s and sec checking, or even reach and withdraw.
It is better to start low and run high.  Underestimate the PC’s ability, so as to avoid giving the PC loses and keep his confidence and hope factor up.  The variable is the ability of the case to rise up the scale.  Of course, the lower the case level, the slower charge blows.  Level 5 and 6 cases will get into rows about being under-run, but when the case is being run in the direction of up, the case will forgive you almost anything.  The lower the case, the more they estimate their ability to be. [They don’t feel confident enough to see their limits.] Such people do take social pride in their case level.  There is a status-seeking in auditing, God forbid!  Let TA motion be there instead, and we will all have won!. 

6306C18 SHSpec-275 Beingness

The overt-motivator sequence is about a trillion trillion trillion [1036] years old, minus a hundred thousand trillion.  It is a long track, but we have the process to take it apart.  The main difficulty with the time track and its use in auditing is that there are so many cases that can’t confront a time track or any part of it, so you get loses trying to run engrams.  We have been accumulating processes that can bring someone upscale to where they can view the time track.  A great number of processes have been accumulated and, recently, codified, as we looked at the fundamental of what we are trying to do with a case.

The ultimate procedure is rote engram running, but not everybody could do it.  So the subject has had to be wrapped up in such a way that it could be done by all.  Current rote engram running is superior to and different from earlier engram running.  We are running engrams by chains, to open up and smooth out the time track.  The only reason we are doing anything about engrams at all is that those are the parts of the time track that are least confrontable.  If you get rid of those stretches, the PC has a time track. The worst part of the time track denies anyone the best part.  Unless you get rid of the engrams, you haven’t got any time track, because the PC can’t confront it.

This sets up innumerable problems.  The more heavily charged the track is, the less the PC can confront it, and there is a point where the PC moves out of any confrontability of the engram, and now there is nothing to confront at all.  This gives you the scale of cases: OT to unaware.  Awareness of the physical universe also diminishes as you go downscale.

If each case level were to be divided from the others, it would be divided by layers of anaten.  Anyone at Level 8 would have to go through layers of anaten to get to Level 7, awareness of own evaluations.  As one goes upscale, the layers of anaten seem thinner and are thinner, because the more aware one is, the less one minds unawareness.

The lowest conscious level of unawareness would be catalepsy or amnesia. But even a man thinking that he has only lived once has a lot of automatic unawareness of the time track.  When you throw into his lap the idea of having lived before, you will get a confrontation of his opinions about it, e.g. “What would that do to old age pensions?”, and this will make him pretty groggy.  If you push him up the line, his suppositional actions will occur. In the absence of processing, as he goes from Level 7 to Level 6, he will get wild ideas, after going dopey.  He gets dub-in of dub-in lots of suppositional reality.  For instance, he may think he is Tutankhamen.  If you could get him to discuss it more intimately, he would get pictures of pictures.  Then, as the PC reaches Level 4, it all goes black.  The blackness or invisibleness are parts of real pictures.  The rest of the picture is just unconfrontable.  The blackness of a Level 4 is on the time track.  It is actually there on the time track.  It is a nice, dark, “safe” part of the incident that actually happened.  Run him through, run him earlier, and pictures can turn on.  At this point, he gets very groggy in the incident.  As he reaches Level 3 in this way, he can see much more easily.

As Level 2 moves into Level 1, the time track disappears, possibly because “the time track itself is a method of not confronting something.... He doesn’t want to confront it, and this overwhelms him to the point where, without power of choice, he makes a picture of it, and you have the involuntary picture-taking apparatus that is the time track.” One can, however, only be overwhelmed by that which one does not confront.

So the Levels of Cases Scale is a scale of confronting, and we could mistakenly think that confronting would solve the time track.  While confronting does get results and is an interesting process, it is not the common denominator of processes.  The common denominator of processes is duplicate.  The common denominator of reaction is confront.  The time track is duplication of an actual event, and each one of the case levels is a level of willingness to duplicate, or unwillingness to duplicate.  So your breakdown from OT towards clear is an individual lack of desire to duplicate what he has to duplicate in order to be an OT, leading to an overwhelming automaticity of making a time track.

Duplication goes hand in glove with the idea of beingness.  As we study beingness, we will see this with great clarity.  “To be or not to be” is not the question, in this universe.  You are going to be something whether you like it or not.  Your power of choice on this matter no longer exists.  You can not-be a certain thing, but only in order to be something else.  You can be or not-be a certain thing, but you will always be something.  “The question is ‘What to be?’!”

So this is the problem one picks up as one enters this universe.  It doesn’t matter if the universe is timeless, because you entered it somewhere. As you examine people’s time tracks, you find that their tolerance of time is improving as you go back.  Since time is the single source of aberration, if your time-tolerance improves as you go back on the track, you must be getting into periods, not only when the PC was less aberrated, but also approaching the beginning of the time track.  An individual’s time track is not infinite because:

1. He entered the universe at some point.

2. The earlier he gets on the time track, the less it is a constant, continual, and infinite thing.  The universe, on the other hand, continues at its own rate of vibration.  If the individual’s time track were of infinite duration, cases would be unresolvable.

Getting back to the question of beingness: once in this universe, you can’t absolutely not-be.  The question is “What to be?” That is the only question in the universe that really bothers somebody.  You will drive a kid up a wall by asking him, “What do you want to be?” If you want him to be something and he “knows” it would be dangerous, you have a postulate-counter-postulate situation, a continuing problem of beingness. “There’s a dwindling spiral of beingness” the moment one enters this universe.  There are fewer and fewer “safe” things to be.  You can aberrate someone by being after him to be something that is very dangerous.  You get a problem with this.  The lesson of this universe is that everything you can be is too dangerous to be.  But there is nothing to do but be in this universe. The universe has a finite space that looks infinite.  The gains of R2-12 came from the fact that the PC was making lists of beingnesses and the fact that a real RI is a potential beingness.  Anything you might want to be is either too dangerous or too discreditable.  A state’s effort to dominate the individual is out of jealousy of beingness. The press is dramatizing this by saying, “You mustn’t be a scientologist.  It is dangerous to be one.”

So if you want a guy to start sorting out his time track at almost any level, where he is aware of it at all, you could start him at once on a question that would get him into some interesting categories.  A time track is “To duplicate or not to duplicate,” but any duplication winds up in a beingness.  Duplication and beingness are united. or gradients of one another.  You will have cases that will not become OT until the beingness of OT is demonstrated to them to be not quite as dangerous as it has been.  All cases, or all PCs, have “assigned to all upper states dangerous or discreditable beingness, and [the same] to all lower states, and to [their] own state[s] impossibility to be.” Well, that is the state of any case.

If there is no program for the security of this planet that we can push forward, people become loathe to advance their states of case or do anything else.  They stay parked in an inertia, because there is no desirable future, no hope factor.  This is why hope is a rudimentary therapy.  To some degree, you would have to promise that an advanced state of case would not then bring about further problems, complicated by the political or sociological problems on this planet.  If there is nothing that one can do with an advanced state of beingness, it is doubtful that people will try to attain it.  So one needs a future, or else the problems one got into before, as a free thetan, make one see no point in case advance. People will downgrade their own states if they feel uncomfortable, lonely, or unsafe up there. Planning and organization to resolve that problem alone would bring about a case advance.  In the absence of such planning, promise, and organization, you won’t get as fast a case advance.

If you advance any Helatrobus goal, a lot of people will go on an automatic not-is.  There are people who are on a prevented beingness.  They make theta traps, implants, etc.  They can be tested for by offering them any beingness.  They will not-is it.  For instance, you say, “A wise prime minister would be nice.” He says, “Oh, I don’t know.  That would just give you a more powerful government.” They would degrade any more advanced beingness or anything you wanted them to be.  They might even think that they were doing people a favor.

We have the idea that if we don’t have success with a certain number of cases, we haven’t got enough people to form any strata of a civilization.  It is OK to say, “All right.  You are making an officer cadre.  The rest can be as they are.” That presupposes that there is a future plan to take care of all this.  We have a plan now for what to do with this planet.  Fine.  Now, what about the boys from the next planet?  You inevitably progress into an organizational future.

So you have to solve the problem of beingness, not only at the level of the individual case, but also on out into the future, through some organization that ensures some safe future.  An OT can straighten things out on the planet, but unless you mock up a plan to do so -- to solve the beingness problem more broadly -- you won’t make any OT’s.  Unless you plan to straighten things out, few people will go through to OT, because it has been so unsafe.  In the past, the OT has had a blind spot.  His own power was so great that he thought he could stand alone, but every time he went up against an organized body, he lost, because the organization could furnish more viewpoints than he could.  It is the plurality of viewpoints that confuses the individual.  He can’t sort it all out and eventually gets pulled down?.  The individual could furnish only a limited number of viewpoints, to which he could pay attention and which he could coordinate.  Communism advances because it has a plurality of viewpoints, organized to confuse the individual viewpoint.

The individual OT has his problems because he is an individual and has been convinced that he could do it all by himself.  And he could!  But the little boys with the airplanes always show up some time in the future.  The universe was ended by Magellanic clouds less than 500 trillion years ago. Only space and rubble was left.  There were no suns and no planets.  A lot of thetans got together to put it all back together.  You got planet builders and sun-builders.  In spite of all this, the little men with the airplanes showed up then, with their theta-traps.  Where did they come from? This has happened repeatedly in this universe.

This universe surrenders to co-operative action and not to individual action.  But now we have a new breed of cat: the experienced being.  When you get through auditing someone now, he is an experienced being who knows the isness of the universe and who knows that no matter how tough you are, you can get in a pole trap.  We have the technology to straighten someone out.  Unless a powerful being learns that this is a universe of organization and co-ordination, he will just be back on the pole trap again.  Any body of beings operating with a coordinated program can beat him.  You have got a situation where the individual is trying to operate in a universe of co-operation, and of course that degrades the beingness of the individual to that degree.  The “more he fights to be an individual, the less he co-operates.  The less he is willing to co-operate, the more enforced is his co-operation, the more he fights against this sort of thing, and the less freedom he has.” That is a description of the dwindling spiral that an individual goes through.  “No-confront” is the mechanical basis of the spiral.  Discarded beingnesses are what bring him down.

In a facsimile, the hardest problem the PC usually has is trying to isolate what is him and who is he, and what is he.  This is usually the biggest lie in the facsimile.  The PC has been running it as an overt, being the executioner, and he finally turns out to have been the victim’s wife.

It is, in fact, dangerous not to be a scientologist.  But the rest of the beingnesses are a matter of opinion, and the co-ordination of beingnesses is one of the better solutions.

A being at the bottom of the reality scale has gone down through a scale of beingness.  To get him to be anything at the bottom is impossible, except to be an unaware being.  There are deeper channels of unawareness, but there is no absolute unawareness.  He goes into a coma, taking no responsibility for any beingness of any kind whatsoever.  To move him up the line, he would have to have some security in being able to be something at an upper level.  You can have problems in processing if there is no future beingness.  Going out of responsibility occurs, because one continually gets the lesson that being responsible lands you in the soup.  The repetition of this lesson is what puts the individual downscale in livingness.  The scale keeps going further south, to deeper levels of unawareness.  It has to be made safe to be exterior, to be a theta clear; without some guarantee that you won’t just wind up in the soup again, you won’t become “skyscraper tall” again.

Havingness is useless without purpose.  “Unless the game itself is an expanding game, then processing cannot produce a stability.” Future livingness ties into a rise up the scale.

Out-reality equals no responsibility.  “What to be?  To be an A or to be a B?” That is the question.  If you can’t be an A and can’t be a B and there aren’t any other things to be, the answer is anaten.

It is interesting what you can do simply by using the tool of secure beingness.  Marital difficulties result from:

1. A husband who won’t be a husband.

2. A wife who won’t be a wife.

3. A husband who won’t let a wife be a wife.

4. A wife who won’t let a husband be a husband.  This is the average marriage.  “Marriage is not unhappy.  Marriage is a difficult beingness.” You could use beingness processing to remedy it.

Bypassed charge that causes jealousy is bypassed charge in the other person.  It is not knowing about the other person’s past.  Therefore, there is a criss-cross of BPC.  Because we are not bypassing charge in each other, scientologists will be the first people who can be friends in this universe. Because time alone builds up BPC in people who know nothing about the time track.

You have to handle the Helatrobus implant because it bolluxes up the time track and debars an easy route to running engrams and to reaccustoming the individual to different levels of beingness.  Only engram running will clear somebody.

Beingness, case state, hope, expectations, and confront are all tied up in the case scale.  Now that we have the scale of cases and a knowledge of what gets a case up to engram running, we can sort out the time track, reaccustoming the person to various levels of beingness.  After you’ve got all the engrams run out, you’ve got an OT.  Then you need an organization to handle the problems of the OT in this universe.  Otherwise, he will just slump again. 

6306C19 SHSpec-276 Summary of Modern Auditing

Processes fall into categories, according to which case conditions they handle.  Cases deteriorate as they go down the time track.  One factor against which they deteriorate is confront, and the other factor is duplication. Confront has to do with willingness, and duplication has to do with ability. As the PC becomes less willing to confront, he becomes less able to duplicate.  Similarly, processes are allowed to deteriorate [and fade out of use] through failure of willingness to confront and ability to duplicate. CCH’s, for example, went out for five years through getting down into the effort band.  There was no duplication.  You would have a very exact sort of process if you ran, “What are you able to/unable to duplicate?”, along with other flows.  You add more legs to it as the case needs more complexity.  A high-scale case, not being much troubled by flows, could go far on one leg only.  You can get different viewpoints on different flows, also.  This can give you TA action, where you might not otherwise get it.  “You add enough brackets to get TA.” There is no perfect way to run brackets, since the number of available flows is virtually infinite.  The idea of flows is something that monitors all case levels and breaks its back around Level 4.  Above Level 4 any or all flows could be run.  A person well downscale, below Level 4, almost at the bottom, can only run one flow.  Such a person can’t function on any other dynamic than the first.  He can’t conceive of another viewpoint, though he needs to run more than one flow.  There is a problem here.

This is a problem of the dynamics:  How many can a person function on? There are many facets of processing, by which you could match up a case to its ideal process.  You might be able to figure out the perfect process mathematically, but there is the point about the need for workability that we mustn’t lose sight of.  A process should not be “perfect”.  It should be complex enough to be workable.  The complexity factor also goes into the number of processes you need.  We should not emulate modern science.  “Modern science is a method of precisely determining overwhelming nonsense.”

We also have to determine the common denominators present in all cases. The processes that have survived the development of scientology are those that have broad workability.  They include ARC, the mid-ruds buttons, and common incidents on the time track, the common denominators of all cases. Kraepelin’s list of psychiatric case types is ridiculous.  It is like saying, “I am auditing Betty, so it is a Betty case type,” or “Well, everybody is a George case type.” In the first case, you get too many case types; in the second case, you get too few.  There is a middle ground.  This is a finite number of case types, classified according to their behavior in auditing sessions, and a larger but still finite number of processes.  It is only useful to divide cases up into case types so that you can match them up to the processes.  the case types are based on behavior in session, not in life.  You get a finite number of them, then match them up with processes.  that raise the PC upscale.  

You can’t expect auditors to memorize more than a few types of auditing processes perfectly.  If you expect more of auditors than this, they end up mixing types and styles of auditing and you get hash.  Repetitive processing seems easy, now that you are familiar with it.  In fact, any type of processing you have learned well presents no particular problem.

CCH’s got badly learned.  They are a kid glove type of process, since cases that get CCH’s exclusively are low on the effect scale and can’t tolerate being mauled about.  [LRH tells an anecdote about dropping CCH’s because “they weren’t getting results,” then giving a TVD and discovering that no one knew what he was doing.] They had utterly alter-ised the process.  It was then that he stopped just creating new processes and began to insist on perfect duplication of what had already been developed.

We stopped accumulating process types when LRH found out that it was variation that made processes and process types stop producing results. People shifting from the original type of process would then apparently bring about a need for a new process type.  Process types are dependent on how many you can keep in line.  How to keep processes in line and working is a more important factor than you might think.  When a process seems to have stopped working, you will find that variations from the original have crept in.  The simpler process types tend to survive better than the more complicated ones. They are also perhaps easier to keep in line in their unvaried form.  But even the simpler ones will drift out of line.

A process can die when it is too simple and gets used very seldom.  Reach and withdraw is a good example of this type of process.  It works at Level 8 and is the only type of process you could use on an animal.  Processes that work very slowly also tend to get dropped, since they are seldom run to a flat point, so you don’t see results.  We don’t really know how much reach and withdraw processes can do.

Processes can vanish because of disrespect; we use one diffidently.  ARC processing disappeared for awhile because of this.  That they are the only workable processes for a certain type of case gets lost, and so those cases get lost.  Reach and withdraw is one of these.  It is slow but sure and it is almost lost from lack of respect for its potential.  There are lots of processes in the band of reach and withdraw that are ignored.  Book and bottle hangs right in between reach and withdraw and CCH’s It contains duplication like the latter, but is the former type of process.  Lots of cases won’t move unless run on these processes.  They won’t move on CCH’s.  We mustn’t lose processes.

We have been pressing so much at the top of the scale of cases that the bottom has been neglected, so these lower scale processes have dropped out.

The next division in processing is what the auditor knows is wrong with the case vs. what can be done with the case.  These can be two very different things.  Modern processes have nothing to do with what is wrong with the case. The viewpoint of curing specific conditions by specific processes is an outmoded viewpoint, left over from old medical practices.  One must run what the PC can run and not fixate on curing.  That is a sort of Q and A,

II.  A case with a temporary relapse into heavy problems may not be able, for the moment, to be run on problems, a repetitive-type process.  Therefore, you had better be able to undercut problems processes.  

“If [a] case is dramatizing something, that something is not real to the case.” That is a guiding rule of processing.  What you are guided by is not “Are we handling what is obviously wrong with him?” but “Does the case respond to the process that is being run on the case?  1.e. does the case get TA when the ruds for the session are in?” You must, of course check that:

1. The session ruds are in.

2. Flows are in line.

3. The process is not already flat or unsuitable.  For instance, speaking of flows, most of the stuff we run, e.g. the Helatrobus implants, are motivators.  So if you had TA, and it ceased after you had run several flows, the flows may be getting stuck.

We are interested in increasing the capabilities of the case.  He should at least be getting easier to audit, because that means that he is getting more responsive to external orders, getting more capable of viewing his track and pictures, getting into less trouble, getting better at locating BPC.  The case would be getting more done per session, too.  Auditors tend not to notice that a case is paining and winning, because they are too close to the case and they don’t observe the slow gradient.  The way to spot it is to notice how the case was a month ago.  If the case is progressing well; if he is interested in and happy doing what he is doing, don’t change it, unless there is no TA for a long time.  Give TA motion time to develop, also.

It may take several sessions to establish the PC’s case level.

Run engrams using the precise system and commands given.  The precision of the system tends to develop the PC’s precision on the track.  Don’t word the item too adventurously.  Make it finite enough so that there is a hope of reaching basic.  It should be something he is worried about and can reach.  If you run a chain of “being held still”, you are asking for lots of still points, which may be hard to get to the root of.

What you validate, you produce, with the exception that getting the PC to confront what he doesn’t want to lets him take over the automaticity of producing it, so it stops being produced.

Modern processes are built on and monitor the degree of withdrawal of the person into himself, and those things that will lead the PC out from himself, so he is no longer so restricted.  Thus reach and withdraw is the most basic action.  You should have some idea about types of processes -- how and why they work -- and what case level they are most effective on.  And you should get good at estimating where the case must lie, and upgrading the case from that point.  Always run the case a little steeper than it thinks it should be run.  The reaction of the case, in terms of protest or ARC break, has almost no bearing on whether what you are running is the right process.  You look amidst the “Yap! Yap!” and see if the PC is running the auditing command. Protest is a common denominator of the whole track and this universe.  It is how the thetan makes pictured.  It is more fundamental than duplicating.  

Tape: 6306C19 SHSBC 277
HISTORY OF PSYCHOTHERAPY
is not currently available

The Editor

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 JUNE AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise

ROUTINE 3
ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS
BULLETIN 3

ROUTINE 3-R
ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS

Given a knowledge of the Composition and Behaviour 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 ever could give. Example: Pc: “I see a house here.” Auditor: “Okay. How big is it?”

That’s not engram running, that’s just a 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 last and you can put aside any complications in between.

The auditor is permitted ONE question per each new point of track and that is ALL. Example: Auditor: “Move to the beginning of the 88 plus trillion year incident. (Waits a moment.) What do you see?” Pc: “It’s all murky.” Auditor: “Good. Move through the incident.”

Wrong Example: Auditor: “Move to the beginning of the 88 plus trillion year incident. (Waits a moment.) What do you see?” Pc: “It’s all murky.” Auditor: “Can you see anything in the murk?” FLUNK! FLUNK! FLUNK!

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 yesterday. (Waits a moment.) 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.

Right Example: Auditor (meter dating): “Is it greater than eighteen trillion, less than eighteen trillion (gets contradictory reads or a DN). (Off meter.) Are you thinking of something?” Pc: “It’s less than 18 trillion.” Auditor: “Thank you. (On meter.) Is it greater than seventeen trillion five hundred billion. Less than ....” Pc: “It’s seventeen trillion, nine hundred and eight billion, four hundred and six million, ninety-five thousand, seven hundred and six years ago.” Auditor (having alertly written it all down): “Thank you.” (Ends dating.)

Wrong Example: Auditor: “Is it greater than eighteen trillion, less than eighteen tr....” Pc: “It’s less than eighteen trillion.” Auditor: “OK. Is it greater than eighteen trillion, less than eighteen ....” FLUNK FLUNK FLUNK.

In dating, the pc’s contrary data unspoken and untaken can give you a completely wrong date. Your data comes from the pc and the meter always for anything. And if the pc’s data is invalidated you won’t get a meter’s data. If the pc says he has a PTP and the meter says he doesn’t, you take the pc’s data that he does. In dating, an argument with the pc can group the track.

So take the pc’s data. And if the pc is a dub-in, you should be running the ARC processes not engrams anyway as the case is over-charged for engrams. If the pc isn’t a dubin then the pc’s data is quite reliable.

Also, minimize a pc’s dependency on a meter. Don’t keep confirming a pc’s data by meter read with, “That reads. Yes, that’s there. Yes, there’s a rocket read ....” Just let the pc find his own reality in running an engram. “All auditors talk too much.” You can date on a meter but only so long as the pc doesn’t cognite on the date. You can help a pc identify or choose an area of track but only if he specifically asks you to. Example: Pc: “I’ve got two pictures here. Can you find out which one is the earlier? One is of a freight engine, the other is a whole train.” Auditor: (on meter) “Is the freight engine earlier than the whole train? Is the whole train earlier than the freight engine? (To pc) The whole train reads as earlier.”

Now, however, if the pc has two facsimiles, your problem is only that you’ve missed something.

RULE: WHENEVER CHARGE IS MISSED THE TIME TRACK TENDS TO GROUP.

This does not mean the Auditor has to do something about it unless the pc gets confused and asks for help, at which time the only action is to spot on the meter what charge has been missed and tell the pc.

ARC BREAKS

All Routine 3 ARC Breaks, including R3-N and R3-R, are handled the same way, an exact way. There is no deviation from this.

If the pc becomes critical of anything outside the engram (room, auditor, Scientology, the technology) it is an ARC Break. ARC Breaks are of greater and lesser magnitude ranging throughout the misemotional band of the tone scale.

The handling of ARC Breaks always follows this rule:

ARC BREAK RULE l: IF THE PC ARC BREAKS, ISSUE NO FURTHER AUDITING COMMANDS UNTIL BOTH PC AND AUDITOR ARE SATISFIED THAT THE CAUSE OF THE ARC BREAK HAS BEEN LOCATED AND INDICATED.

Do not issue more orders, do not run a process, do not offer to run a process, do not sit idly letting the pc ARC Break. Follow this rule.

ARC BREAK RULE 2: WHEN A PC ARC BREAKS OR CAN’T GO ON FOR ANY REASON, DO AN R3-R ARC BREAK ASSESSMENT AND LOCATE AND INDICATE TO THE PC THE BY-PASSED CHARGE.

The only harm that can be done in R3-R (or R3-N) is issuing further orders to the pc or trying to run something before the by-passed charge has been located and indicated.

Given this handling of ARC Breaks and an exact adherence to the rote of R3-R, all former problems of engram running vanish!

EARLY ENGRAM RUNNING

No auditor who knew earlier than June 1963 engram running should consider he or she knows how to run engrams.

Routine 3-R is itself. It has no dependence on earlier methods of running engrams. Failure to study and learn R3-R “because one knows about engram running” will cause a lot of case failure.

Early engram running was often attempted on cases below Case Level 4. The technology, further, was too varied. Too much was demanded of the pc. Too little effort was put into finding the basic on a chain. Too many forcing techniques were used. Too often the auditor ran just any engram he could get. These and other faults prevented engrams from being run.

R3-R is a rote procedure. That is a victory in itself. But it is a better procedure.

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 R3-R is not old-time engram running but is a Scientology Routine designed to achieve the state of OT and is not designed for any other use than freeing the spirit of man.

Therefore, study and use R3-R and don’t mix it with any earlier data on engram running. Anything you know about engram running will help you understand R3-R. But it won’t help your pc if mixed in with R3-R. I couldn’t put this too strongly. You’ll trace any failure in the auditor with R3-R to:

1. 	Inability to execute the auditing cycle;

2. 	Inability to run a session;

3. 	Failure to study and understand the Time Track;

4. 	Failure to follow R3-R exactly without deviation;

5. 	Failure to handle ARC Breaks as above;

6. 	Using R3-R on lower level cases not prepared by pre-engram running processes.

ROUTINE 3-R

Engram Running by Chains is designated “Routine 3-R” to fit in with other modern processes.

It is a triumph of simplicity. It does not demand visio, sonic or other perception at once by the pc. It develops them.
The ordinary programming of the lowest level case would be Reach and Withdraw Processes, CCHs, Repetitive Processes, R3-R, R3-N, R3-R.

Routine 3-R is the process that leads to Case Level 2. Only some additional exercises are needed, then, to attain the next level, OT.

So R3-R is the fundamental bridge step to OT. And we’re going only for OT now for various reasons including political. We have by-passed clear which remains only as a courtesy title denoting one or more GPMs run.

Many cases, even the Black V, can begin at once on R3-R.

R3-R BY STEPS

R3-R is run in the 3N model session.

PRELIMINARY STEP.

Establish the type of chain the pc is to run by assessment.

STEP ONE.

Locate the first incident by dating.

STEP TWO:

Move pc to the incident with the exact command, “Move to (date).”

STEP THREE:

Establish duration (length of time) of incident.

(An incident may be anything from a split second long to 15 trillion trillion years or more long.)

STEP FOUR:

Move pc to beginning of incident with the exact command, “Move to the beginning of the incident at (date).” Wait until meter flicks.

STEP FIVE.

Ask pc what he or she is looking at with the exact command, “What do you see?” (If pc’s eyes are open, tell pc first, “Close your eyes.”)

Acknowledge whatever pc says.

Do not ask a second question, ever.

STEP SIX:
Send the pc through the incident with the exact command, “Move through the incident to a point (duration—) later.”

STEP SEVEN:

Ask nothing, say nothing, do nothing (except observe meter or make quiet notes) while pc is going through the incident. If the pc says anything at all, just acknowledge and let him continue, using this exact command softly, “Okay, Continue. “

Do not coax, distract, or question pc during this period.

Exception: only if the pc ARC Breaks, take action and then only do the R3-R ARC Break Assessment.

If the pc gets stuck, bounces, gets into another incident or if the somatic strip sticks or refuses to obey the auditor, only do an ARC Break Assessment. Do not force the pc onward by any command or question.

STEP EIGHT:

When the pc reaches the end of the incident (usually pc moves or looks up) 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 a final acknowledgement.

STEP NINE:

Repeat exactly and only Steps Two to Eight.

Continue to do so until pc either

(a) 	Spots an earlier incident or

(b) 	Gets no change on a run through the incident from the run just before.

In event of either (a) or (b) do Steps One to Eight exactly and only on the new incident.

STEP TEN:

At the end of any session of R3-R leave the pc where he is on the time track. Do not attempt to bring the pc to present time or take the pc to a rest point, as these actions may very well by-pass charge. End any R3-R session with very careful goals, gains (as the pc is usually rather anaten) and any needed havingness, but keep the havingness very brief, only enough to restore can squeeze. Do not end a session on a boil-off or ARC Break.

STEP ELEVEN:

At the beginning of any new R3-R session, if you finished the last engram you were working on, begin precisely and anew with Step One. If you are still working on an engram already found, begin precisely with Step Four and carry on.

STEP TWELVE:

If the pc gets into trouble in the session do not use Mid Ruds or ask for missed withholds. Mid Ruds will mush an engram. Missed withholds, unless found as part of the ARC Break Assessment, may move the pc violently about through recently found engrams.

Do only the ARC Break Assessment, and locate and indicate charge accordingly if the session goes wrong.

(Since the last time I audited you Mid Ruds and missed withholds are permissible at session start before any R3-R action is taken in that session.)

STEP THIRTEEN:

When encountering a goals engram such as the Helatrobus Implants lay aside R3-R and use R3-N.

When encountering a goals engram prior to the Helatrobus Implants or subsequent to them use R3-M2 but only when such an engram has RIs.

STEP FOURTEEN.

When Basic on any chain is found flatten it fully and permit it to be stripped of any lock engrams or earlier incidents that appear. (In finding basics remember that the Time Track by my most recent measurements considerably exceeds a trillion, trillion, trillion years.

Basics may occur as early as they occur but seldom nearer PT than 200 trillion years ago, and quite ordinarily at 15 trillion, trillion years ago.)

END OF STEPS

There is no variation of these steps for any reason. This is the most exact procedure known. And there you have it, rote engram running, superior to any engram running ever done and giving superior and faster results.

Future HCO Bulletins will expand the reasons for these steps, give exact methods of dating, give the ARC Break Assessment for R3-R, the assessment for types of chains,
and the administration.

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

6306C25 SHSpec-278 Routine 2-H

[See HCOB 25Jun63 “Routine 2-H -- ARC Breaks by Assessment”]

The use of different processes has been monitored or regulated by two things:

1. The ability of the auditor to do the process.

2. The efficacy of the process in advancing cases.  Both have to be taken into account.  It is important that these two factors mesh.  Otherwise auditors tend to lose.

What is a win or a lose in auditing?  You have to be able to define them, or we won’t be able to recognize them.  A win, in terms of thetan behavior, is:

1. “Intending to do something and doing it.”    or 

2. “Intending not to do something and not doing it.”  

A lose is:

1. “Intending to do something and not doing it.”    or 

2. “Intending not to do something and doing it.”  A lose gives you a disagreement.  A ridge forms between those two things.  A ridge is a bit of entrapped energy that will read on an E-meter.  In processing, intending to do something for a case and not doing it is a lose. From the PC’s side, it is the basic definition for a lose: if the PC sets a goal for the session of becoming OT and doesn’t make it, it is a lose, no matter how unreal the goal was.

An auditor’s idea of a win could be not to ARC break the PC.  Then he does, and gets a lose.  This is the intention and sole intention of many auditors going into session.  This being the case, it demands of a process that it work, regardless of the intention of the auditor.  That is quite a bit to demand of an automaticity, but it is a very safe base for a process.

Your skill as an auditor is in getting the process across and completing an auditing cycle, keeping the form and running the session.  It does not lie in inventing a process as you go along.  You have enough to do without having to invent processes, although LRH used to do it.  It is feasible to dream up the process while auditing the PC, but it is only necessary when you don’t know what to do.

The way around this problem is to know the fundamentals of cases.  What we expect of an auditor is to be able to complete an auditing cycle, hold the session form together, and take care of the PC’s un-form-ness as needed.  That is minimal.  If you go lower, you haven’t got an auditor, and more randomness than order will be introduced into the session.  A person who couldn’t master a repetitive process would never make an auditor, because of the importance of the auditing cycle.  You need to be able to acknowledge.  This is more than just saying, “Thank you.” The auditor has to understand, and it is up to the auditor to minimize the possible breakdowns of the auditing cycle that results from the auditor being startled by what PCs come up with.

The auditor must be cured of a tendency to Q and A, since that is damaging to the PC.  A common sort of Q and A is echo metering.  This drives the PC ‘round the bend.  If this is done with dating, it can ruin the PC’s precious ability to estimate time.  Any echo metering is a a and A.  Not Q and A’ing is part of the auditing cycle.  If the PC says, “Around 750 years”, you say, “750 years.” The essence of Q and A is departing from the auditing cycle with new doingness, because the PC has added new doingness. This misses a PC’s withhold.  The worst situation you can get into is the ARC break caused by your taking it up, when all the PC was doing was originating. The PC has originated and you thought it was a question or a request and acted to handle it.  Flunk! You didn’t acknowledge the origination.  You can get the PC to clarify the origination by asking the PC, “Was that a request?”

The final test of an auditor is not, “Is he perfect?”, but “Can he unscramble a mess by session end?” Get as good as you can get, but don’t get upset about imperfection.  Just be sure you can straighten it all out.  As an irreducible minimum, let things go that are going well and straighten out things that aren’t.  R2-H is a new process to assist in this. [See also HCOB 25Jun63 “Routine 2H -- ARC Breaks by Assessment” for more details on the process.  This would be a predecessor of the L-1-C.]

R3R is a pretty rote procedure.  It has no variations.  It took 13+ years to arrive at it.  “I intended auditors to run engrams and failed, in the past.  I had a loss.” That is why R3R came in.  The main difficulty in handling engrams is the complexity of the procedure.  These rote steps are pretty simple, done one by one.  R3R runs engrams better and smoother than earlier engram running ever did.  It is quite a triumph.  The failure in getting auditors to run engrams was enough to make LRH abandon trying for some years.

Of all processes, this is the one not to learn by doing it on the PC. Don’t practice running engrams on a PC.  You will tanglefoot if you don’t know the fundamentals of the time track.  Dating is an interestingly exact skill. The hardest and trickiest step is getting the duration, because it is hard to get the proper duration, and in rote procedure, duration is everything.  If the PC doesn’t know know what the incident is all about, you have the duration wrong.  Why? The later part of the incident is always knowable as to length. The question is where it really begins.  For instance, you know how long this lifetime has been, but you don’t know how long your track is.  If you get the PC just seeing one scene every time you run him through the incident, then the duration is wrong.  He has just got the back end of the incident.  In terms of reality and behavior of the meter, the PC could reach the last part of the engram.  If he can’t tell you about what is happening, the duration is wrong, because there is obviously something more to it, and that something more is always earlier.  So you must re-do the duration.  The first incident wasn’t wrong; you’ve just gotten more incident.  This could happen more than once in one incident.  If the second run is still very vague, if the PC still “doesn’t know” about the incident, if he has gotten only a few more pictures, get the duration step re-done.  That’s all you have to do!  You may have to re-do it several times.  Just take the PC’s data.  The PC will always go to the beginning of that part of the incident which he can now reach, luckily.  This is very uncomplicated.  And it is very important, because all that is in the bank is in engrams.  Engram running is no longer barred to the Black V case. Even GPM’s are specialized engrams.  A GPM is just an engram with a pattern required to run it.

The mind is not confused.  The PC, looking at it and unable to find what he wants, thinks that it is confused.  It is an idiotically orderly machine, which does what you tell it to do.  Addressed by a proper technology, the mind is incredibly precise and accurate.  The PC may think it looks confused, but he is like someone on his first trip to the library.  He will be confused until he cognites that he can just ask the librarian for what he wants and get it.  The auditor always gets what he asks for in R3R.  The mind is not a Ouija board. Just keep your commands sensible and comprehensible.

The biggest problems an auditor has are:

1. Finding the correct date and duration.

2. ARC breaks.  Most auditors are somewhat afraid of ARC breaks.  If you haven’t learned to assess and handle ARC breaks, you are licked.  You will shortly back off from running engrams because you will have had a lose.

Routine 2H comes in here.  It is ARC Breaks by Assessment.  It is superior to ARC break straightwire.  It asks the PC for an ARC break, dates it, assesses it for BPC, locates it, and indicates it to the PC.  This puts you at cause over ARC breaks and gives you practice at dating things that the PC is not very nervy about, unlike engrams.
R2H can be run on a PC at Level 6. [Dub-in of dub-in case.]  R3R doesn’t necessarily run only engrams.  You can also run secondaries with it, which is fine.  Just don’t call it engram running.  Don’t run chains that haven’t been assessed.  You risk having the chain try to branch into another chain.  You can run locks with R3R, on a case that is not up to running engrams.

Getting the item to run is done by the rules of listing.  You could also assess the 18 buttons of the prepcheck and list what they have suppressed in this lifetime, and get a chain that you can run with TA.  If you hit one of the Helatrobus implants, shift to R3N.  If it is another sort of GPM you hit, go to R3N2.  Watch for dates between 38 and 52 trillion years ago, for Helatrobus implants.

The approach to processing has been upgraded because its target has been upgraded.  We are not interested in clearing.  We are interested in OT’s.  The governments of the U.S. and Australia decided to get rough.  Also the Kremlin and the U.S. are trying to form a dichotomy, expressed with nuclear fission. We must hold the line legally (concerning E-meters) and upgrade the auditing target to OT. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 JUNE AD 13
Central Orgs
Franchise

ROUTINE 2H
ARC BREAKS BY ASSESSMENT

This is not just a training process. It is a very valuable unlimited process that undercuts Repetitive Processes and produces tone arm action on cases that have none on repetitive processes.

R2H, however, is a training must before an auditor is permitted to run engrams. It does not have to be run on a pc before engrams are run. Only when an auditor can produce results with R2H should he or she run engrams on any pc. For R2H combines the most difficult steps of engram running, dating, assessing, locating and indicating by-passed charge. If an auditor can date skillfully and quickly handle ARC Breaks (and handle the Time Track) he or she is a safe auditor on R3R. If not, that auditor will not produce results with R3R or make any OTs.

In Academies and the SHSBC, R2H is placed after skill is attained in Model Session and repetitive processes. In auditing programming R2H comes immediately after Reach and Withdraw and the CCHs.

For sweetening a pc’s temper and life, R2H has had no equal for cases above but not including level 8.

ARC stands for the Affinity—Reality—Communication triangle from which comes the Tone Scale and is best covered by the booklet “Notes on Lectures”.

By-passed charge is covered very fully in recent HCOBs on ARC Breaks.

R2H BY STEPS

The auditing actions of Routine 2H are complex and must be done with great precision.

The actions are done in Routine 3 Model Session. Mid Ruds and Missed Withholds may be used.

STEP ONE:

Tell the pc, “Recall an ARC Break.”

When pc has done so acknowledge that the pc has done so. Do not ask the pc what it is. If pc says what it is, simply acknowledge. It is no business of R2H to know what the ARC Break consists of!

STEP TWO:

Date the ARC Break on the meter. If the pc volunteers the date do not verify it on the meter further. Accept it at once and write it down. The date is more important than the content of the ARC Break.

STEP THREE:

Assess the ARC Break for by-passed charge, using the attached list.
Find the greatest read.

The assessment is seldom gone over more than once as a whole and those that read are then read again until one remains.

This is a rapid action on the meter. Look only for tiny ticks or falls or a small left to right slash of the needle. Do not expect large reactions. The Mark V meter is indispensable.

STEP FOUR:

Indicate to the pc what charge was missed in that ARC Break he or she has recalled .

The pc must be satisfied that that was the charge missed.

The pc may try to recall what it was that was indicated. This is not a vital part of the drill but THE PC MUST BE SATISFIED THAT THE LOCATED BY-PASSED CHARGE WAS THE SOURCE OF THE ARC BREAK.

There is a danger here of a great deal of auditor ad-libbing and tanglefoot. If the pc is not satisfied and happier about it, the wrong by-passed charge has been found and Step Three must be re-done.

It is no part of this process to run an engram or secondary thus located.

THE ASSESSMENT FORM

This is a sample form. It may be necessary to add to it. Some lines of it may eventually be omitted. However, this form does work. The auditor may add a few lines to it.

In asking the questions preface the whole assessment with, “In the ARC Break you recalled_____.” Do not preface each question so unless pc goes adrift.

A dirty needle means pc has started to speculate. Ask, “Have you thought of anything?” and clean needle.

Had an engram been missed? Had a withhold been missed’? Had some emotion been rejected’? Had some affection been rejected? Had a reality been rejected? Had a communication been ignored? Had a similar incident occurred before? Had a goal been disappointed? Had some help been rejected? Was an engram restimulated? Had an overt been committed? Had an overt been contemplated? Had an overt been prevented? Was there a secret?

Routine 2H is a skilled operation. Practice gives the auditor a knack of doing it rapidly.

An ARC Break should be disposed of about every fifteen minutes of auditing
time. Longer shows ineptitude.

LRH:dr.cden							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963		
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 JULY AD 13
Central Orgs
Franchise

ROUTINE 3R
BULLETIN 4

PRELIMINARY STEP

The R3R Preliminary Step is done to assure that the correct incident chain is run on the pc for that pc.

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.

The basic problem in starting a case on R3R is to run the pc on a chain that will (a) improve the case, (b) hold the pc's interest, (c) be within the pc's current ability to handle.

The establishing of the correct chain was a missing element in all earlier engram running. Almost any pc from Level 7 upwards could have run engrams if the exact chain necessary to resolve the case could have been established. This is accomplished now by an accurate assessment using a sensitive E-Meter and the following form and procedure.

It does not matter if the pc begins on a chain of locks, secondaries or engrams so long as running it does (a), (b) and (c) above. You do not have to specify in R3R whether you are running engrams, secondaries or locks. The word "Incident" covers all.

Also, it does not matter if the pc stays within this lifetime or goes whole track so long as the assessed chain is followed and a basic eventually discovered for it. The chain leads where the chain leads.

But once having found the proper chain the auditor must follow that chain, not skip about. To do this, the auditor, when asking for an earlier incident in later R3R steps always specifies the proper chain found in this assessment by the Level + Item result of this Preliminary Step Assessment. For example, if the chain found here in the Preliminary Step is "Decisions to die" (Level found = Decided + Item Found = To die), one obtains earlier incidents by always saying, "Is the next earlier decision to die more than .......years ago? Less than .......years ago?"

Thus the result obtained in the Preliminary Step is used on and on until an actual basic is reached. This may be fifty or more engrams run and perhaps even some R3N in the middle of the chain if the chain leads into a GPM by normal rote use of R3R.

When a basic is reached and discharged and the chain being run now gives little or no TA action (or even free needle), a new Preliminary Step is done. But until that happens, this Preliminary Step is not repeated with the other steps. Once it has happened (a basic found and run), however, a new Preliminary Step is done exactly as given here for the first chain assessment.

You find the chain.

You run engram after engram on that chain (or lock after lock or secondary after secondary) .
You find a basic.

You run the basic thoroughly.

With TA action now gone on the chain found you do a new Preliminary Step.

RULE: TA ACTION EXISTS ON THE CORRECT CHAIN.

RULE: A CHAIN ONCE ASSESSED MUST BE FULLY RUN.

RULE: TA ACTION CEASES ON A DISCHARGED CHAIN.

RULE: A NEW ASSESSMENT IS DONE ONLY WHEN A CHAIN IS DISCHARGED.

RULE: ANY PROPERLY ASSESSED CHAIN WILL PRODUCE TA ACTION.

RULE: IF A CHAIN ASSESSED DOES NOT PRODUCE IMMEDIATE TA ACTION WITH SKILLED R3R THE ASSESSMENT (OR THE RESULTING QUESTION FORMED) IS INCORRECT.

The exact procedure of assessment is:

1. 	Assess pc by elimination as below for a R3R Form Level.

2. 	List the Form Level found to a completed List.

3. 	Nul the completed list to a single subject.

4. 	Use the Form Level plus subject to designate the character of the incident to be found every time an incident is looked for.

All rules of listing as developed in R2-12 apply to this Preliminary Step. They are not repeated here.

One is not looking for RRs or RSes in the Preliminary Step Assessment. Any type of read is valid.

ARC BREAKS

When doing this step of R3R use the ARC Break Assessment for Listing Form, not the R3R ARC Break Assessment Form. The main sources of ARC Breaks in the Preliminary Step are:

1. 	Wrong level assessed.
2. 	The listed list incomplete.
3. 	The wrong Item taken from the list.
4. 	A former chain or engram abandoned to do a new assessment.
5. 	Earlier levels restimulated (old Pre-Hav auditing).
6. 	Earlier listing restimulated.

Such forms will be published from time to time as they tend to change and improve.
EARLIER ASSESSMENTS 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 into action 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 where engrams were run to clear but mainly to cure psychosomatic illnesses.

Variations of these assessments were revived from time to time in Dianetic uses culminating in the 5th London 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.

Up to this time there was a great dependence on “insight” and judgment. We were barred to some degree by my own ability to see other people’s pictures which made engram running very easy for me to do, along with my general knowledge of the whole track and the mind. This led me to be very hard to convince that engram assessment was a subject at all or that most auditors couldn’t do it.

With the advent of Scientology with its complete shift from Dianetic goals, healing went out as a reason for running engrams and concern about the body vanished as an auditing target. This led to stresses on exteriorization of the spirit, moving it away from the body. As the reactive bank was thought to be part of the body, its engrams received no further attention.

Eventually I discovered that the thetan had engrams and that these were being automatically (involuntarily) created by him.

Engram running has vanished as a healing process. Engram handling by chains has emerged as an entirely reoriented subject, not even vaguely connected with the body and with the target not of a human clear but of Operating Thetan.

The assessment for engram chains (or any kind of chain) emerges finally in Routine 3R. This assessment technology from beginning to end is Scientology. None of it was ever heard of in Dianetics. Therefore we have crossed a bridge. I have finally understood that precise assessment is vital for an auditor and that an auditor can learn the exact chain to be run on the pc without any intuition or second sight and that even my own auditing is bettered thereby, and that the thetan cannot be freed and re-empowered without an assessment and rote technology for engram running. This is R3R.

The earliest R3R assessment for chains was done by pc interest and the button Protested. The pc was merely asked, “In this Lifetime what have you protested?” and with no listing, whatever the pc said and seemed interested in was taken.

This however did not often produce adequate TA action when the chain was then run.

The next improvement was using the 18 Prepcheck buttons. This drew a blank on some pcs, no level reacting.

Accordingly, I then developed a new Pre-Hav Scale, based mainly on flows. It is Protest that is basically responsible for making a mental image picture. However, very few cases are up to this level. In order to bring more levels of case under engram running and to get more TA action for any case, I developed this Preliminary Step Scale.

The present scale takes some account of (1) The old Pre-Hav Scale, (2) The Know-to-Mystery Scale, (3) The Chart of Attitudes, (4) The 18 Buttons and (5) The Flows Scale, as well as some old well-known buttons.

Several possible levels (such as Create) have been left out because they would go at once into the GPM or Implant Goals. It may not be important that they do. Indeed, with experience we may even come to guide the pc at them. But for the moment they are left out.

There would be nothing wrong in borrowing further from these sources to draw up a longer Preliminary Step Scale, but I think this should cover most pcs.

The three most important visible factors in R3R are:

(a) 	Pc’s interest.
(b) 	Tone Arm Action.
(c) 	The ability of the pc to run the incidents.

If the auditor can see these he knows his Preliminary Assessment was right.

Interest does not mean happiness and joy. Interest is only absorbed attention and a desire to talk about it. Tears, terror or agony may be present without the Interest factor being absent. A chain of engrams is expected to produce pain and anaten. A chain of secondaries is expected to produce misemotion. These have nothing in them to head an auditor off a chain.

Equally, 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.

All the auditor is interested in is whether (a) the pc is interested; (b) the TA action is good and (c) can the pc run the incidents on the chain with correct and exact R3 R.

That careless auditing and bad R3R can influence (c), leaves us with only two exact criteria for a correct assessment:

       (a) 	Pc’s Interest and

       (b) 	TA Action while running incidents.

Only these two things tell us the assessment was right. The assessment can be right and unskilled R3R can wreck both in the later steps, a fact which has to be taken into account in reviewing cases in progress.

R3R ASSESSMENT

This is the Assessment for R3R Preliminary Step.

In this form will be recognized the old Pre-Hav Scales and others, but improved for the purpose of engram chain assessment.

This assessment must be done accurately. It is hard to do if the pc doesn’t understand a level during assessment, is startled by one or disagrees. These will make the assessment inaccurate. If the assessment is inaccurately done, the pc will ARC Break or the resulting engram chain will not give TA action when being run.

The final level assessed will probably give TA action at once when found if right.

The key sentence in assessing is “In this lifetime have you mainly .......(level).” This is repeated for each level called. Levels are called once, as in ordinary elimination. 	Those that stayed in are reassessed the same way. The one form can be used for many additional assessments on the same pc as chains are run out.

The use of this form brings R3R down to Case Level 7 in workability. A chain of engrams being run must give TA action. If none is present in running engrams and the TA stays high or low the assessment was wrong.

The level found here is used to make and complete a list with the question, “In this lifetime what have you .....(level found)?” “In this lifetime” is used not because we only want chains in this lifetime but to keep pc from going all over the track during the preliminary assessment, this making it too long. The chain you want comes into this lifetime. All rules of listing apply as in R2-12A in doing this list.

In event of an ARC Break while doing the Preliminary Step, use the ARC Break Assessment for Listing.

If needle dirties up in assessing this form, give form to pc and ask “What happened?” and if that fails, get in BMRs “On this Assessment”.

SUPPRESSED	WITHHELD
FAILED TO SUPPRESS	FAILED TO WITHHOLD
NOT SUPPRESSED	NOT WITHHELD

INVALIDATED	PROTESTED
FAILED TO INVALIDATE	FAILED TO PROTEST
NOT INVALIDATED	NOT PROTESTED
	
BEEN CAREFUL	WITHDRAWN
FAILED TO BE CAREFUL	FAILED TO WITHDRAW
NOT BEEN CAREFUL	NOT WITHDRAWN

SUGGESTED	CONVINCED
FAILED TO SUGGEST	FAILED TO CONVINCE
NOT SUGGESTED	NOT CONVINCED

PROVEN 	AGREED
FAILED TO PROVE	FAILED TO AGREE
NOT PROVEN	NOT AGREED

HIDDEN	DISAGREED
FAILED TO HIDE	FAILED TO DISAGREE
NOT HIDDEN	NOT DISAGREED

REVEALED	IGNORED
FAILED TO REVEAL	FAILED TO IGNORE
NOT REVEALED	NOT IGNORED

MADE MISTAKES	DECIDED
FAILED TO MISTAKE	FAILED TO DECIDE
NOT MADE MISTAKES	NOT DECIDED
ASSERTED	PROPITIATED
FAILED TO ASSERT	FAILED TO PROPITIATE
NOT ASSERTED	NOT PROPITIATED

CHANGED	HELD OFF
FAILED TO CHANGE	FAILED TO HOLD OFF
NOT CHANGED	NOT HELD OFF

DAMAGED	PULLED IN
FAILED TO DAMAGE	FAILED TO PULL IN
NOT DAMAGED	NOT PULLED IN

REMAINED	HELPED
FAILED TO REMAIN	FAILED TO HELP
NOT REMAINED	NOT HELPED

PREVENTED	KNOWN
FAILED TO PREVENT	FAILED TO KNOW
NOT PREVENTED	NOT KNOWN

PRESSED ON	CAUSED
FAILED TO PRESS ON	FAILED TO CAUSE
NOT PRESSED ON	NOT CAUSED

BEEN RIGHT	BELIEVED
FAILED TO BE RIGHT	FAILED TO BELIEVE
NOT BEEN RIGHT	NOT BELIEVED

BEEN WRONG	CURED
FAILED TO BE WRONG	FAILED TO CURE
NOT BEEN WRONG	NOT CURED

WON	LIKED
FAILED TO WIN	FAILED TO LIKE
NOT WON	NOT LIKED

LOST	AVOIDED
FAILED TO LOSE	FAILED TO AVOID
NOT LOST	NOT AVOIDED

BLOCKED	BEEN BORED
FAILED TO BLOCK	NOT BEEN BORED
NOT BLOCKED
	BEEN ANTAGONISTIC
RETREATED	NOT BEEN ANTAGONISTIC
FAILED TO RETREAT
NOT RETREATED	ENDURED
	FAILED TO ENDURE
REACHED	NOT ENDURED
FAILED TO REACH
NOT REACHED	ABANDONED

ATTACKED	FAILED TO ABANDON
FAILED TO ATTACK	NOT ABANDONED
NOT ATTACKED
	GIVEN UP
STOPPED	FAILED TO GIVE UP
FAILED TO STOP	NOT GIVEN UP
NOT STOPPED
	BEEN SANE
CONFRONTED	FAILED TO BE SANE
FAILED TO CONFRONT	NOT BEEN SANE
NOT CONFRONTED
	BEEN CURIOUS
COMMUNICATED	FAILED TO BE CURIOUS
FAILED TO COMMUNICATE	NOT BEEN CURIOUS
NOT COMMUNICATED
	DESIRED
BEEN PRIDEFUL	FAILED TO DESIRE
FAILED TO BE PROUD	NOT DESIRED
NOT BEEN PRIDEFUL
	ENFORCED
SYMPATHIZED	FAILED TO ENFORCE
FAILED TO SYMPATHIZE	NOT ENFORCED
NOT SYMPATHIZED
	INHIBITED
RECOVERED	FAILED TO INHIBIT
FAILED TO RECOVER	NOT INHIBITED
NOT RECOVERED

HAD	BEEN ANGRY
FAILED TO HAVE	FAILED TO BE ANGRY
NOT HAD	RESENTED

LOOKED	FAILED TO RESENT
FAILED TO LOOK	NOT RESENTED
NOT LOOKED	FEARED

BEEN SERENE	FAILED TO FEAR
FAILED TO BE SERENE	NOT FEARED

BEEN ENTHUSIASTIC	BEEN IN GRIEF
FAILED TO BE ENTHUSIASTIC	FAILED TO CRY

BEEN CONSERVATIVE	BEEN APATHETIC
FAILED TO BE CONSERVATIVE	FAILED TO BE APATHETIC

INFLOWED	THOUGHT
FAILED TO INFLOW	FAILED TO THINK
STOPPED INFLOW	NOT THOUGHT
OUTFLOWED	EVALUATED
FAILED TO OUTFLOW	FAILED TO EVALUATE
STOPPED OUTFLOW	NOT EVALUATED

                          	HAD OPINIONS ABOUT
                          	FAILED TO HAVE OPINIONS ABOUT
                          	NOT HAD OPINIONS ABOUT

In nulling this scale the pc may suddenly break down emotionally or get an overpowering reaction. (Not just a twinge or an interest in a level, since the pc will not know the real level until it is found.) If so, STOP, don’t go on. Go back to above the point where pc was all right and then carefully null back down to where you stopped. Go over this area getting in suppress and invalidate if needful and you’ll have the pc’s level found. You may lead into ARC Breaks if you persist in going on as you have by-passed charge. But the pc’s reaction must be large for you to use this mechanism. Beware of a “sell” by the pc. A pc doesn’t know the level until it is actually found. Some pcs will decide on a level and it will then read. In such a case get in Protested and Decided with “On this scale have you ......” by fast check. Don’t let your pc mess up an assessment by a “sell” or decision. But don’t keep on down a long assessment of this scale with the pc shattered by pain or emotion as the pc will suppress the right level.

When you have found the pc’s level on the above scale by elimination, then list the following question, using that level found: “In this lifetime what have you ...... (level found)?”

List the list to a clean needle so that it nuls very easily, leaving a very few in on the first nulling, only two or three in on the second nulling of what has been left in. Put mid ruds in on these if necessary. Nul out to the final Item.

Combine the Level found and the Item found. This is a very simple step. The wording may have to be altered in tense but not in sense. “Decided” may become “Decision”. “Failed to think” may become “Failure to think”. In the Item found some shift of the pc’s wording may be needful. But be very careful that you get a combination of Level and Item that makes sense to the pc and reads on the meter without protest reading too. These reads are often not very large and at best assume steep falls with TA action. So be careful to add up the Level and the Item found to a sensible statement that does not alter the sense. For instance you can err greatly if the Level was “Fear” and the Item was “Entrapment” if you vary it to “Fear of Traps”. That won’t give you the same chain at all. The correct one is “Fear of Entrapment” of course.

You can have a correct Level, a correct Item and then fail to combine the two sensibly. If so you will get (a) A confused pc and (b) A wrong chain. Either way you’ll get little TA action and no R3R done.

The Level “Failed to Convince” and the Item “Father” had better be left just that way. It gives a short chain, this lifetime, soon done. By changing the Item “Father” to “Fathers” you would go whole track but the significance is wildly altered and might not run at all. The less alteration the better. And never alter the sense of it.

Use the question: “Is the first available (Level) (Item) incident earlier than five years ago? Later than five years ago?” And using times to suit, go on with Step One of R3R.

(Note: The above scale is in random order of arrangement at this time and positions of levels on the scale have no significance.)

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 JULY 1963
CenOCon
Franchise
CCHs REWRITTEN

(Replaces HCO Bulletin of 2 November 1961, “Training CCHs”
and HCO Policy Letter of 15 May 1962, “CCHs Rewritten”)

The following revised rundown on the CCHs is to be used by all Students in Scientology Orgs.

CONTROL—COMMUNICATION—HAVINGNESS PROCESSES

The following rundown of CCH 1, 2, 3 and 4 has been slightly amended. They are for use in training. CCHs are run as follows:

CCH I 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 1 to a flat point, etc.

To bring the CCH training into line with current methods of teaching TRs, etc, at the end of each drill a list of Coach’s questions is given. In addition Coach should take instructions from the “Commands” and “Training Stress” and frame them in the form of questions. For example, in CCH I Coach could ask, “Did you make every command and cycle separate?”

Coach must avoid invalidating Student and not ask questions on what Coach thinks the Student has done wrong. The correct method is to ask a few questions at a time choosing and forming questions at random. On the other hand Coach should not ask a question about something that has not happened in the drill. For example, in CCH 3, if Coach has not manifested a “dope-off”, Coach would not ask, “When I doped off did you take my hand and execute the command one hand at a time?”

No. CCH 1.

NAME. GIVE ME THAT HAND. Tone 40.

COMMANDS. GIVE ME THAT HAND.

Physical action of taking hand when not given and then replacing it in the Coach’s lap. Making physical contact with the Coach’s hand if Coach 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 Coach, 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.

POSITION: Student and Coach seated in chairs without arms. Student’s knees on outside of both Coach’s knees.

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.

TRAINING STRESS. 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 Coach or to bridge from the process. This is done between two commands, holding the Coach’s hand after acknowledgement. Coach’s hand should be clasped with exactly correct pressure. Make every command and cycle separate. Maintain Tone 40, stress on intention from Student to Coach with each command. To leave an instant for Coach to do it by own will before Student decides to take hand or make contact with it. Stress Tone 40 precision; can be coached for some time silently with Coach looking for silent Student intention. Student indicates hand by nod of head.

COACH’S QUESTIONS.

CCH 1. 	1. 	What is a Tone 40 Command?
          	(Intention without reservation)
2. 	Did you give me a Tone 40 Command?
3. 	Was the command executed?
4. 	What is a change?
         (Any physical observed manifestation)
5. 	Did you notice any change?
6. 	What was it?
7. 	Did you take it up with me?
8. 	Did you introduce a freeze at end of cycle to ascertain information
	from me or to bridge from the process?

HISTORY. Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in the 17th ACC Washington DC, 1957.

No. CCH 2.

NAME. TONE 40 8C.

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 Coach, 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.

POSITION: Student and Coach ambulant, Student in physical contact with Coach as needed.

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.

TRAINING STRESS: Absolute Student precision. No drops from Tone 40. No flubs. Total present time. Student on Coach’s right side. Student’s body acts as block to forward motion when Coach turns. Student gives command, gives Coach a moment to obey, then enforces command with physical contact of exactly correct force to get command executed. Student does not block Coach from executing commands. Method of introduction as in CCH 1. 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 Coach or to bridge from the process, this being the acknowledgement “THANK YOU” after the command “TURN AROUND”.

COACH’S QUESTIONS.
	
CCH 2: 	1. 	What is a Tone 40 Command?
          	(Intention without reservation)
2. 	Did you give me a Tone 40 Command?
3. 	Was the command executed?
4. 	What is a change?
       	(Any physical observed manifestation)
5. 	Did you notice any change?
6. 	What was it?
7. 	Did you take it up with me?
8. 	Did you introduce a freeze at end of cycle to ascertain information
	from me or to bridge from the process?

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

No. CCH 3.

NAME. HAND SPACE MIMICRY.

COMMANDS: Student raises 2 hands palms facing Coach’s about an equal distance between the Student and Coach 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. Student allows Coach to break solid comm line. When this is flat, the Student does this same with a half inch of space between his and the Coach’s palms. The command being “PUT YOUR HANDS FACING MINE ABOUT l/2 INCH AWAY, FOLLOW THEM AND CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION.” “DID YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION?” Acknowledge. When this is flat, Student does it with a wider space and so on until Coach is able to follow motions a yard away.

POSITION. Student and Coach seated, close together facing each other, Coach’s knees between Student’s knees.

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.

TRAINING STRESS: That Student be gentle and accurate in his motions, all motions being Tone 40, giving pc wins. To be free in 2-way communication. That process be introduced and run as a formal process. To teach student that if coach dopes off in this process Student may take Coach’s wrist and help him execute the command one hand at a time. That if Coach does not answer during anaten to question “DID YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR MOTION?”, Student may wait for normal comm lag of that Coach, acknowledge and continue process.

COACH’S QUESTIONS.

CCH 3: 	1. 	What is a Tone 40 motion?
          		(Intention without reservation)
2. 	Did you give me a Tone 40 motion?
3. 	Was the motion executed?
4. 	What is a change?
    	(Any physical observed manifestation)
5. 	Did you notice any change’?
6. 	What was it?
7. 	Did you take it up with me?
8. 	Did you do a simple movement?
9. 	Define two-way communication.
	(One question—the right one.)
10. 	Did you receive a verbal origination?
11. 	Did you understand it?
12. 	Did you acknowledge it?
13. 	Did you return me to session?
14. 	Did you double question me?
15. 	Did you change because I had changed?
16. 	Did you follow my instruction?
17. 	What did you do?
18. 	What happened?

HISTORY. Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington DC, 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.

COMMANDS: THERE ARE NO SET VERBAL COMMANDS.

Student makes simple motions with a book. Hands book to the Coach. Coach makes motion, duplicating Student’s mirror-image-wise. Student asks pc if he is satisfied that the Coach duplicated the motion. If Coach is and Student is also fairly satisfied, Student takes back the book and goes to next command. If Coach is not sure that he duplicated any command, Student repeats it for him and gives him back the book. If Coach is sure he did and Student can see duplication is pretty wrong, Student accepts Coach’s answer and continues on a gradient scale of motions either with the left or right hand till Coach can do original command correctly. This ensures no invalidation of the Coach. Tone 40, only in motions, verbal 2-way quite free.

POSITION: Student and Coach seated facing each other, a comfortable distance apart.

PURPOSE: To bring up pc’s communication with control and duplication (control and duplication = communication).

TRAINING STRESS: Stress giving Coach wins. Stress Student’s necessity to duplicate his own commands. Circular motions are more complex than straight lines. Tolerance. of plus or minus randomity are apparent here and the Student should probably begin on the Coach with motions that begin in the same place each time and are neither very fast nor very slow, nor very complex. Introduced by the Student seeing that Coach understands what is to be done, as here is no verbal command, formal process.

COACH’S QUESTIONS:

CCH 4: 	1. 	What is a Tone 40 motion?
          		(Intention without reservation)
2. 	Did you give me a Tone 40 motion?
3. 	Was the motion executed?
4. 	What is a change?
     	(Any physical observed manifestation)
5. 	Did you notice any change?
6. 	What was it?
7. 	Did you take it up with me?
8. 	Did you do a simple movement?
9. 	Define two-way communication.
	(One question—the right one.)
10. 	Did you receive a verbal origination?
11. 	Did you understand it?
12. 	Did you acknowledge it?
13. 	Did you return me to session?
14. 	Did you double question me?
15. 	Did you change because I had changed?
16. 	Did you follow my instruction?
17. 	What did you do?
18. 	What happened?

HISTORY: Developed by L.R.H. for the 16th ACC in Washington DC, 1957. Based on duplication. Developed by L.R.H. in London, 1952.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 JULY AD13
Franchise
Academies	ALL ROUTINES
CenOCon
(HCO Secs: Check out all ARC Break Assessment HCO Bulletins on all executives including registrars and on all staff auditors and Instructors)

ARC BREAK ASSESSMENTS

These lists are valuable. Intelligently used they put an auditor or Scientology staff or executive at cause over all session ARC Breaks and Scientology upsets.

The following Assessments are for use in finding by-passed charge in various auditing activities.

The source of all ARC Breaks is by-passed charge. There is no other source of ARC Breaks. The type of charge that can be by-passed varies from one auditing activity to another (R3R, 3N, etc). Therefore different lists for assessment are necessary for different Routines in auditing. Another list for general auditing is also necessary.

Everything that has been written about by-passed charge is valid. All by-passed charge is in some degree a missed withhold, missed by both auditor and pc.

Having these lists for assessment, there is no excuse for an ARC Break to long continue in a session or for anyone to remain ARC Broken with Scientology.

The following assessments find what kind of charge has been missed. It is then up to the auditor to locate it more precisely as to character and time and indicate it to the pc. The pc will feel better the moment the right type of by-passed charge is identified by assessment and indicated by the auditor. If the pc does not feel better but further ARC Breaks then the assessment is either incomplete or incorrect.

Many complicated ways exist for a charge to be by-passed. There is no reason to go into these. You will find it is always by-passed charge and that it could have been located and indicated in any ARC Break.

R2H is the training process for use of these lists. In R2H devoted to “In auditing” or when an ARC Break is found in a past auditing session during an R2H session the type of list that applied to that session is used.

There are four ways of using these lists. The first is to assess by elimination and come up with one list line still reading on the meter and indicate it as the charge to the pc. The second is to go down a list taking each one that reads and clearing it up with the pc, finishing the whole list and then finally indicate what read the most. The third way is like the second except that the pc is required to help find what made the type of charge read and actually identify it as a particular thing. The fourth way is to assess only for biggest read or one line and have the pc help spot it.

The third way is the one most commonly used at the end of a session where it is just cleaning up the session, and each question is completely cleaned on the needle in turn. The first way is most used on violent ARC Breaks. The second or the fourth ways are used in R2H.

Assessment often has to be done through a dirty needle. No effort is made to clean it up before assessment. And just because the needle is dirty is no reason to call them all “in”. Learn to read through a DN for both ARC Break Assessments and dating. It is rather easy to do with a Mark V meter as the characteristic of the DN shifts when one is “in”.

No effort has been made here to convert the words to non-Scientology language, as the sense would be lost to a Scientologist.

These lists are all bare-bone and contain only the usual types of by-passed charge. They may be added to as experience with them increases. They become too unwieldy when they are too long. The only way you can get confused as to how to locate and indicate charge is by finding the wrong charge.

GENERAL ARC BREAK ASSESSMENT

Used in general sessions of all kinds where an ARC Break has occurred, or at session end in all routines and for R2H.

The prefix sentence “In this session has???” is used when cleaning up a session at its end or during the session. “At that time had???” is used for R2H. The actual date may be occasionally substituted for “time” to keep the pc oriented but only if necessary.

LIST L—1

a withhold been missed? 
some emotion been rejected? 
some affinity been rejected? 
a reality been refused? 
a communication been cut short? 
a communication been ignored? 
an earlier rejection of emotion been restimulated? 
an earlier rejection of affinity been restimulated? 
an earlier refusal of reality been restimulated? 
an earlier ignored communication been restimulated’? 
a wrong reason for an upset been given? 
a similar incident occurred before’? 
something been done other than what was said? 
a goal been disappointed? 
some help been rejected? 
a decision been made? 
an engram been restimulated? 
an earlier incident been restimulated? 
there been a sudden shift of attention? 
something startled you? a perception been prevented? 
a willingness not been acknowledged? 
there been no auditing?

(Note: If “overt” is added to this list or any BMR buttons, the scale cannot be used in an R3R or 3N session as these “mush” up engrams.)

(Note: If this list is used do not also use any other end rudiments except goals, gains and pc’s havingness.)

ASSESSMENT SESSIONS
LISTING SESSIONS
PRELIMINARY STEP R3R
THE ARC BREAK FOR ASSESSMENTS LIST
When doing any listing step or type of auditing use the following list for ARC Break Assessment in event of an ARC Break in the session or at session end.

The prefix “In this session has ...” is used for a listing session, and “In that session had . . .” if a listing session ARC Break is recalled by the pc doing R2H.

LIST L—2

an incorrect level been found? 
an incorrect item been found? 
a list not been completed? 
a level abandoned? 
an item abandoned? 
you not given items you thought of? 
a goal been restimulated?
an implant been restimulated? 
an engram been restimulated? 
a withhold been missed? 
earlier listing been restimulated? 
earlier wrong levels been restimulated? 
earlier wrong items been restimulated? 
earlier listing ARC Breaks been restimulated?

ROUTINE R3R
ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS

In all engram running sessions, and those combined with 3N in that session, use the following list.

Prefix each question with “In this session have . . .” in event of an ARC Break or at session end. For R2H where an ARC Break is discovered in an earlier engram running session (clear back to 1950), prefix with “In that session had the auditor . . .” and omit “I” and “we”.

LIST L—3

I found an incorrect date? 
I found an incorrect duration? 
I demanded more than you could see? 
two or more engrams been found on the same date? 
you skidded to another incident? 
we moved to another chain? 
we gotten to a goals implant? 
we scanned through a GPM? 
we restimulated an earlier incident? 
we restimulated an earlier implant? 
we restimulated an earlier ARC Break on engrams? 
we failed to find the real beginning of the incident? 
we by-passed important data? 
we skipped an incident? 
two or more incidents been confused? 
I missed a withhold on you? 
we left an incident too heavily charged? 
we scanned through one or more series of goal implants? 
we abandoned a chain? we abandoned an incident? 
I prevented you from running an incident? 
I changed processes on you?

(Note: Do NOT use any BMR buttons during engram running or add overts to this list as they will “mush” engrams.)

ROUTINE 3N
GPMs, ALL GOALS SESSIONS

When a session is being run on GPMs or goals no matter with what routine, use the following ARC Break assessment when any ARC Break, great or small, occurs (or when pc becomes critical of the auditor even “playfully”). If R3R and R3N are both run in the same session, do both L—3 and L—4.

Prefix the lines with “In this session have . . .”, or for R2H ARC Breaks found in goals sessions “In that session had the auditor . . .” and omit “I” or “we”. In event that the current pc was the auditor in that session and ARC Broke (applies also to List L—3 above) use List L—1.

LIST L—4

I given you an incorrect item? 
I given you a wrongly worded goal? 
I given you a wrong goal? 
I left an Item charged? 
I skipped an Item? 
I skipped more than one Item? 
I skipped a goal? 
I skipped more than one goal? 
we restimulated an earlier wrong goal? 
we restimulated an earlier wrong item? 
we restimulated an earlier implant? 
I failed to give you a goal? 
I failed to give you an item? 
I misdated a goal? 
you run items out of different GPMs (or goals)? 
we run more than one series of goals? 
we restimulated an earlier goals series? 
we restimulated an earlier engram? 
you skidded on the time track? 
we gone over an engram inside this GPM? 
we restimulated another GPM? 
we missed part of the incident? 
I given you no auditing? 
I missed a withhold on you? 
we missed some other kind of charge? 
we abandoned a goal? 
we abandoned an item? 
I given you more Items than are here? 
I given you more goals than are here? 
we listed an item wrong way to? 
I restimulated earlier errors in running GPMs? 
we slipped into a later goals series? 
I changed processes on you?

LRH:jw.cden 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6307C09 SHSpec-281 The Free Being

The SHSBC is the place that you have been coming to for the last trillion trillion years.  It is LRH’s job to make auditors who can clear up the track. If we hadn’t waited so long, it would have been easier, but two things prevented its being done sooner:

1. The state of civilization.

2. The previous failure to realize that the cycle was the cycle of loss of the OT.  A being now had come to the point of believing that the only safe place to be was in a meat-body civilization.  The fight, the quality of life, had been lost.  Peculiarly enough, freedom as an OT has come down almost into PI, say to 500 years ago, for some.  But they were lost, too.  There is no way to obtain and maintain a stability as an OT [as things stand].  What is peculiar about this war on OT’s was that it was lost by the most powerful.

All battles are won by a combination of force and intelligence.  Given enough force, you don’t need much intelligence (viz. nuclear bombs), but then all you get is a short-term win.  A long-term win is achieved only by a balance between force and intelligence.  Intelligence alone is never enough. For instance, in the Communist takeover of Tibet, the wise men of Tibet were powerless to prevent it.  There is an imbalance in any defeat.  Any co-ordinated civilization, combining technology with force, and keeping force and intelligence balanced, can make a monkey out of an OT.  Literally!  There is an implant, four galaxies over, that taught you that you came from apes. The whole Darwinian theory is implanted there in about a day.  In fact, thetans had different tastes, relative to bodies.  For instance, some liked cave-man cultures and some didn’t.  This is not evolution.  It is just different mock-ups for thetans.  The “civilizations” of tree-top pre-men and of cave-men were just two different styles, with no evolution between them.  

The deterioration of matter is not nearly as rapid as scientists think it is, and the earth has been here much longer than they think.  Carbon-14 dating methods, the measurement of time elapsed by deterioration of atoms, doesn’t work, because this deterioration doesn’t occur as fast as scientists think. Suns in this area have been burning for at least 200 trillion years.  Dark stars, suns that look as though they have gone out, were never lit.  They don’t go out.

So society is full of misapprehensions and stupidities that, themselves, act as traps.  These stupidities are intelligently conceived as a means of cohesing a society.  Ignorance is used by the intelligent as a means of entrapment.  If everyone remains ignorant of the society, nobody can get out of it, so they have no choice but to co-operate and keep society going.  So these meat-body societies operate on a combination of mediocre intelligence and mediocre force.  They make the airplane and the space ship and progress no further.  Then they disintegrate.  Societies repeat patterns over and over again.  Thetans get on different kicks and make these societies.  But beware of societies with as much progress as there is on this planet.  Various unusual forces are at work here.  This planet is evolving unusually fast, because, for one thing, it is being used as a dumping ground.  It is on the periphery of the galaxy.  Sun 12 is handy to other galaxies and to the center of this galaxy.  It is still being used as a dumping ground.  For that reason, this planet has a very heterogenous society and lots of trouble, because no one is guiding it.  Most planets have some guiding thetan.  These don’t change.  They are rather like a little play town.  There is no master hand guiding this planet.  If there were, there would be far less trouble than there is.  When you take thetans that have been indoctrinated to have certain types of societies in bodies that have been mocked up, and then they get scooped up and dumped as unwanted in one place, you have lots of different impulses at work, one with the other.  This produces lots of friction.  That is what our society is.

This society belongs, nominally, to the Espinol United Stars, or the “Espinol United Moons, Planets, and Asteroids:  This Quarter of the Universe is Ours.” This is Sun 12. “There has been no command post occupied for this system, now, since 1150 AD, at the time when a group on Mars was finally abolished and vanished.” You notice that at that time there was a sudden resurgence in science and learning. It became an uncontrolled civilization, and no one has been paying any attention to the dumping that has been going on since.  “Nobody took any interest in this system, and [it has] been running wild ever since that time.”

“Probably the most basic impulse on the planet is simply the basic impulse of thetans who have been reduced to more or less meat body level, which is total co-operation” with one another, as you see in Communism:  We are all equal.  There must be no personalities of any kind, [and the cult of personalities] must be banished.” This is the least common denominator of implants and indoctrination: the notion that they must have teammates.  

Why did you arrive on this planet in the condition you are in?  No good reason, particularly.  Certainly not just because of the overt-motivator sequence, though you will try to find the overts you did that pulled it in. You are still trying to be reasonable and intelligent about it.  You think that there had to be a reason.  It is true that you have overts, but “the only reason you were ever punished was for being you, for being powerful, and for not being quite intelligent enough....  The exact crimes were to be there and to communicate.”

Once upon a time, “some OT came along and [for fun] ... put together a civilization, [complete with] curbstones and hairdos.  Some other thetan came along and [interfered in some way], so...  to get even, ... [the first] thetan would indoctrinate his pet society on how to trap a big thetan.  So this became the most accomplished skill that a meat body society had:  how to trap a spirit.”

“No OT was ever so out of his mind as to depend upon any of his men or troops to untrap him.  He never [taught] them to do that, because at the time he was doing this, [it never occurred to him that] he would be caught.... Singularly unintelligent!” It isn’t this universe that did it.  You were just knuckleheaded.  Not enough intelligence was used, proportional to the force. Tributes to God are tributes to the workings of an OT.  Creating the entire universe seems like a very intelligent action, but it was knuckleheaded, because no one worked out how to reverse it, to unbuild it, to cause things to as-is.  This lack of intelligence was recently dramatized by Frankie the Limper’s funding the atom bomb, without building a defense against it.  OT’s in the past have employed too much force and too little intelligence.  An OT could build anything:  atoms, molecules, suns, traps, but he didn’t bother to figure out how to turn it off when he got tired of it.  The problem came from an insistence on matter that was to “endure forever”.  This was not smart. Eventually, that is what theta poles were made of. “That’s the pole you’ve been on.  Confounded things last forever....  It’s possible to be trapped for over 13.5 trillion trillion years.”

The tech for trapping thetans is vast, but there is nothing on “How do you get him off of it?”!  Here is a problem:  how can you free thetans when there are no OT’s left.  All an OT has to do is to pull the trapped thetan off and toss him “out in space to cool off.” Seems simple, but it requires an OT, and what if there isn’t any?

Einstein was dead wrong.  He only contributed to the ignorance by which you get trapped.  Space wagons used to travel trillions of light years per day.  Teleportation is a pipe dream.  You just unmock a body here and mock it up there.  “It’s not the same atoms....  The skill [of] making matter disappear has been grievously neglected, ... like the tech of how ... [to] free a thetan....  The failure to teach a meat body society equally to free or to trap ... was just unintelligent.” This situation is like the phenomenon of stuck or single flows in processing, where if you run motivators long enough, the PC will give you an overt.  You can always get trouble when you run only one side of a flow.  

That is important to you, because it says where you sit as a being at this exact moment and why you are interested in the technology before you, and why it is appearing at this time.  Everyone will tell you that this technology is impossible.  It isn’t.  It is only neglected.  They think it is impossible because they have outflowed the reverse technology.  The technology Isn’t neglected because the lack of it didn’t cause societies trouble.  It did.  The Galactic Confederation is in trouble right now because of this lack.  The Confederation operates on a limited OT basis.  Its hierarchy of command is that of a limited level of OT, and it goes down from OT’s at the top to the doll body as the ship captain and the post captain, and down to meat bodies. It is one of the few civilizations that has endured a long time just because it has used these different levels.  They have tried to maintain a no-change condition, which is dangerous and impossible.  If you don’t improve, you decline.  The problem of the Galactic Confederation is that they have run out of the OT’s that are needed to command units.  That is the limiting factor on how big they could be, since not once in 80 trillion years has anyone ever suggested repairing OT’s.  They have a static and therefore declining society.

OT’s get peculiar.  They get fitful.  They get moody.  They can get keyed in, and all they could do about it was to subdue the errant thetan, turn a sleep-light on him, tell him to get more solid, and take him down to the hospital.  “I know.  I was there.  I was the guy they did it to.”

If the technology of untrapping is so vital, why hasn’t someone worked on it? Because they are afraid of the technology.  “Governments would fear OT’s, if they knew about them.” The Galactic Federation, of course, does. They would worry about how you could maintain the social strata and the fixed organization, if every janitor could be an OT.  It would be fine if you could restrict the technology to OT’s, but it would spread to doll body and meat body beings.  They would fear the social and political upset that would occur if you freed thetans.  “You’d have to give them a political solution which was as great as the political threat.  You cannot give them a tech without taking responsibility for [it], or nobody’d listen to you.  People on earth don’t think that scientology doesn’t work, [but they’ve been trained against the vector of it.  They’ve been trained to destroy,” to entrap, to set up a fixed status of something and then work out a destructive means of entrapment with it so people cannot leave certain social and economic strata of the society. You are not up against Pavlov, Freud, etc.  You pose a tremendous threat to the social structure of our current civilization.  You can tear it to pieces by rehabilitation of thetans’ tremendous power and force, which can only be safe if there is also tremendous intelligence connected with it, so that the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics will be produced.  For instance, an OT can pull the air cover.  Mammoths have been found in the polar regions with fresh-frozen vegetables in their stomachs.  To explain this phenomenon, it would be necessary to explain the fact that they must have been quick-frozen in sixty seconds, in a tropical region.  What natural cataclysm could have taken place in sixty seconds.  Somebody pulled the air cover and gave the planet a reverse spin, because they got mad.  An OT who could do such a thing in a fit of pique would be terribly dangerous.  

An overt act doesn’t just damage; it damages the greater number of dynamics.  One can commit an overt act unintentionally by lacking data or not using sufficient intelligence to see what really is for the greatest good. But a really heavy overt act is one where one deliberately sets out to damage the greater number of dynamics.  Keep this in mind during sec-checking.  You should be looking for actions that are really harmful to a greater number of dynamics, not just some irresponsible actions.  “An overt act is often realized after the fact.” You could have done it a smarter way that wouldn’t have been an overt.  So you get regret and hung-up overts.  You seldom find anything in this lifetime that is a real deliberate overt.  It has been awhile since the guy had power enough to do a real overt.  Some thetans will take on their shoulders more responsibility than is rightfully theirs.  However, running dubbed-in overts won’t get them anywhere.  But under all that, there is a real overt of magnitude.

A phase of this universe has taken place and ended: the phase of the free being.  The free being has lost, to solid, unintelligent, mean-level societies.  Another cycle opens up now.  This new cycle involves a different kind of being -- one that is as strong as the old, but experienced; not as stupid, because now you know what the score is.  Now you have good reality on a meat-body society and can see their political frailties and the impossibility of obliterating them, because they start again elsewhere.  They can be managed, handled, helped, or thrown on a reverse vector.

The use of intelligence with force can maintain a freedom of action ... without racking up a new bank ... and new overts,” a new war against the thetan.  There has never been a lasting or intelligent society of free beings, for as-isness has dropped out as an ability and needs to be put back in.  But such a society is needed, since everyone, on his own, puts everyone downscale in the long run.  If “freedom” means “total irresponsibility”, up and down the line, you are not talking about freedom.  You are talking about catastrophe. We don’t need war.  We need a balanced technology with the ability to meld force and intelligence.  We need knowhow and force, not knowhow in the use of force.  We need a balanced intelligence that can reverse what one does, unmocking matter as well as making it, freeing as well as entrapping.  If you know how to enslave people, you should know how to free people.  If you are going to make up matter, don’t insist that it be indestructible.  In dealing with meat body societies, don’t just stir up the ant hill.  It will just disperse and continue to grow.

The era of total irresponsibility is over.  A long cycle is over in this universe.  The cycle of the free being vs. the meat body society is over.  The battle was lost, and the free being doesn’t exist anymore.  We shift gears by just putting some intelligence in with the force.

Freedom with no barriers is insupportable.  There is nothing in this case to be free from or to push against.  Freedom must be worked for.  If you think that you will stay clear or OT just by never destroying anything again, you are nuts.  Criminals should be permitted to free themselves through compensating victims.

Not to do things for the greatest good of the greater number of dynamics is an overt of omission.  One can’t maintain freedom in the face of failure of such magnitude.  You cannot be or make an irresponsible OT.  We have to continue to take responsibility for our fellows.  Not to take responsibility for others is to lose our own freedom in the end.  

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 JULY 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise
A TECHNICAL SUMMARY
THE REQUIRED SKILLS OF PROCESSING
AND WHY

Here is where we stand and where we’re going.

An auditor, to make a Clear or OT, has to be able to handle confidently certain skills.

Today we assume that every successful process we ever had is and was a valid process. We are at a point of summation and valuation as we are achieving excellent and steady progress even on the most unlikely cases. I consider that the period of basic mental research has ended and the period of adjustment of skills, on which I will for some time be engaged, has been entered upon.

I list here the auditor skills which are requisite to handle any case.

SKILLS BY CASE LEVEL

      	Case Levels 8, 7 and 6
      	Objective Processes
          		Reach and Withdraw Commands
          		CCHs
          		Havingness Processes

      	Case Levels 7, 6 and 5
          		Model Session
          		Repetitive Command Processes
          		R2H
          		Meter Reading
          		Simple Assessment of a form

      	Case Levels 6, 5, 4 and 3
          		Assessment of Levels
          		Listing and Nulling Lists
          		R3R
          		3N

These constitute, to use another table, the following exact skills:

Handling the pc’s body (as in Reach and Withdraw or 8c).
Ability to execute the auditing cycle.
Ability to give repetitive commands.
Ability to handle a meter.
Ability to run a Model Session and keep the pc in session.
Ability to read a Tone Arm.
Ability to accurately meter date.
Ability to run R2H.
Ability to locate and handle ARC Breaks.
Ability to assess a simple form.
Ability to find a level.
Ability to list, complete and nul a list.
Ability to run R3R.
Ability to do 3N.
Ability to do a form Line Plot for a GPM.
Ability to do a Line Plot for an off-beat GPM.
Ability to list for and find a goal.
Ability to list for and find a top oppterm.
Knowledge of the Time Track.
Knowledge of the Thetan.
Knowledge of the basics of Life.
A General Knowledge of Scientology.

(Note: The abilities of R3R, R3N and R2H are also listed separately in the above.)

These, briefly, are the skills required to make an OT. They are well taught at Saint Hill. They are practised in Central Orgs as fast as released. HCO Bulletins exist on nearly all this material, except some fine points of R3R which are known but not yet written up, and some of the R3N Line Plots not yet issued.

BASIC SKILLS

If you examine the above you will find that where the auditor cannot do the required skill the faults are only one or more of the following:

Cannot execute the auditing cycle.
Cannot execute an auditing cycle repetitively.
Cannot handle a session.
Cannot read a meter.
Cannot study and apply Scientology data.

Given the ability to execute the auditing cycle once or repetitively, handle a session, read a meter and study and apply procedures, all the above listed auditing skills are easily acquired and successfully done.

Therefore in looking for the reasons for no results, one finds the failure to apply the required procedure and in tracing that, one inevitably finds one or more of these five basics amiss in the auditor.

It is no longer a question of whether Scientology works, it is only a question of whether the auditor can work Scientology. If he or she can’t, then the trouble lies in one or more of these basics.

The trouble does not lie with the procedure or with the pc. Of course some procedures above are harder to do than others and some pcs can worry an auditor far more than others, but these are incidental and are very junior to the five basics above.

The lower the case level of the auditor, the harder time he or she will have grasping the know-how and using it. For instance a squirrel is only a dramatizing Case Level 6 or 7. A student having a rough time is a Case Level 6 or 5. Somebody almost heartbreaking to teach is a Case Level 7 or 8. BUT, with alert guidance and even making mistakes, I have seen Case Levels from 3 to 8 alike getting wins and finally smoothing out on the five basics above. I’ve seen it myself in the past two years of training at Saint Hill. So I’ve discarded Case Level as an index of auditing ability, it is only an index of how-hard-to-train.

The question of psychotic or neurotic does not enter. These are artificial states and have no real bearing, surprisingly enough, on Case Level. My belief in an auditor’s ability to audit has far more bearing on his auditing than his or her aberrations.

The only factor left is auditor judgment. This varies about and improves with wins. But processes are so arranged that it is a question only of what is the highest process that gives TA action, rather than pre-session case estimation. Trial and error is the best test. I would use it myself, for I have often found the most unlikely preclear (at first glance) capable of running high level processes and some very “capable” people (at casual inspection) unable to see a wall. So I always run the highest level that I hope pc can run, and revise on experience with the pc if necessary.

FORMER TRAINING

As all modern courses and Academies have stressed basic skills as above for some time, no past training has been lost.

Those who learned R2-12 are much better fitted to do R3R and 3N than those who did not.

We look on any auditor today to be able to do repetitive processes but remember, that was sometimes a hard-won ability and old Book and Bottle was developed to assist it.

People who learned Pre-hav assessing or goals finding are definitely well progressed.

Anyone who can do the CCHs successfully will always find them handy.

So I count no training lost. And I am about to collect all earlier processes that worked on psychosomatic ills and publish them, since being careful not to do healing has not protected us at all and we might as well take over the medical profession for I now find that only their trade association has been firing at us in the press. So that opens up a use for almost all training on processes ever given.

If an auditor has learned the above basics he or she can easily do the long list of skills required for Clearing or OT.

CLEARING

We can clear to keyed-out clear or clear stably. I have considered it necessary to stress thorough clearing. We are on a longer road but a more certain and stable road when we erase the Time Track or sections of it. Clear is now Case Level 2.

The main goal, however, is OT, due to the general situation. When we were attacked I decided on a policy of:

1. 	Hold the line on the Legal Front and
2. 	Accelerate research to OT as our best means of handling the situation.

Both these policies are being successful in the extreme and I hope you agree with them.

By courtesy, one GPM run gives a first goal clear. No further test is done.

One chain of engrams completed is an R3R one-chain clear. This is easier than you might think.

Theta clear at this time is a Case Level 2 that is exterior.

OT is a Case Level 1 complete with skills rehabilitated.

The route to these states is very well established and is contained in the first list above.

HOURS OF PROCESSING

Cases require as many hours as they are located on the Case Level Scale. The lower they are the more hours they require. The higher they are the less they require.

As some index, I have had about 800 hours lately including all techniques from R2-12 forward, much of it purely research auditing on myself as a pc, developing procedures and getting line plots. Barely 250 hours of this was effective auditing. And I am definitely on the easy last half to OT.

In a period of about half that, Mary Sue achieved 10 goal clear and has just completed her first assessed R3R chain. This included all the R3 goals work, the research of R2-12 on her as a pc, as well as R3N and R3R. Effective Auditing, given the data now known, amounted to about 150 hours or less.

A guess to OT, given a skilled auditor and training on all modern data as above, and an able pc, would be less than 500 hours to a one chain R3R clear. This expectancy is being fulfilled on the Saint Hill Course for those now in Z Unit. To this would have to be added any processing time necessary to get the pc up to R3R. I consider that OT lies on the sunny side of 1,000 hours of processing now for cases that can be audited.

DIFFICULTY OF CLEARING

No case is really easy. A higher state attained is an uphill fight. So don’t underestimate the difficulty of clearing.

We went too long on the Time Track before developing and working at Scientology .

BUT we can do it. And it is a lot more than worthwhile—it is vital that we do do it. If we miss now, we may be finished. For there is no help elsewhere and there never has been this technology or any successful mental technology. And just now nobody cares but us. When we’ve succeeded all the way everybody will want on. But not yet.

My own job is very far from an end. The job of getting the purely technology developed and organized is practically over, unless you consider a recording of the full technology as part of the job. I’ve only recorded essentials and am just writing the last bulletins on those. But ahead is a vast panorama of research on other dynamics and enormous amounts of other technology.

LRH:dr.rd							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6307C10 SHSpec-282 Auditing Skills for R3R

[Some of the material in this tape is also to be found in HCOB 9Jul63 “A Technical Summary:  The Required Skills of Processing and Why”.]

We have the exact number of skills necessary to make an OT. Unfortunately they are not simple and they are numerous.  But they break down to about five skills, which must be perfect.  They are:

1. The ability to follow an auditing cycle.

2. The ability to give it repetitively.

3. The ability to read a meter very well.

4. The ability to read, understand, and follow the procedure of a bulletin.

5. The ability to get and keep a PC in session.  Any time an auditor cannot handle an upper-level procedure, it is because of the fact that he cannot do one of these five basic things.  As an auditing supervisor, knowing this will enable you to get auditing done.  If the auditor cannot get results with a process, it is one of these skills, not the process, is awry.  No amount of persuasion will overcome the lack of one of these skills.

You like to think that you are up against case level in training an auditor.  Low case level does make it harder to teach some people, but if you make that a criterion of whether you can train someone, you will lose.  There is no case requirement for training.  You mustn’t Q and A with the “I can’t” of someone.  If you make him do it, you make him right, not wrong.  To agree with the “I can’t” is Q and A’ing with his aberration. The D of T must never be permitted to refuse a student, because getting into the practice of doing so leads to limiting who can be trained to the point where no auditing gets done.  When the instructor says, “Yes, you can’t,” The instructor is invalidating the reactive mind, and the student’s ability to audit deteriorates rapidly.  It takes some people a little longer to get towards those basics and just do them, but if you keep at it, they will get there.

A complex technology like R3R will show up the weak points in any of your five basics.  For instance, given what you are handling in R3R, if you Q and A, you get major bad reactions.  2 and A occurs when the auditor doesn’t make his intention stick in the session.  He tends to become the effect of the PC.

The level of error is always stupidly elementary and has nothing to do with what process you are running or how complicated that is.  R3N and R3R look very complicated.  They have a lot of steps and lots of doingness.  But if you can do the basics of auditing, you will have no trouble.  It is fantastic to have a process that runs engrams by rote.  All that can give you real trouble in R3R is wrong date and wrong duration, which can result from faulty meter reading, or faulty dating procedure.  It is difficult for an expert meter reader to get dates and durations of engrams.  If the auditor can’t read the meter, well!!  “Wrong date doesn’t mean a minor wrongness.  It is something grossly wrong which rapidly snarls up the time track.  Wrong date produces bypassed charge and a grouped track.  The BPC is fantastic.  If a person has his attention on a date or something, it will tick, once, on the meter, even if it isn’t the right date.  Hence you can Q and A.  You might say that a dub-in case is just someone who has his dates mixed up.  You could probably cure dub-in by accurate dating.  

Nothing drives the PC battier than to have a wrong duration.  Say the incident is really a trillion years long and you give him a duration of two days.  The PC tries in vain to find the beginning of the incident.  He can’t, because he is looking at something that happened two days before, so it stays all black and gruesome.  When you get that phenomenon, you re-duration the incident.  What made R3R workable is that “a PC has perception on any incident that is properly dated and durationed.” That is where perceptics lie.  There are only three reasons for no perception:

1. Wrong date.

2. Wrong duration.

3. It has a GPM in it.  Wrong assessment and overrun (chain already flat) give you no TA, but not necessarily no perception.  The incident can get obscured if it has a GPM in it because black energy goes up and obscures the engram.  This was caused by the PC’s protest in the incident.  When lights go off in an incident, look for a GPM.  If that happens, you have to get the PC to straighten out the GPM, by taking him to the first pair of items in it.  Get the motion out, pick up another pair of items, get the TA motion off that pair, etc.  Just clean it up rapidly, then run it as an engram.  It is never very long or very difficult to run.

There is a point where R3R and R3N cross.  Start the case on R3R and pick up any implants that turned up while running R3R.  Check for an implant on the duration step.  If you get onto the Helatrobus implant, clean them up! Get the first pair of items and discharge them with rocket reads, etc., then go back to R3R.  Use R3N as the adjunct it is.

There are some technical details that you have to know.  These include:

1. How to assess an ARC break.

2. What list(s) one should use.

3. Ability to do an accurate and thorough L and N, to a complete, but not overlisted list.

  The source of ARC breaks on lists is incompleteness of lists.  You can, however, assess a prepared, arbitrary list without fear of having the “incomplete list phenomena” turn on, because the PC never started the list, so it isn’t complete.  But in a regular list, in order to get the items, you do have to be able to do L and N, which includes metering.

If you are having trouble with R3R, be sure that your difficulties do not stem from troubles with getting in ruds or, say, writing while watching the meter.  Learn to audit by fundamentals, and you will have no trouble with a procedure that just combines the fundamentals.  Your main danger as an auditor is being too complicated.  Recognize that the simplicities of the game are what make it hang together and work.

Wrong date and wrong duration are the only things that give you trouble. Wrong assessment is very junior and generally just gives you no TA.  Because wrong date and wrong duration are such lies, it is difficult for the PC to as-is them.  And what happens to the track when you move to a wrong date?

It is very hard to get the right date and duration to read, even when the PC is in session and you are on the right chain.  Date is easier than duration, because the beginning of the incident is so hard for PCs to see, especially at the beginning.  One source of a wrong assessment is overrun, when you try to go earlier than basic.  Case Levels 5, 6, and 7 [See pp. 414-415, above.] all have a channel through the bank on which the PC has reality, where he can be run on engrams without dub-in, using R3R.  So if you find that channel and run the PC in it, the PC wins and can go on up.

6307C16 SHSpec-284A & B Preliminary Steps of R3R

[This is a demo session, on two sides of a tape, of LRH auditing MSH, doing the preliminary assessment for R3R, as given in HCOB 1Ju163 “Routine 3R, Bulletin 4:  Preliminary Step”.] 

6307C11 SHSpec-283 ARC Breaks

The trouble with ARC break assessments is that you will generally have to do them on a PC with a dirty needle.  Don’t suppose you can or should clean up the needle first, since all dirty needles are ARC breaks.  You don’t try to clean the needle and then assess for the ARC break.  The only thing that will clean up the ARC break is the list.  All you have to do is to follow very strictly the rule of the instant read and never miss.  An auditor who could do that would be a pearl, and that makes ARC break assessment a splendid training device.

If there were no ARC breaks on the person’s track, the fact of a button going out would not cause a dirty needle.  For instance, “suppress “ reads because it is sitting on a chain of ARC breaks.  There are two elements here:

1. The thetan’s reaction to the experience he has bad with MEST and significance.

2. The MEST and significance itself.

“Nothing has to be observed in order to be.” [Cf. Bishop Berkeley and his tree falling in the middle of the forest.] A thetan’s reaction to MEST and significance must involve some contact with it.  But it can exist without being perceived.  The relation between the MEST + significance and the thetan’s reaction is communication.  To be affected by something, one must communicate with it or knowingly not communicate with it.  This fact eliminates a lot of philosophical baloney.  A deliberate not-know of something can get a thetan in trouble.  What gets the thetan in trouble is that he has been there and didn’t communicate, and he made a picture of it or protested it, and now he doesn’t want to confront the picture either, because the significance in the picture has been added to by his reaction of not wanting to communicate to it.  So a thetan’s reaction becomes part of all observed or carefully not observed MEST + significance.  This, then, is the new significance of the thetan’s reaction at the time, which, made into a mental image picture, becomes the time track.

The past is different from the present in that the thetan’s picture of the past has had the thetan’s reaction added into it.  In mockups of future track, hope or hopelessness is also added in, so the future also has reaction added into it.  It is not often made up into pictures, though it sometimes is.  It is just whole cloth dream-ups, not pressures against the physical universe or actual pictures.  However, you can cause somebody to run future track.

So what you are auditing is a thetan’s reactions to events.

GPM’s, with their balanced masses, float on the track and seem to be in PT to the PC.  If you want to horrify someone, scatter him out of a PT that the PC thinks is right there.  If you can’t get a read on dating a facsimile that you know is there, ask if it is tomorrow or yesterday.  This will shake the PC out of PT, and you will get a read.  However, the PC usually ARC breaks when you do this. You are dealing with a past that seems to be a present time that requires a reaction to it but has already got a reaction in it.  So a thetan takes his reaction out of the past incident and wears it in present time, and you have the factor of restimulation of reaction.  His reaction of the past becomes his reaction to the present.

When you have audited an engram, the PC’s reaction to the engram becomes part of the session time track.  It gives a faint shadow of a read if you get the PC to spot it again.  It is not really charged; it is just the action pattern of the observed present.  You might even be able to get another rocket read out of a Helatrobus implant series.  At any given instant of the time track, you can rekindle any given reaction.  The time track has reaction added to it, making it different from PT.  PT doesn’t have reaction in it, except as borrowed from the track or added by the thetan.  You could lay out some stretch of time in which you deliberately added happiness to everything.  If you get someone to audit you through that time a few days later, you will get a ridiculous amount of happiness.  The guy who is always looking for happiness and not finding it simply doesn’t put any happiness into PT.
When you are supposed to react favorably or hopefully, but you don’t feel that way, the confusion of conflicting significances can be so great that the whole situation seems very unreal, and you want nothing more to do with it, and it can chew on the back of your neck from then on.  You say, “I won’t look at it,” and put it away on automatic.  If you don’t stir it up, life will.

You can get things to persist just by postulating, “It will persist.” Otherwise, you can only get persistence with a lie.

The thetan’s reaction to a MEST + significance is about the reality (R) and results in a feeling of affinity or mis-affinity (A). This reaction is communication (C), and it is a bridge between the thetan and the MEST + significance.

The reaction is monitored by past ARC, or lack of it, concerning similar MEST + significance of the past.

This assumes that the PC can maintain a detached attitude.  Then it is simple.  But say your PC’s needle is nice and clean, and you ask him to recall an ARC break.  That is a moment of miscommunication, a time when some charge was bypassed, which has been restimulated.  The PC attributes the ARC break to something other than the actual BPC, which introduces a lie into the situation and causes the ARC break to persist.  Time condenses, as the PC’s reaction to the MEST + significance prevents him from retaining a detached attitude about it all.  If you are involved in the middle of the battle, there is no time to retain a detached attitude.  You put it on a total reaction.  This is caused by a condensation of time.  What we really get the brunt of in this universe is an insufficiency of time.  You get that by staying on the time track.  

If you start protesting time, you get “too much time” on your hands. Actually, this is an unwanted location that is blamed on time.  You start protesting time when you have an unwanted location.  The basic lie on the track is to confuse time and location.  A few trillion trillion years ago, you probably didn’t stick on the time track.  The further back you go, the less you were fixed into present time.  You were slippery on the subject and could go yesterday and tomorrow at will, as with the time machines in science fiction.  An CT is the only real time machine.  You can’t change the past and future without recreating it.

You weren’t necessarily surrounded with the environment of PT.  This was very useful.  You could slip around all over the place.  However, the drawback was that since no one was fixed in time, you couldn’t stay in communication very easily, and a certain impatience was generated.  You got unpopular because you couldn’t be fixed in one spot to be communicated with.  Only implants could “cure” this.  There had to be major louse-ups to cause aberration on the subject.  Only GPM implants could do it.

If you have fixed time, you get a fixed reaction, because it is an enforced thereness.  You can’t drift out of the incident.  You have very little time.  And it is the unwanted absence or presence of time that gives all problems.  You could clean up problems by running, “Tell me a problem you have had.  What time was awry there?  Where was there too much/too little time?” This isn’t especially workable, being rather limited, but you could probably get some changes, shred the bank a bit, and move him on the track. Time is made insufficient by economics.  You could also adjust problems by attack on location -- less effectively, but you could.  You can actually find the spot in space and do reach and withdraw.  That is why spotting spots in space works.  If someone had an accident with a car and a tree, you could run reach and withdraw on the car and the tree.

All impact is based on a scarcity of time.

You need some very complex mechanisms to cause facsimiles to stay with a person in PT, “bothering them all the time, with them reacting against them all the time, to build up a tremendous lot of reactions, which then becomes the personality of the individual.  That’s the only trick” -- that is the chief engram.  That is what makes engrams unrunnable.  But now, with R3R, we can run them.

Your reaction to MEST + significance is couched in various ways.  Where those reactions tend to not communicate or to obsessively communicate, you rough up energy.  Then it stays in the picture.  I.e. it is flowing at one foot per second and you get it flowing at three feet per second, but it isn’t really flowing that fast, or you prevent it from flowing at one foot per second and make it flow at one inch per second.  I.e. the normal course of flows is interrupted because of the existence of a problem, or an obsession to be at it or a feeling that you have got to get away from it or that it is bad.  The result is that you bypass charge.  It is former reactions that get rekindled there, which then throw old pictures into restimulation.  Since the PC doesn’t spot the old pictures, the present reaction is somewhat inexplicable, and he misses the charge.  The auditor locates and indicates it, and the PC feels better.  What has been handled is not the facsimile itself, but the reaction factor part, which, since it is the thetan’s reaction, is the part most intimate to him.  

It is similarity of reaction, therefore, that pulls in earlier similars. [Cf. getting the emotion, somatic, or attitude and running chains of that.] “The only thing that caused a restimulation of yesterday’s charge was the fact that you reacted the same way today that you reacted yesterday.  The devil with the situation.  The reaction was the same [and, for that reason] you pulled in yesterday’s situation ... and didn’t even know it....  You’re not ... interested in running out yesterday’s association as a facsimile. [All you want is] to clip out one little piece of it, which is reaction, ... a reactionectomy.” When you indicate the charge, you are actually matched-terminalling the past reaction and the present reaction, and they can go, “Bzzzt!”, and the reaction or charge can vanish.  That is all you handle with an ARC break assessment, not the facsimile of yesterday’s MEST + significance.  You don’t have to know any more than that there was an earlier similar ARC break.

The way to get a PC into an incident is to ask him to find the largest object in it and tell you about it.  He will go right into the incident.

The thetan’s reaction to a MEST + significance is manifested as ARC. Your and my “quarrels with many things that are wrong with the world is because our reactions are quite different [from] other people’s reactions to the same things.” [Hence, “To know everything is to forgive everything.” You get down past the reactions to the actual MEST + significance.] On an ARC break, all you handle is reactions, not facsimiles.  In other words, you don’t run R3R on ARC breaks, you handle reactions.  The ARC break assessment lists are just lists of bypassable charge, so they vary, depending on what activity you are engaged in.

ARC breaks never rekindle until they key in.  “An ARC break is always a key-in.  It is never the fact, but the followup.” You can almost always get the missed withhold question to read on the ARC break assessment list, because that is the common denominator of ARC breaks.  It requires a missed withhold to key in an ARC break.  There could be something far more fundamental than the missed withhold, which won’t read because of the PC’s preoccupation with the missed withhold.  You can run the missed withhold and then still have to run the ARC break.  If all you find is the key-in, not the correct bypassed charge, the ARC break just keys in all the more.  The missed withhold only keyed it in.  On bypassed charge lists, you may find the key-in and still have to run out the charge. [Cf.  getting in buttons in ruds, etc.] So “missed withhold” will read on almost any list it is on.  But there is most likely more that has to be found.  You should continue the list, or reassess.  Make sure that you are using the right list.  If nothing reads, you are on the wrong list.

All you have to do to clear up an ARC break is to locate and indicate the correct bypassed charge.  If it takes more than that, you didn’t find the correct bypassed charge.  If you don’t know that, you will give up using the system because you think that it is not invariably workable.  One reason for a failure to cure an ARC break is using the wrong list for assessment.  This could happen if there was a little time spent on some other action which you and the PC had forgotten about.  

6307C16 SHSpec-255 Tips on Running R3R

Auditing engrams and GPM’s is a new world to many auditors, especially to those who learned a different kind of engram handling.  This doesn’t invalidate yesterday’s techniques.  They have their place, especially in the field of healing.  We can heal things, although we have neglected this area of responsibility, for which reason we are being attacked in the area.  So we will collect and publish what we can do.  R2-12, for instance, can have fantastic results, when done as a limited process.  Just don’t do more than four oppositions on one item.  Get one RI do two or three oppositions and be happy with it.  The PC has been beaten down by his experiences on the whole track.  He thinks nothing good can happen in the universe.  When one goodness occurs, it is almost too much for him to have.  That is a different zone of expectancy from making clears and OT’s.  People wouldn’t be able to conceive what you meant if you said that you were making clears and OT’s, although in fact they would believe you and feel very uneasy about it.  You would have restimulated bypassed charge, and they will always get cross with you.

In all auditing, don’t stir up more charge than you can handle.  If you apply that to any process you run or to any program you formulate, you will have happy PC’s.  The worse off a case is, the less you stir up.  This goes directly in the teeth of the Q and A that is yesteryear’s “mental sciences”. The effect scale has to be observed.  At low levels, the person cannot receive much of an effect, so you have to featherweight the effect to let the PC receive it.  The more desperate the case, the more featherweight the cure.

The technology of the preliminary assessment step for R3R lowers the level on which it will be effective.  That bypasses the ordinary defenses of the mind.  So when you do such an assessment, the rule of not stirring up more charge than you can handle applies in neon lights, if you are auditing a case at Level 7, 6, or 5. [See pp. 414-415, above, for a description of these levels.] This person doesn’t easily run engrams.  The assessment has located the only tiny channel on the time track where the PC can confront engrams and on which you will not find dub-in.  That is the basis on which the process has been developed.  A case at Level 3 [See p. 414, above.  This is the case with a partially visible time track.  can be run on any engram you can find and won’t be particularly upset or damaged by a wrong date or other error.  But a case at Level 6 [Dub-in of dub-in case] has a barge canal a sixteenth of an inch wider than your barge and full of roots, old stoves, and curves.  On that channel, there is no dub-in of dub-in, and with a correct assessment, the case will have perceptics.  This gives you the responsibility of handling the case very carefully, by the rule of not stirring up more charge than you can handle, because at this level, there is no process that will put the case back together again if it falls apart.  

The lower the case level, the fewer incidents you will find per preliminary step.  The “chain” may be only one incident long.  Test your level after you have run an incident.  If it doesn’t read and the PC has had some sort of cognition about it, don’t choose this time to go backtrack.  If you have an incident that the PC can run, it doesn’t matter how long ago the incident was.  If he gets TA on it, runs OK, and that is all there is to the incident, and if there are no problems finding the date and duration, and if there is no read on asking for an earlier incident, fine.  Do another assessment.  Things are more likely to run longer with an upper-level case. The clue to whether the chain is flat is TA action, not how far back basic is.  To find out if you have run the TA out of the chain, be sure that the TA didn’t cease because of wrong date, wrong duration, or a GPM in the incident. If none of those apply, leave it.  Those are the criteria of a flattened chain.

The Helatrobus implant goes as far back as 43 trillion years ago.

The situation of having the TA cease is not the same as the situation of not having gotten any TA.  The only reason that you have trouble with running a case, with no TA and ARC breaks, comes down to these factors:

1. Wrong assessment.

2. Wrong date.

3. Wrong duration.

4. A GPM in the incident that you are trying to run, that you have collided with but have not found out about, so you have been trying to scan the PC through the items of the GPM.

The worse off the case is, the weirder the assessments will look to you. The PC may run something well that is from the backtrack and still be a low-level case, so don’t take the recentness of the incident as adjudicative of case level.  Dating anything beyond an easily available incident becomes very difficult.  You are very likely to mis-date and pass by incidents, and the PC will know it, too.  GPM’s are hard to date anyway, being timeless, and a PC will have trouble staying in a place on the time track.  This can also happen with upper-level cases, but they can take it.  A lower-level case will plow in thoroughly.

The preliminary steps, on a Level 4 [See above].  This is a dub-in case.  or Level 3, lead inevitably to a GPM.  It is about the fastest way to find a goal you ever heard of.  If the case is running well, you can probably run the whole goals series right there.  Any trouble you have with running a case all goes back to the four factors given above.  Wrong assessment includes running something that has not been assessed.  On a lower-level case, you can spend more time assessing than running the engrams.  Test the level, after you have something flat.  Don’t run over the PC’s head.  When you have flattened the chain, leave it.  The worse off the case is, the more it moves from nonsense to murder, so don’t muddy the little channel you have to work in. Listen to what the PC tells you about what he wants to run, but assess, before you run it.

The way you make work for yourself as an auditor is by doing things that you shouldn’t be doing. For instance, don’t mix R3N and R3R.  Don’t switch from one to the other by mistake.  

There is a point on the track where you can get back of and find the basic of all GPM’s.  “I’ve hit that point.  I haven’t got it so I can hold it steady....  I got there by the way by keying out....  Had an awful time, recently, working out the most vicious series of GPM’s on the track.  There are five pictures, but the first one is invisible.  No goal with them.  Just opposing items in dichotomy, four firing five times in a row for each picture.  I ran into myself on the track trying to figure this out.  I gave up.  Took two sessions to get it unwound, and the first picture is invisible, so you’d always try to put a picture there, so basic is always missing.  It makes a vacuum, and pictures pour in.  That’s why later GPM’s accumulate pictures.  You get in the habit.” This is the vacuum that holds the whole bank together.  When he contacted this, LRH could hear GPM’s coming apart all the way down to PT.  Obviously, you don’t try something like this on a lower-level PC.

Desperate conditions are hard to maintain in the face of featherweight touches, but heavier measures, like bypassing too many goals in R3N, won’t help the case.  It is always OK to push a PC a little heavier than they can go, but the rougher the case, the less they can take.  The ARC break is a good test.  If the PC ARC breaks regularly, don’t always blame yourself, except for overestimating the state of case and running the process too steep.  There is no real excuse for running a PC poorly.  But if you put the PC in an available channel, he will run like a doll buggy, if you run him right.  Do a careful assessment after every flattened chain, checking carefully for wrong date or duration or a GPM in it.  PC’s that don’t assess easily on the standard scale can be gotten to extend it.  “Auditing is as easy to do as it is real to the PC.” 

6307C17 SHSpec-286 Dating

“Accuracy in dating is the single most important function of the auditor.” Since last October, LRH has been studying something with intensity. It took the preceding couple of years to determine that goals and related mental phenomena come down to engrams and the time track.  The difficulty with running engrams from 1950 on was the number of cases that couldn’t run the time track.  Years were spent on improving cases.  In October, the time track assumed greater importance, up to the point where LRH discovered that the GPM was an implant.

At that point, we had to discover whether or not a person could go clear without running the time track and engrams.  There had already been a lot of failures with getting people to run on the time track.  LRH has always operated on the assumption that everyone could make it to OT.  A few weeks ago he had to consider whether only fifty percent could go on to OT.  This was a serious question, which he had never before wondered about.  Research since October has been very rough.  It has had to be done more rapidly, because it was obvious that we didn’t have much time left, as proven by the January FDA raid.  That was one reason that LRH decided to bypass clear and go for OT.

Clear is an an aberrated, comfortable human state which society can accept.  OT is something else.  It is like making a “playground supervisor” vs. a “commando”.  With the government attack on scientology, we had no time margin to let us take care of clear first, then go for OT.  So we are into research concerning how to make an OT.  When you accelerate research, you get problems, because you have taken time out where you need time.  In the last few months, the work LRH has done per unit of time exceeds anything previously attempted. The fact that “if you can’t run the time track, you’ll never get to OT” emerged.  However, what also emerged was that with R3R, if you get the right chain with the right date and duration, you can get anyone to run with sonic and visio.  That wasn’t a solution unless the PC also got TA action.

TA action is the key to all case progress, because it measures charge blown, hence improved reality and better ability to confront the track.  The PC’s reality must improve, or he can’t go any earlier on the track.  If you process someone without TA, you would be doing him more good by taking him for a walk in the park.  “TA motion tells you how much mass you are discharging off the reactive bank.” Where TA is not moving, you are not discharging mass. You can tell in the records that this is happening by observing that the same goals are being set for every session, and the PC is getting only lukewarm gains.  That co-ordinates with no TA action.  That was what caused LRH to wonder if fifty percent would never make it to OT.

There was the thin hope that, by running lower level processes, you could get enough charge off so that the PC could run track with TA.  It was a pretty frail hope.  Doing this could produce keyed-out clears, but that is not good enough.  The world is going down fast, and no new solutions are appearing to handle crises.  We are the only new factor in the world.  In order to meet the present situation, the scientologist in the U.S. will have to produce at least spectacular case results or a spectacular being.

The problem now is: what is absence of TA?  “TA action disappears off a case to the degree that time is in error.” And there is the answer.  TA “does not cease because you have run a wrong goal,” or from ARC breaks, or a failure to run a GPM.  It is because of wrong time.  “Time is the single source of human aberration.” This datum now emerges as a more important truth than we had realized.  “The GPM is totally devoted to scrambling someone’s time.” So if you can’t get the GPM’s off the case, you can’t unaberrate him.  GPM’s are hard to date, but they must be gotten off the case.

GPM’s have a characteristic sound.  There is a slow statement of the goal; in earlier GPM’s, this was preceded by a “Crack!” So they sounded like this, “Spat! ss-ss-ss-ss-ss-ss ... Spat! ... Non - sen - si - cal - ly ... Spat!” Part of the aberrative factor is the PC’s effort to speed it up, to get it to run at a speed that he is comfortable with.  He is speedy.  Sometimes people can’t get rocket reads off of items because they don’t duplicate the speed of the items.  They go very slowly, the the thetan thinks, “why doesn’t it get over with?”

The double-firing principle of GPM’s also messed up the thetan and hung him up in time.  It gave a positive or negative charge to two opposing sentiments.  It hit him from the right and from the left.  It made him feel as though he couldn’t move but had to move to get out of the way of it.  He would also get into a time-scrambler.  The total purpose of the GPM was to scramble time.  GPM engrams are the hardest engrams to date.

A PC can’t scan through a GPM.  You have to use repeater technique, because if you try to scan through it, it all goes black, because the PC protested it all the way through.  In running it, you rekindle the protest he had when he got the implant.  That turns the engram black.  Then you can’t see anything in it, and he can’t move on the track, and he is all frozen up in the thing.  

The only thing that stops TA action is wrong dates, wrong time.  And no TA action equals no processing.  The perfection of your auditing alone won’t solve this.  So dating accurately is necessary to get TA action.  This doesn’t mean dating down to the last microsecond.  Your errors are the gross ones, e.g. dating something at 945 years ago, and it is really 145 trillion years ago.  Very approximate dates back in the trillions of trillions of years ago is vastly sloppy, but it is successful enough to get TA.

To straighten out a case where the TA has ceased, you clean up “On time, in auditing” or “On dating”, with an eighteen-button prepcheck.  You should also clean “Wrong dates” and “wrong time” as long as the needle is rough on the subject.  This could in or out of auditing.  You handle by:

1. Finding when the wrong dates were found: times when things were wrongly dated.  You don’t, at first, redate these things.

2. When that is all cleaned up, run down what was wrongly dated and clean it up with the PC, even if you have to redate it.  You will see TA action restored to the case.  You want wrong dates that the PC guessed at or assumed earlier in auditing.  You continue to clean up the area until the needle is really clean and all the wrongness and upset has been cleared out of the way.  Now the PC will date easily.  Someone who is an auditor will also need the wrong dates that he has found on PC’s and his anxiety on the subject all cleaned up, too.

If you got the right date and right duration, you will get perception. If the incident has a GPM in it, the perception goes off because you have restimulated the PC’s protest.  Dub-in itself is simply a phenomenon of wrong dates.  You could produce the effect of dub-in by deliberately giving the PC a wrong date and wrong duration and sending him to the wrong point on the track.  Then you will get a collection of apparently dubbed-in pictures and no TA.

Wrong items are tough on a PC.  Wrong line plots are a result of wrong time.  Sometimes you will flatten a chain, and the TA will go up.  This has something to do with wrong dates more deeply seated in the case than you can overcome without reassessment.  The PC has overstepped his own reality.

If the PC has trouble whenever he goes on the backtrack, because it is all unreal and he can’t believe it, what is his wrong date?  It is the notion that life began at birth.  His error on time is on the length of the time track.  This is a trap mechanism.  Clean up all his considerations on the subject, and his ability to run track will change.  Look at the entrapment value of this limited-track business and see how much fuss current society’s savants make about past lives!  No one protests against truth unless they have a vested interest in maintaining a lie.

Every PC tends to get their track tolerance extended as they find correct dates in the portion of the track that they can run fairly easily.  Any case will hit a ceiling of reality on the subject of dating, but people only creak to the degree that there is wrong time.

A wrong date can sneak in on you without your doing any dating.  For instance, you assume that a certain GPM is in the Helatrobus implant, when it is really a goal that is much closer to PT.  By running it with the Helatrobus line plot, you have incorrectly dated it.  

Never leave a wrong goal, or, even more importantly, a wrong date on a case.  If the case has been run on R3R and TA action is doubtful, clean up wrong dates and all possible charge on the subject of dates, dating, etc.  If a case is getting TA action, don’t harass the PC about it, but if there are ARC breaks, look into wrong time, always.  Also look into wrong assessment.

Some cases are very nervy about time and wrong dates.  They can hardly take it if you make a small error on a date.  Getting all the dates straightened out will improve this case, even if nothing is run.  Don’t invalidate the PC by checking all his dates.  Do it periodically, just checking for wrong dates every now and then, in session.  Date things in terms on “years ago”, since the PC has been on other planets with dating systems that are different from Earth’s AD and BC.

The “wrong date” phenomena extend to other parts of auditing.  For instance, the PC may be doing an objective process, walking through the room, through facsimiles of Maypoles.  Merely in the act of doing that, the PC gets reality on the room and gets the PC date, which straightens out the track to that extent.  You could date the facsimiles, whenever the PC hits one and then return the PC to walking around the room.  You could probably take a case that couldn’t remember half of this lifetime and accurately date things.  This would give him tremendous reality on things that he had never remembered before.

6307C18 SHSpec-287 Errors in Time

The insistence on having lived only once seems odd.  It takes more than a GPM to produce such frenzy on the subject.  Behind all aberration and illness there must be a lie.  “Aberration cannot exist in the presence of truth.”

Pavlov apparently never noticed that reward was one of the stimuli that he was observing.  Communism, based on Pavlov and the physiological nature of man, becomes disastrous when practiced.  Pavlov did a total anatomy of punishment, but left out reward.  Capitalism works only because no one analyzed it, and pay is still part of the system.  If capitalism were earnest about fighting communism, it would dig up such truths and promulgate them. Punishment does not uniformly control response at all.  It is not a constant. Not all beings succumb to a threat of punishment.  The reward part of existence is at least as important.  Men will do more for reward than to avoid punishment.  The more that reward is taken away, e.g. by taxation, the more difficulty society gets into.  The lie that Man is a driven animal is destroying the social structure of Man.

As long as you are trying to isolate the truth, you will be 0K, no matter how much trouble you have in getting at the truth.  The trouble starts when you settle on a lie and stop looking for truth.  You can have misconceptions and still not go nuts, but when you settle on a lie and say that that is the truth, you have had it.  The lie will pervade your life.  It takes a lie of the “only lived once” magnitude to continue the aberration of Man.  To maintain such a lie must take a fantastic amount of duress.  Someone must be working at it.  All psychosomatic healing could probably be done by finding the lie about the somatic.  For instance, you could use the command, “Recall a lie behind (the psychosomatic).”  

What would be the most disastrous type of lie?  It would be one about time.  Here is how to aberrate someone:  give him a false time track.  Implant him with a false past, complete with pictures and times, times in the order of magnitude of a thetan’s actual existence of trillions and trillions of years. Only wrong time will freeze a case, as reflected in frozen TA.  So this must be a pervasive common denominator of aberration.  This suggests processes, like “Recall a lie about time,” or dating everything in the PC’s lifetime. Hence the importance of history.  With this view of the subject of time, LRH investigated to see if someone earlier had played around with people’s time in the past.  Sure enough, there were implanted times and areas of track where time was utterly confused and incomprehensible.  You could get a guy fixed up with enough false pasts that he would dramatize them.  He would get the opinion that he should never return on the time track because it is too dangerous or too confusing.  You could confuse the guy further by giving him some incomprehensible dates.

R3R is good enough to be able to find a moment when a false past was installed, date it, and find its duration and then run it out.  The incident pretends to be trillions of years long when it was really two or three hours long.  The common denominator of these incidents is that the point where you approached is commonly repeated in the incident.  One moment is actual; the other is a picture of it in the incident.  So you get two beginnings as well as two departures, commonly.  Such implants also have a mechanism showing troops marching to the PC (the beginning) and troops marching away (the end), with numbers running along the sides of these implanted pictures to give their times.  The implant will often have these pictures of beginning and end reversed.  It is very confusing.

The way you can tell false track is that it really doesn’t move.  There is no time in false track for all the details between major events, and the sound is seldom included.  True time track is more sequitur, but can have periods of anaten.  The reason the PC is likely to be on false track is that most of it, except for the beginning and end points, is safer and less uncomfortable than actual track.

False track is a lie about time.  It may have dates neatly placed on the sides.  One thing you can say about false track is that no GPM is on false track.  This would be pointless.  They may be implants, but they are not on false track.  So if you are running a GPM, it is not the false time track. You can find GPM’s and date them.  There are two things that you want to know when you find an incident and date it:

1. Does it contain opposite-firing items, in which case it is a GPM.

2. Does it contain any false past?  You need this data, discouraging though it seems to say so.  On false track, be especially alert for false date and duration.

The Darwinian theory is just an implant, putting out the idea that Man is mud.  It starts with a goal: “to persist”.  They have you in a cell, so they start by showing you being in a cell.  Then they show you pictures of your arriving in the cell to be implanted.  Then they show you, complete with pictures like a movie, all that has happened to you.  This is background data that lets you know how mean you are.  Then they show you being implanted. While you are watching, you are having the Hell picked out of you by electronic mass stacking around your body.  You are hit with electronic waves, and the mass becomes associated with the pictures.  Nothing at all is said.  There is no sonic in this incident.  Some false pasts do have sonic, but beware of running things in these incidents that aren’t there.  The Darwinian implant makes evolution appear true, but it isn’t.  When there are horses on a planet, it is because someone came along and mocked up some horses.

This sort of false past implant was done a lot before the Helatrobus implants.  Some was also done after the Helatrobus implants.  You have to know about this in order to get dates corrected.  You have to know that some are false, not just wrong.  Look for false pasts, not false dates, per se.  The time track can also contain a false future.  Fortune tellers practice this to this day.  Someone who is always trying to know the future is just dramatizing a false future implant.

Sound and motion are seldom found in false track incidents.  Rather, these incidents tend to jump from still to still, more like lantern slides than a movie.  The Helatrobus, Dear, Gorilla, and Glade implants don’t use pictures. The Helatrobus implant only uses pictures of a railway and a house. In the Gorilla and Bear implants, they have a guy with a pink striped shirt, with a monkey, or sometimes a gorilla, that they put on the cart with you. This is not the same as getting a whole set of pictures that purport to be your past or future, while getting electronic blasts.

False track can get in the way of running actual track.  Some of it is pretty incredible, but if “false past” doesn’t read, go ahead and run it.  Run it anyway, even if it is false.  Maybe you will be able to find the real beginning.  However, it is hard to find the beginning of a false-past incident.

When you run across something in a session, handle it, but don’t louse up your PC.  When you start correcting dates, you will run into false pasts and futures.  So beware of re-dating.  Just get in and clean up first the fact that it is a false past and run it, so you won’t have it in the way.  If you locate a source of wrong dates, don’t ask for another source of wrong dates. Run the one you have.  Here is a rule:  When you have your hands on an incident that contains a false past or future, run it with R3R to get it off the track.  Get its actual duration.  The real beginning of the incident and also its end are hard to find, since such incidents generally have two beginnings and two ends.  Don’t do anything extraordinary.  Just be prepared to re-duration it if necessary.  Don’t just re-date it and leave it, because thousands of dates will have been restimulated in the course of auditing, and finding it again will be difficult, apart from the fact that that incident is all you should run anyway until you have run it out.  So when you have your hands on something, handle it.  Don’t leave the PC struggling with it while you try to do something else.

Remember that your major auditing cycle is to accomplish some particular result on the PC.  If you get into something outside the perimeter of what you were going to do, don’t neglect it, because it may never show up again. When you have found the source of the PC’s upset, what else is there to find?  If you invalidate the source, how will you accomplish you major purpose?  Don’t bypass achieving what you set out to do.  A cognition can signal the end of your major auditing cycle.  

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 JULY 1963
MA
Franchise
BPI
YOU CAN BE RIGHT

Rightness and wrongness form a common source of argument and struggle.

The concept of rightness reaches very high and very low on the Tone Scale.

And the effort to be right is the last conscious striving of an individual on the way out. I-am-right-and-they-are-wrong is the lowest concept that can be formulated by an unaware case.

What is right and what is wrong are not necessarily definable for everyone. These vary according to existing moral codes and disciplines and, before Scientology, despite their use in law as a test of “sanity”, had no basis in fact but only in opinion.

In Dianetics and Scientology a more precise definition arose. And the definition became as well the true definition of an overt act. An overt act is not just injuring someone or something: an overt act is an act of omission or commission which does the least good for the least number of dynamics or the most harm to the greatest number of dynamics. (See the Eight Dynamics.)

Thus a wrong action is wrong to the degree that it harms the greatest number of dynamics. And a right action is right to the degree that it benefits the greatest number of dynamics.

Many people think that an action is an overt simply because it is destructive. To them all destructive actions or omissions are overt acts. This is not true. For an act of commission or omission to be an overt act it must harm the greater number of dynamics. A failure to destroy can be, therefore, an overt act. Assistance to something that would harm a greater number of dynamics can also be an overt act.

An overt act is something that harms broadly. A beneficial act is something that helps broadly. It can be a beneficial act to harm something that would be harmful to the greater number of dynamics.

Harming everything and helping everything alike can be overt acts. Helping certain things and harming certain things alike can be beneficial acts.

The idea of not harming anything and helping everything are alike rather mad. It is doubtful if you would think helping enslaves was a beneficial action and equally doubtful if you would consider the destruction of a disease an overt act.

In the matter of being right or being wrong, a lot of muddy thinking can develop. There are no absolute rights or absolute wrongs. And being right does not consist of being unwilling to harm and being wrong does not consist only of not harming.

There is an irrationality about “being right” which not only throws out the validity of the legal test of sanity but also explains why some people do very wrong things and insist they are doing right.

The answer lies in an impulse, inborn in everyone, to try to be right. This is an insistence which rapidly becomes divorced from right action. And it is accompanied by an effort to make others wrong, as we see in hypercritical cases. A being who is apparently unconscious is still being right and making others wrong. It is the last criticism.

We have seen a “defensive person” explaining away the most flagrant wrongnesses. This is “justification” as well. Most explanations of conduct, no matter how far-fetched, seem perfectly right to the person making them since he or she is only asserting self-rightness and other-wrongness.

We have long said that that which is not admired tends to persist. If no one admires a person for being right, then that person’s “brand of being right” will persist, no matter how mad it sounds. Scientists who are aberrated cannot seem to get many theories. They do not because they are more interested in insisting on their own odd rightnesses than they are in finding truth. Thus we get strange “scientific truths” from men who should know better, including the late Einstein. Truth is built by those who have the breadth and balance to see also where they’re wrong.

You have heard some very absurd arguments out among the crowd. Realize that the speaker was more interested in asserting his or her own rightness than in being right.

A thetan tries to be right and fights being wrong. This is without regard to being right about something or to do actual right. It is an insistence which has no concern with a rightness of conduct.

One tries to be right always, right down to the last spark.

How then, is one ever wrong?

It is this way:

One does a wrong action, accidentally or through oversight. The wrongness of the action or inaction is then in conflict with one’s necessity to be right. So one then may continue and repeat the wrong action to prove it is right.

This is a fundamental of aberration. All wrong actions are the result of an error followed by an insistence on having been right. Instead of righting the error (which would involve being wrong) one insists the error was a right action and so repeats it.

As a being goes down scale it is harder and harder to admit having been wrong. Nay, such an admission could well be disastrous to any remaining ability or sanity.

For rightness is the stuff of which survival is made. And as one approaches the last ebb of survival one can only insist on having been right, for to believe for a moment one has been wrong is to court oblivion.

The last defense of any being is “I was right”. That applies to anyone. When that defense crumbles, the lights go out.

So we are faced with the unlovely picture of asserted rightness in the face of flagrant wrongness. And any success in making the being realize their wrongness results in an immediate degradation, unconsciousness, or at best a loss of personality. Pavlov, Freud, psychiatry alike never grasped the delicacy of these facts and so evaluated and punished the criminal and insane into further criminality and insanity.

All justice today contains in it this hidden error—that the last defense is a belief in personal rightness regardless of charges and evidence alike, and that the effort to make another wrong results only in degradation.

But all this would be a hopeless impasse leading to highly chaotic social conditions were it not for one saving fact:

All repeated and “incurable” wrongnesses stem from the exercise of a last defence: “trying to be right”. Therefore the compulsive wrongness can be cured no matter how mad it may seem or how thoroughly its rightness is insisted upon.

Getting the offender to admit his or her wrongness is to court further degradation and even unconsciousness or the destruction of a being. Therefore the purpose of punishment is defeated and punishment has minimal workability.

But by getting the offender off the compulsive repetition of the wrongness, one then cures it.

But how?

By rehabilitating the ability to be right!

This has limitless application—in training, in social skills, in marriage, in law, in life.

Example: A wife is always burning dinner. Despite scolding, threats of divorce, anything, the compulsion continues. One can wipe this wrongness out by getting her to explain what is right about her cooking. This may well evoke a raging tirade in some extreme cases, but if one flattens the question, that all dies away and she happily ceases to burn dinners. Carried to classic proportions but not entirely necessary to end the compulsion, a moment in the past will be recovered when she
accidentally burned a dinner and could not face up to having done a wrong action. To be right she thereafter had to burn dinners.

Go into a prison and find one sane prisoner who says he did wrong. You won’t find one. Only the broken wrecks will say so out of terror of being hurt. But even they don’t believe they did wrong.

A judge on a bench, sentencing criminals, would be given pause to realize that not one malefactor sentenced really thought he had done wrong and will never believe it in fact, though he may seek to avert wrath by saying so.

The do-gooder crashes into this continually and is given his loses by it.

But marriage, law and crime do not constitute all the spheres of living where this applies. These facts embrace all of life. The student who can’t learn, the worker who can’t work, the boss who can’t boss are all caught on one side of the right-wrong question. They are being completely one-sided. They are being “last-ditch-right”. And opposing them, those who would teach them are fixed on the other side “admit-you are-wrong”. And out of this we get not only no-change but actual degradation where it “wins”. But there are no wins in this imbalance, only loses for both.

Thetans on the way down don’t believe they are wrong because they don’t dare believe it. And so they do not change.

Many a preclear in processing is only trying to prove himself right and the auditor wrong, particularly the lower case levels, and so we sometimes get no-change sessions.

And those who won’t be audited at all are totally fixed on asserted rightness and are so close to gone that any question of their past rightness would, they feel, destroy them.

I get my share of this when a being, close to extinction, and holding contrary views, grasps for a moment the rightness of Scientology and then in sudden defence asserts his own “rightnesses”, sometimes close to terror.

It would be a grave error to go on letting an abuser of Scientology abuse. The route is to get him or her to explain how right he or she is without explaining how wrong Scientology is, for to do the last is to let them commit a serious overt. “What is right about your mind” would produce more case change and win more friends than any amount of evaluation or punishment to make them wrong.

You can be right. How? By getting another to explain how he or she is right—until he or she, being less defensive now, can take a less compulsive point of view. You don’t have to agree with what they think. You only have to acknowledge what they say. And suddenly they can be right.

A lot of things can be done by understanding and using this mechanism. It will take, however, some study of this article before it can be gracefully applied—for all of us are reactive to some degree on this subject. And those who sought to enslave us did not neglect to install a right-wrong pair of items on the far back track. But these won’t really get in your way.

As Scientologists, we are faced by a frightened society who think they would be wrong if we were found to be right. We need a weapon to correct this. We have one here.

And you can be right, you know. I was probably the first to believe you were, mechanism or no mechanism. The road to rightness is the road to survival. And every person is somewhere on that scale.

You can make yourself right, amongst other ways, by making others right enough to afford to change their minds. Then a lot more of us will arrive.

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :gl.Jh.cden 
Copyright © 1963 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 JULY 1963
Issue II
Central Orgs
Tech Depts
ORG TECHNICAL
HGC PROCESSES
AND TRAINING

(HCO Secs: Check out on all technical staff Star Rating.)

It is of the utmost importance that HGC Technical continues to be maintained as the world’s best auditing.

The whole repute of Scientology on a continent ultimately depends on the quality of technical delivered by Central Organizations.

In times of shifting technology this may be considered difficult. However, nothing in the book maintains that an HGC must only deliver “the latest”. The book only says the best.

Staff morale, the unit, broad dissemination depend basically upon technical quality.

If you will look into even the oldest HGC files you will find profiles with firm gains. This does not mean, then, that today’s research line has to be installed at once to get gains on pcs.

Of course to attain clear or OT today’s research line is vital.

But the problem is not upper echelon processing in HGCs, it is lower level cases.

If you go not on the basis of “make clears and OTs” but solely on the basis of “get maximum Tone Arm Action on the pc” you will have very happy pcs and eventual OTs.

To get Tone Arm Action it is necessary to

1. 	Have pcs who are getting wins and

2. 	Have staff auditors doing processes they can do successfully.

HGC Gains then depend on:

A. 	Getting Tone Arm Action on every pc; and

B. 	Training Auditors to handle the five basics well.

Programming for HGC pcs depends on the pc and the auditor available.

PROGRAMMING PCS

The stable datum for programming a pc is:

RULE: RUN THE HIGHEST LEVEL PROCESS ON THE PC THAT CAN BE RUN THAT PRODUCES GOOD TONE ARM ACTION.
The stable don’t for programming a pc is:

RULE: DON’T RUN A PROCESS A PC FEELS HE OR SHE CANNOT DO OR THE AUDITOR CANNOT DO.

You don’t need to predetermine (and sometimes downgrade) a pc’s level in order to process him or her.

Programming has nothing to do with tests or hope or critical opinion.

Programming is a trial and error proposition based on:

C. 	What highest process gives the pc TA Action?

D. 	What process has the pc been interested in?

E. 	What process can the auditor do confidently?

PC INTEREST is a nearer certainty of needle reads on the meter and Tone Arm Action than many other methods of assessment.

Any pc who has had earlier auditing can tell you what was or was not interesting. A discussion of this with the pc will establish which type of process it was. Don’t necessarily just go on doing that process. But use it to classify what type of process the pc will most likely have wins doing—i.e. objective processes, repetitive processes, engram running, etc. A lot of pcs are audited at levels they have no idea they can do. They will do them, but a simple discussion about processes they have been interested in doing will reveal to them and the auditor where they are most likely to get TA Action with no strain.

GAINS

Gains on a pc can be measured in terms of charge discharged, not necessarily in goals run out or some specific action done.

You can run out goals with no TA Action, run out engrams with no TA Action and yet the pc does not change.

The goals set by the pc at session beginning change on a changing pc. In reviewing cases watch those goals on the auditor’s report. If they deteriorate the auditor has messed it up, leaving by-passed charge. If they remain the same session after session there was no real TA Action. If the goals change session by session there’s lots of TA Action, too.

You can just get lots of TA Action, whatever you run, and eventually see a cleared pc.

No matter what is run, lack of TA Action will clear no one.

Wrong time is the exclusive source of no TA Action. Therefore as a pc’s time concept is improved or his dates corrected you will see more TA Action. But many things contribute to wrong time, including bad meter dating and time disorienting implants. The question is not what corrects the pc’s time so much as: is the pc getting the Tone Arm Action that shows Time is being corrected. Well done auditing cycles alone correct a flawed Time Concept.

So you have PC INTEREST, and TONE ARM ACTION that tell you the programming is right and if the pc is going Clear and OT. Buck these things and the pc won’t go anywhere no matter what is run.

PRECAUTIONS
Wrong dates, wrong goals, wrong Items, by-passing charge, never flattening a process, running a pc beyond regaining an ability or cogniting the process flat account for most upset in auditing.

There is no valid reason for a pc getting upset now that ARC Break assessments exist, providing that the auditor is auditing as per the next section.

AUDITOR SKILL

Basic Auditor Skill consists of five things. If an auditor can do these five, little further trouble will be found.

Any staff training programme, any Academy basic goal, any HGC Auditing that produces results depend on these five basics.

If you review staff auditors or examine students on these basics by themselves, all auditing would rest on solid ground and get gains. Where any one of the following are out in an auditor there is going to be trouble all along the line. No fancy new process will cure what is wrong in a session if these things are not present.

The Basic Auditing Skills are:

1. 	ABILITY TO EXECUTE THE AUDITING CYCLE.

2. 	ABILITY TO EXECUTE THE AUDITING CYCLE REPETITIVELY.

3. 	ABILITY TO HANDLE A SESSION.

4. 	ABILITY TO READ A METER.

5. 	ABILITY TO STUDY AND APPLY SCIENTOLOGY DATA.

It takes very little to establish the presence or absence of these abilities in an HGC Auditor or a Student. Each one can be reviewed easily.

View an auditor’s ability to audit in the light of the above only. Put him on TV for a half-hour rudiments and havingness actual session of any Model Session he or she is trained to use, and watch l to 4 above. Then give him or her an unstudied short HCO Bulletin and see how long it takes for the auditor to pass a verbal exam on it.

A comparison of this data with a number of the staff auditor’s HGC case reports will show direct co-ordination. To the degree that few results were obtained the auditor missed on l to 5 above. To the degree that good results were obtained the auditor could pass l to 5 above. Inspection of half a dozen different cases the auditor has done is necessary to see a complete co-ordination.

There is your training stress for staff training programmes. Only when the above skills are polished up do you dare to go into involved processes with the auditor. For a more complicated process further throws out any existing errors in the above five abilities and makes hash out of the lot.

During such a period, one can fall back on auditor confidence. What process is the auditor confident he or she will get wins with? Well let him or her run it on the current pc. And meanwhile, with training, smooth the auditor out and get him or her genned in on higher level or more recent processes.

Without an auditor, a case will not progress. And a case will progress more with a confident auditor who can do something of what he or she is doing than with an auditor who is shaky. For the shakiness will magnify any faults in the five skills that the auditor has.

Auditors do by and large a pretty fine job. It takes a while to gen in a new skill. I can do it in one or two sessions so it’s not causing me any strain. Mary Sue can get one straight in about four sessions. So nobody expects a new skill to appear magically perfect in no time at all. But the length of time it will take to groove in on a new skill depends on the five abilities above.

The main auditor faults will be found in auditors who are trying so hard themselves to be right that thee and me must be proven wrong. That shows up most strongly in No. 5 above. The degree of disagreement an auditor has with data measures the degree of unworkability that auditor will enter into processing and this is the same degree that that auditor thinks he or she has to preserve his or her survival by making others wrong. This also enters into the other four abilities by a covert effort to make the pc wrong. This is rare. But it is best measured by an inability to accept data, and so can be tested by No. 5 above.

Processing on rightness and wrongness remedies this. Other processing remedies it. And just practice remedies it. This factor is easily disclosed as unhandled in some training courses where a blowing student sometimes gives long dissertations on “What they don’t agree with in Scientology.” That what they say doesn’t exist in Scientology does not deter them from believing it does, for their last spark of survival demands that only they be right and all others wrong. Such a state of mind doesn’t make a good auditor since both Scientology and the pc must be made wrong. Squirrels are only Case Levels 7 or 6 dramatizing alter-is on Scientology instead of their track. Even they can be made to audit by long training even in the absence of processing. They aren’t just trying to make others wrong. Essentially that is the characteristic of a Case Level 8, Unaware. There aren’t many of these around. Auditing and training can handle them, even if it takes a long time. Such people would almost die literally if they found they had ever been wrong and they get quite ill with aplomb just to prove you are wrong; it goes that far.

Case Level or sanity have little to do with anything when it comes to training auditors. Insanity is a goal “To be Insane”, not an index of potential auditing ability. And only Case Level 8 does a complete shatter of a session as an auditor.

Take these factors into first account in an HGC.

Don’t keep a staff upset by shifting processes continually. Processing is pretty stable which is why I can give you this expectancy for a new high level performance in HGC. Groove the staff auditor in for wins and TA Action. And all will be well. Groove them in by processes only and all will be chaos.

And in the Academy stress this data and teach the five abilities above beyond all other data and you’ll have auditors. If the HGC could expect from an Academy graduates who had the five abilities listed above, everyone would get more comfortable.

An HGC need not have to run a school of its own to provide itself with auditors.

SUMMARY

The data I have given you in this HCO Bulletin is not subject to change or modification.

HGC pcs will only win if they are run so as to obtain good TA Action.

The HGC will have trouble achieving that only to the degree that its staff has not achieved the five abilities above.

We are building on very solid ground. All actions we now undertake in the HGC and Academy should contribute to successful auditing, for out of that alone can clearing be achieved.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

BETWEEN LIVES IMPLANTS

A lecture given on
23 July 1963

Well, this is nice motorcycle weather. We’ve had a couple of summers and we now have another one, so cherish it. 

Those of you are lucky you know. You’re going to be leaving here just in time to have another summer. 

OK what’s the date? 23rd? Well what do you know. Alright 23rd July AD 13 Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. 

Couple of new students to introduce here - stand up and take a bow. They are Laurie Stokes, and I looked back there and I thought I saw a new student Donna Fisk, not of course for Retread. 

Now I had two choices here. I’m working on an assembly line process for you, and trying to smooth out your dating problems and that sort of thing. I’m collecting a lot of information on that, all of it very important. As far as Tone Arm action is concerned I followed through that wrong date or bad dating or misconception of date, or whatever reason the Tone Arm action is. 

I found out that the PC’s time sense is his basic aberration. Therefore I am working like mad to get you processes that rehabilitate a PC’s time sense. Of course the most exaggerated statement you could make is the time for a PC to run engrams is when he can recall the date. If you did that. If you did that it’d be absolutely sure that the PC would be getting Tone Arm action on R3R. 

Discovered a new rundown of R2H. You’re using an R2H in a training pattern right now. Well R2H exists of course as a highly therapeutic process too. In fact more or less the way you’re doing it. I’ve been refining it, getting it down to about a ten-step action which gives the maximum Tone Arm action. I looked around for something I could use you see, to rehabilitate a PC’s time sense and there it was-lying right in my lap. So I am refining that to just rehabilitate a PC’s time sense. It does wonders for a case, and finally found that I may be looking at a one-shot OT process. 

As simple as it is, actually it becomes much simpler for the process to run than the one you’re running right now as R2H. But that is not quite ready to release. There are a couple of questions that are still kicking around about it. Such as what happens when the PC gets into an engram. You say “When was that?” and he is very surprised indeed to be in this engram. Then you say “well, it’s bypassed charge. It is so and so and so and so.”, and he has to put that together for you while sitting in the middle of one engram. It’s all very interesting. I’ve got to answer a couple of questions like that and then I’ll release it. 

The common denominator which I what I have been looking for of case levels is simply that and no more. It is just time sense to the individual. That doesn’t mean how well timed he is, or this doesn’t mean that Jean Cooper and so forth. That’s rhythm sense. Just time sense. The “whenness” of things. The deterioration of this sense is what gives you the case level. That is not the end of that, but tremendous ramifications to this. There are lots of other things that can make the PC unhappy, your aberrative significance’s by the ton. But the common denominator of case levels is time sense. Knowing that, then you could probably establish case levels which we were trying to do by test a short time ago. By some kind of a test of our time sense. The “whenness” of things. 

It is as simple as this. What’s your earliest memory in this lifetime? And the PC says “Well let’s see, I can remember back to when I was 29, and so forth, you’ve probably got a case level 7 or something like that. Maybe a case level 6 or something like that. You say “What’s the farthest back you can remember?” and so forth, and he’s trying to puzzle it out and he looks awful cloudy and you wonder what he’s puzzling about so hard. He’s trying to find out if he can remember back to breakfast. Well you’ve got a case level 8 don’t you think? Or if he can’t grasp what you’re asking him. It is an indication here of this type of thing. 

Your best case programming however is a discussion with the PC about what process that you’re dealing mainly with long-time PC’s. What process have they been most interested in? You’re liable to get a very interesting ramification out of the PC, is that they have never been interested in the higher level processes, they were really making gains when they were running, and they will give you some other process. And that merely gives you the Class of process you know. That doesn’t give you just, don’t know continue to run the process necessarily as they were running that they were interested in. But it tells you where the interest of the PC is along the case levels and therefore you can run the PC. He will feel that he can do these processes, and you may be running a PC who is uncomplainingly and actually unaware of it himself, running processes he doesn’t feel he can do. 

You understand, you may be doing something like this you see? The PC is sitting right there slugging and crying and sweating at it, and that sort of thing and you just start the discussion of interests. Interests discussion that’s all. And the PC says “well so and so and so and so, and they were really interested as they were doing some 8C at one time or another, and he found that was terribly interesting. Actually there’s no process more interesting than that 8C don’t you think? You’ve got your answer right there. Now they’ve done an objective type process that is one that they feel they can do. 

These are all in the lines of estimation of cases don’t you see? But right now I have a little assignment for you. Is just have a discussion with your PC on this basis. There is a bulletin that will be out tomorrow on that subject, scheduled to go to HGCs but you will find it considerably interesting. It tells you more about this discussion but actually it is more or less what I have just told you. Just have a discussion with your PC as to what process has been the most interesting to him and what does he consider a interesting process, and all that sort of thing. Put it down in your auditors’ report and don’t necessarily shift his gears but it might be very revealing to you and also to the PC. 

Now I have a reality on doing a process that is too steep. I have never had this reality before, but this is the subject of today’s lecture. I got confused and didn’t much appeal to me. The process was just a bit too steep. That’s a brand new experience for me but I can sympathize with the guy who is wading along now and doing that sort of thing. Running something that is a bit over his head. 

I had some adventures recently that I’m going to tell you about in this lecture and if any of you faint or anything like that why fall straight back into the chair, not into the aisle. If you start screaming or anything I think the pavilion speakers are off aren’t they? Go out there and scream. 

Anyway the difficulty of exploration are based on the fact that you can most easily go when you know. I think the British motorist deserves the gold medal amongst all gold medals for knowing before they go. 

I remember one time getting a routing form from the Royal Automobile Club for an African trip and they gave me little cards. Everything was measured off in tenths of a mile. I read these cards all over. You went over the top of a brow of a hill you see and there was a small can of stones to the right and that was 1.7 miles from the point you just left. Down at the bottom was a small bridge and it had a barn on the right. That was 1.85 miles you see. I read all these cards and didn’t bother to take the trip! But exploration has it’s disadvantages. It definitely has its disadvantages because more than once why one finds himself out on the end of a ridge and there’s no way back. He can’t get up the sheer surfaces he’s come down, and he looks in front of him and finds there’s no way down. That is it. So it can be too much of a good thing, not knowing before you go. You actually can’t know too much about where you’re going before you go, when you’re doing anything like exploration of a time track.

I’ve been fronting up on this for some little while and I find very few times that I had any faint heart or upset along that until just recently, and I got the creeps, frankly. 

Well it starts like this. I was up in the Van Allen belt. This is factual, and I don’t know why they’re scared of the Van Allen belt because it’s simply hot. You’d be surprised how warm space is. Down amongst the clouds and so forth it can get pretty cold and damp, but you get well up and sunlight shining around and that sort of thing. It’s quite hot. The Van Allen belt was radioactively hot, a lot of protons get trapped in that area. I was up there watching the sun rise. 

That was very interesting and my perception was very good and I was just taking a look at Norway and Essex and the places around you know. And getting myself sort of oriented. Then something happened to me that I didn’t know quite what had happened to me. I felt some facsimiles must have appeared in front of me. But they didn’t look like facsimiles . Some other things happened and I had a feeling like I might actually go into the sun and a few other little uncomfortablenesses there. 

That wasn’t what awed me, but I got confused. I got confused because the sun was suddenly larger and then it was smaller. Somehow or other I was doing a change of space process that I myself was not familiar with. It made me bite off my thetan’s fingernails just a little bit. I said “Well I’d better look this over a little more thoroughly.” and proceeded to do so. 

A bit later that day I did some reach and withdraw on the polar cap and so on. Orientation. We got quite a bit out of this because I was able to establish some reach and withdraw processes. I knew how the world must look to somebody who was in a body and had pictures appearing in front of them. That sort of thing. I knew they could get kinda queasy about the situation. That wasn’t what over-awed me. What over-awed me was when I found out I hadn’t been looking at pictures. That was upsetting. I was invalidating my own perception. It didn’t look like pictures don’t you see? I was busy invalidating my own perception and so on, and I wondered why I was nervous. That was what was really puzzling me. What was this all about? I couldn’t quite figure out what had happened and then I finally did find out what had happened. 

I had actually appeared in a despatchers’ tower on Venus and had appeared back there I was above here. I had done it like that, with no volition on my own part at all. So that was upsetting. You start doing appear and disappear you see, automatically and you say “What’s happening?” “You mean to say I’m going to be prowling around in the stratosphere and all of a sudden find myself appearing and disappearing elsewhere without any volition on my own part?” 

Actually I didn’t think all this through until later, but I thought “Well prowling round up here is a little bit over my head now. I’d better know a little bit more before I go.” 

That was some weeks ago and since that time I’ve been exploring around and finally found out what I was looking at. You talk about a fellow, he’s brought home this nice pet, tame, riotous snake you see. He’s put it in a box and then a snakeologist comes along and he says “Good heavens man, where did you find that King Cobra?” 

That was the way I felt. I’ve been looking at where you go every time you die. 

I finally found out what this planet is and why life is so loopy. 

Now we got some of this back in ‘52, dishing it out in intellectually. I had a good intellectual reality on it, we’d talked about the between lives area and we dished all this off the cuff. This is not data which is not unknown to us you see? That isn’t the same as going there! It isn’t the same as going there with your eyes wide open, and realizing that all you had to do was to be there at the exact point which you’re supposed to appear at and willy-nilly you would’ve gone over Niagara Falls through the implant. 

That is what has happened to me, over the last few weeks and so I have been studying the situation very hard and eventually I’ve come up with the data with regard to all of the nasty, mean and vicious implants that have ever been invented - this one is it. It has been going on for thousands of years. It is the most complete memory wipe-out system and the biggest bunch of lies that anybody ever had anything to do with.
 
Now your understanding is that when you die why somehow or other about fifteen minutes later you appear in another body. 

Let’s look at this thing from a time-disorientation basis. 

That is a lie. It takes sixty-nine days plus, more than sixty-nine days. You very often go - this has upset some of our calculations, we wondered what had happened to some of our people, why they didn’t show up again immediately and that sort of thing. You’ve gone as long as eight or nine years between death and birth. 

Now I’ll just give you a fast rundown on this situation. What happens is, you’ve got a compulsion to appear, and this is why this yo-yo you see? You’ve got a compulsion to appear at the between-lives return point. Of course you just do a disappear at death and an appear there. You don’t travel to there. It’s all nicely implanted and you’re supposed to arrive at this exact point. 

Having arrived at this point, you go through the works. The works consist of a false death given to you in pictures. You’re caught there and beamed in and you get a bunch of pictures which they have taken. These aren’t your pictures and it tells you all about the death you just died. Only that’s not the death you just died. So you’ve got a completely false death. 

Now this gives us a moment of pause right at this point. This is alleged by the way to be a fifteen day time-track. It isn’t. It isn’t. It’s days, but it isn’t fifteen days. It says it’s fifteen day time-track and this is fifteen days from where you last were. 

It starts with a repetitive picture which gets you good and lost. In other words they keep giving you this same picture and the same picture and the same picture, so that when you try to back out of the incident you keep running into the same picture and you keep thinking that you’ve got the beginning of the incident. You haven’t. You’ve got a picture in the incident you see, and then you go to an earlier picture and you think you’ve got the picture new, that starts the incident and that’s wrong too. So the trick is to get ahead of it. But that can be varied one way or the other and I needn’t go on about this. But usually you see an actual scene and then you see a picture of a picture. So you don’t really get outside the pictures in order to begin the incident. You can’t find the basic on the incident that’s all that amounts to. 

What this whole series of pictures represented as happening in the space of fifteen days, counted off day after day, is give you your death which is a false death. It’s not the right death at all. As matter of fact in scouting this in session I found a death where I got me ‘ead blown off about 1150 and they showed me a picture of a death by exploding bombards . It was very interesting because they didn’t have bombards in 1150. You get the idea? They didn’t have them for another couple of hundred years. They slipped. But these pictures they show of your death are all Earth pictures. 

I don’t know how we explain this. It could be explained by them coming down and taking some pictures. I’d hate to explain it so esoterically that they pick up somebody’s photograph and photograph his facsimiles, because in this particular character it wasn’t possible. Either that or they in some fashion pre-ordain the destination of the society at that point and expect your pictures will be concerned with that don’t you see? But they are Earth pictures and they compare to the historical periods of Earth. For instance a death at 750, you get knocked off your horse or some sort, or die in bed with your boots off, and you go up there and find yourself having died in a battle amongst knights. You had a helmet sitting on a cross as your grave and so forth. It’s not your grave but it’s a Norman helmet. Interesting you see?

Messed up like fire-drill. In other words they give you the wrong death, That’s the way it begins. Now you move up to a point called the year “0” and thank God they’ve got a year 0 because you can always date the incident by dating the year 0, because there is no year 0 on your time-track. So when you want to take one of these incidents apart for dating, always look for a hole. Look for a hole in the incident you see and you’ll find something like there’s a year 0 there.

Well good, date the year 0 for God’s sakes don’t date the incident. I’ll show you why in just a moment. Because they give you a future history of your life. This is going to be your life. Television program “This Is Your Life” has no bearing on the thing at all. I often wondered why I could never stand the stinking program. But this is this will be your life, and they now give you from the year 0 which they communicate to you as the year 0. This is given in another room. This is given in a room alongside another chamber. 

See you’re first fifteen day period that all finishes up you see? Alleged fifteen days, Then you go to the year 0 and this is a great big room. A great big room and this screen is a whitish colored screen. A whitish surround to a copper grid. This copper grid is many feet long and I haven’t tape-measured it. I didn’t have a tape-measure. I’m not really up there very high yet, I can’t carry things like that. Anyway it’s at a guess 75 feet-125 feet-150 feet something like that - copper grid. It’s very long and very high. But it is much narrower than it is long don’t you see? It’d be on the order of 3 feet high and 75 feet long or 5 feet high and 150 feet long, something of that sort. This has some compulsive effect upon the thetan. The whole thing is to make him make pictures. 

Now they don’t show you your future life at all. They show you what happened to you at the year 0 at the time you entered the universe. Now it so happens that there are a lot of incidents where people have told you you entered the universe and some happened not so long ago and some happened a long time ago. It could be such a thing as a guard-room or something like that, and there’s a bunch of angels sitting around in the guard-room. And you walk in in a doll-body at the beginning of the universe. You walk in in a doll-body, slight discrepancy there. You’re madly out of valence you see. That’s you over there but it’s a facsimile of some kind or another and the year 0 usually takes one of these facsimiles. 

Now there isn’t really a picture in the whole sequence of the next section of this. There aren’t any pictures you understand? Except yours. So what actually happens is from the year 0 to the year 1 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years in the future, you’re given a compulsion to mock up your own track on this screen. And date by date by date by date by date from the year 0 forward to 1 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years, you’re given a compulsion to put your time-track up there. Now all that’s very interesting. You finally come to the second significant date which is 1 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years in the future. This is the wrong date, the wrong date cake if there ever was one. But you actually have put your own facsimiles; from your own year 0 forward to that far from what you consider the year 0. Of course this makes a scramble too, but they’re just your own pictures. 

Remember there wasn’t a single picture in that whole thing except what you put there, But what did you put up there? Man, you put up the early implants, you put up the glade, the bear, the gorilla, the Helatrobus implant. You put up the whole lousy lot, entrapments and everything else and you just did that and this was probably in the course of the next sixty days - NOT fifteen minutes. Sixty days.

Long time isn’t it? Sixty days of restimulation, and wrong dates.

Those are all your pictures, you scan somebody through that sequence and what’re you scanning him through? You’re scanning him through the mis-dated Helatrobus implant. You’re scanning him through anything and everything that you can think of, all mis-dated.

So you say “Alright you can’t scan through these things so it’s impossible to get through it. n This was about the time I started to feel queasy and felt that I was just being run just a little bit over my head. I was scanned through it twice and I felt I was a little bit over my head.

Because to take at a gulp a scan through all of the goals of the Helatrobus implant in one single pass, made me feel just a little bit odd. And I felt this was a little bit too steep for me, I’d better find some way to take this thing apart so it can be taken apart. 

So there’s this middle period, that’s in the main room, the middle period. And how a thetan is moved through there I don’t know yet. I think he must be moved there on a very slow endless belt proposition. Very slowly, fantastic slow speed. Ho spends sixty days going past this cotton-pickin’ screen you see? It’s not that big, putting his pictures on it. 

Now we get to the third sequence and this is far more interesting because they furnish all the pictures, which I think is very sweet of them. They don’t now try to pick up any pictures. They throw you usually nearly always the same sequences, a very very stable sequence. 

They use a wave-length communication system by the way. Thought-concept wavelength communication system is all I can make out of it. Not words. But you do hear some sound and part of it is a baby crying. 

They throw you picking up a body and so forth. Then they show you departing, and of course you depart and then you get another picture of departing and you get another picture of departing so you really never get out of that one either you see. Then they show you a picture of being sent directly down to Earth and channeled straight into the body of a new-born baby. I think it’s awfully nice, and you even hear the baby cry I think that’s good. That’s good. It’s very clever. 

Part of this and all through this thing you’ve got a false emotion of “We’re just good Joes and we’re doing our best for you.” You get the feeling, I can imagine this one thought concept in there which is terribly interesting that I imagine your girls have occasionally been startled at. Which is, “We’ve treated you like a gentleman. Remember, we’ve treated you like a gentleman.” Anyway, you want to know why the girls are always wearing the mens’ sweaters! 

But the whole idea and the whole emotional tone that shot at you all during the rest of this duress, knock-about, restimulation, mis-dating, scrambled up washout is “We’re being nice.” As a matter of fact I’ll bet you’ll occasionally get a PC that says “Well they treated me well. I couldn’t get along without this.” that sort of thing. Because that’s the prevailing emotion. No anger, there’s nothing. The light touch you know. The most effective possible touch. 

You then see a picture of yourself separating from this planet and how they explain that I don’t know, but it’s sort of thrown in for good measure because it said so on the blue-print I suppose. 

You’ve already been sent to Earth you see and the thing is kinda mixed up. You even get a picture of yourself being scooted across the desert on Earth with yucca a trees down under you and that sort of thing. There you are, you’re on your way and you’re going down to pick up this baby and everything is flush. 

You see you couldn’t pick up a kid without ‘em you know’ Couldn’t do that. Magic you see, they have all these babies beamed you know? All they do is ride you down the beam and you pick up the baby and you’re all set. There you are and so forth. This thing with the multiple end so you can’t find the end of it easily, you know the end, and then the end, and then the end, and then the end which is the end and so forth finally winds up at what actually happens to you. You’re simply capsuled and dumped in the Gulf of lower California - splash: To hell with you. You’re on your own man! 

If you can get out of that and through that and wander around through the cities and find some girl who looks like she’s going to get married or have a baby or something like that, you’re all set. And if you can find the Maternity Ward to a hospital or something you’re OK, and you just eventually just pick up a baby. You’re strictly on your own man, in a state of total amnesia and gaaa, having been lied to to this degree with your track all scrambled. 

Well in this sequence you’re given a compulsion that the next time you die you must appear on the landing stage and that’s it. That’s the whole ruddy lousy cotton-pickin’ lot. This is an interesting thing because this is the most vicious engram I have ever seen set up. To scan through that thing is asking you to scan through restimulation of 1 trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion years of your own time-track. 

Just asking you do to it just like that you see? “It’s all right just scan through it you know!” Can’t do it man. To find the beginning of it, well there are other ones with false beginnings and false endings so that you can’t get out of them easily, but the time line - this is specifically fifteen days. Your last fifteen days you see, on Earth. Only it isn’t. It’s not even fifteen days. And then the last section tells you that it’s 100 days long and you get 100 days counted off to you in there. But it isn’t 100 days it is more like about nine days, and then having channeled you squarely into the head of your new body the dump you in the Gulf of lower California. 

Very interesting, because by the time you get out of that, this is the type of facsimile that can’t be run. Nobody has ever been able to approach even looking at it. It gives you enough queasiness so that you just tend to back right straight off from the thing. How the Devil can you undo that? 

Now because you have been given such a compulsion to appear there, here I am up in the Van Allen belt and I take a look around and I see the sun and I get myself oriented. I’m just spotting myself around you know getting ready to flex a bicep or something like this and I just glanced in the direction of Venus and I go (snap) and I’m on the landing stage. There’s a compulsion to shift me in space right on this damn landing. I took a look around the airport and I found oddly enough I’d gotten curious about this place before some hundreds of years ago and had simply hung around for a while and hadn’t gone through the implant. 

But this has been going on for as long as you’ve been on this planet. There’s lot of these. They run somewhere in the neighborhood of two to three per century. If you’ve been on this planet 10,000 years you’ve got lots. Quite a few of them. Figure it out for yourself. That’s how many of these confounded things you’ve got. As far as I know it hasn’t changed an iota. 

I’m saying a little bit more than I know now. But I figure it is apparently set up and has continued on. There has been no vast change of pattern, as far as I know, but I am prepared to amend that when I start looking at a few early facsimiles on it. Which I haven’t done. 

The point is this. The Helatrobus implant, the Gorilla implant, the Bear implant, way-back thetan fights, all of this kind of thing, you got through all that. You got through all that and you were still OK. 

They used to say about me that I’d never been the same after the second Helatrobus. You know, I used to occasionally snarl at people more than I used to earlier. But before I hit this place I was on the same post for so trillion years. Same post, same name. Gives you some idea of stability of identity. Mary Sue gave the cue on this thing. She said “Look at how hard they have to work to keep you from being OT.” Hey you know that’s quite a thought. Isn’t that quite a thought? 

Now you look at this, look at this now. There’s a complete idiocy on it. Somebody sits up on Venus (there are probably some other stations around up in the systems on Venus). I notice that we all believe that Venus has a methane atmosphere and is unlivable. I almost got run down by a freight locomotive the other day. Didn’t look very uncivilized to me. I’m allergic to freight locomotives thanks, always running into you. We notice that Mars doesn’t have any atmosphere either and won’t support life, in spite of the fact that it turns green and red and purple with the seasons. It doesn’t support life. We understand there’s lots of things we understand about this system. But this carefully maintained station and space opera meat-body type society maintains it very carefully. 

They have a hospital. There’s space craft hanging around there, despatchers stations, landing platforms, this type of thing. . It’s all highly civilized but they carefully maintain this one. It’s very interesting, they maintain this one. They’ve maintained it for thousands of years without any change. What’s happening? Why are they maintaining this thing? Don’t be deluded by the atmosphere they pump into you. The emotion they pump into you during the implant that it’s also the best of the best of all possible worlds man. It might be that we treated you like a gentleman, but the facts of the case is I classify that as a dirty trick. Why is it so interesting whether or not somebody gets off this planet? 

Well frankly your answer is exactly as good as mine, I can make a few guesses on this but that’s about all. The rest of this universe isn’t run this way. It’s a question of where are we?
 
Why? Well I know this, that onto this planet a great deal of dumping has gone on. Stuff from the nearby galaxy, not this galaxy but the next galaxy over and so forth gone on there. So they take political prisoners and guys who they don’t want around but it is less personal than they think. They just have excess population so they start to get rid of their excess population you see. They’ve got a revolt or you’re on the wrong side of a war or something like that and they pick you up in droves and ice-cube you and throw you into a sea someplace. 

I know this planet has been subjected to that and several planets in the immediate end of this galaxy been subjected to that. That I know. But somebody must have taken a great deal of interest in this fact and somebody must be awfully afraid. Somebody must be awfully afraid, you can almost say it isn’t so many, how many are here it might also be a question of who’s here. 

Think of the cost, now let’s just think of it in terms of just a society you see. Think of the cost of maintaining a huge station, or several stations, its’ maintenance, light, power, wages. Think of maintaining it on a basis of hard work, because it is. Look at the volume that station handles. How many people die on this planet on any given day. Well that’s how many guys are started in on the beginning of that line on any day. That’s a lot of people man. That’s something on the order of 2 billion implants every half century. 

Now that’s quite a volume. Of course somebody may not say that’s a great volume, but look at the length of the implant. Now if it were a two second implant I would say “Well yeah, anybody could handle that.” But I know that it’s more than sixty nine days, and I know the stuff is ferried back here. Why I think that’s all very interesting and this looks to me like a very expensive proposition. 

Remember, this has been going on since before the days of Egypt. Way back, without any change. What industry. What enthusiasm. So we ask these various questions, “Who’s here?” and “Who are we?” We can ask a lot of questions about this. I don’t pretend to have any answers to these questions. There’s no interpretation on getting it particularly beyond the interpretation, the same interpretation I’m telling you about the room you live in. I’ve seen the room, and you’re just beginning to look at it. 

Now the amount of duress necessary to produce a continuous degraded state can’t be measured thereby. Look at the hard work to keep people aberrated. Now a few months ago I was telling you about if you were just left alone for a while you’d snap out of it. Remember? If you were left alone for a while you’d snap out of it. The universe itself is therapeutic, but look at how hard they have to look at it. I know that in any given situation somebody has to be awfully active to maintain the situation in a bad state. Situations have to be maintained in a bad state, they just don’t naturally exist in a bad state. That’s very definitely true of people. If you were left alone; even if you could put in two or three hundred years at it you’d start to snap out of your mass. You have to pick up the next baby anyhow all off your own bat. 

Well supposing you just picked up the next baby without the between-lives implant to slow you down. Well I find that would be quite interesting, quite an interesting thought. Because right there you’re looking at world clearing. 

We’ve got several ways that we can whip this situation, we actually talking about an existing situation. We’re talking about the situation that your PC is sitting in, in that PC chair in an auditing session. There is his PTP. How the hell is he going to get out of here?

Well I know how to get out of here. I could have went as a matter of fact - just don’t appear in this immediate vicinity of the Solar System. Go back and find your friends and bring some battle cruisers in.

But the point I’m making here is the key is the second you find yourself free to appear, don’t you see? “Why appear?” I said “To hell with that” and stepped back up here again, and said “Now what the hell’s happened here? What’s this funny compulsion?” and ran that on down, that’s it.

Well actually it doesn’t take much to get rid of the compulsion. 

Now an exteriorization is very easy for a thetan to exteriorize if you have him be in some place he’s familiar with. 

Now supposing Scientologists just elected a place to be when they kicked the bucket. And supposing why, we simply ran out (and actually it’s just a section of this implant even though it jams the case up who cares?), run out that compulsion even by repeater technique don’t you see? We can do that, you see, run that compulsion to appear over there, and then tell the guy very strong and hard “Now where is a good place that you’re very familiar with? Well when you die appear there? Now remember that. When you die appear at such and such a place. A different place. Two or three hundred years even with no processing you’d be free. In other words you’d live it out. Look at the amount of time that’s just been bought. Because it wouldn’t take more than a couple of hours to do this job on anybody. 

I remember it was Eugene Thompson that made this interesting discovery that if you simply told a thetan to be in a place where he was familiar with or liked to be, he would exteriorize. It was up here in London many years ago. You can ask somebody what he is familiar with, he gets tangled up sometimes and thinks he’s gone into a facsimile when he’s actually gone into a locale don’t you see? As far as that’s concerned you see, you could use Saint Hill providing you ran out all your ARC breaks on the subject! But the point here is elementary. If a guy has got to pick up his own body off his own bat anyway, he might as well a body off his own bat anyway. Nobody else is going to do anything for him. 

You know very well what would happen to somebody if he had an engram and you gave him another engram on top of it and said his engram didn’t exist. You know how therapeutic that would be, and then you mis-dated everything he’s got, and then told him a bunch of lies and pulled an emotional switch on him, you can imagine the state your PC would be in if you did these things. So supposing you just drained that out of the subject of death and somebody just was in a place they were familiar with and didn’t go back through the between-lives area. I’m telling you true that in two or three hundred years you would have lived it out. You’d be flexing your biceps anyway, relieved from that situation you’d be starting to take a long breath. Because there must be considerable fear connected with this. 

Perhaps the fear of death is mainly the fear of the between-lives area. It may not be a fear of death at all. Certainly oblivion takes place during that period and economic chaos would ensue at once if people kept coming back and demanding their toys back. I’m sure that you’d get a lot of people who would argue against this, and say this was not the best for the best of all possible worlds. They’d say, well they could say a lot of things about this. I’m frankly not very interested in what they would say about this. 

But now if Scientologists supposingly just started tapping people on the shoulder and giving them this two hour treatment which deletes the compulsion to return to between-lives area and instead of that appeared in Yankee Stadium or something and took off and found a new body. 

You see the only service performed, it gives you a place to be when you’re dying, you see and spares you some of the agony of death. It gives you a place to be as the only service performed, all of the rest of it cut your throat. Well you can easily perform that service. Next thing you know you start cutting down their customers. 

Now a couple of things stand in the road of all this. You should know this, a couple of questions are unanswered here. How close is the liaison between these jerks, I mean these fellows and Earth? How close a liaison are they maintaining? Do they care anything about Earth at all? They must have seen a space probe going by the other day, they must be aware of some interplanetary action taking place right here. What are they going to say about it? 

Within the last two weeks I’ve seen a full armored spaceship sitting on a landing port with my own eyes. What are they going to do? I don’t think they’ll do anything. I think they’re hung with their own petard. The moment they appear, they blow the show. I don’t think they’d do anything. I just think they get fixed on a wrongness and they are continuously executing this wrongness. So they insist on its rightness and they think that’s going to solve everything. I’m interested that jamming the track to this degree and getting so little time period amongst incidents as they do to the person, is giving people a weird time zzzzzzz, so that you have fan job aeroplanes only occupying a third of a century whereas a matter of fact in most societies they’ll be happy and content with a fan job aeroplane for anything up to a billion years. 

Somebody invented a fan job aeroplane, fine, that’s good. Over here we’ve got jet planes. Now we’ve got super-sonic planes. Now we’ve got space ships, you see? It’s this acceleration. I’ve been into periods in that because I’ve seen as different here than it is in any other place I’ve ever been. This could be the primary factor. They give your time-track such a fast jam together that everybody gets an idea of more accelerated motion of the way progress has got to occur. 

There could be other explanations. There could be explanations of the bases being created here for take-over of this particular galaxy since this type of implant is not native to this galaxy. Inspecting your own track, you will see that is the case. It’s the next galaxy. There could be an enemy to this galaxy, sitting there quietly letting a manufacturing and production base build up for an attack into this galaxy. These could be simply prison guards, and with tacit consent from one and all, far and wide, why any of you agitators that cut up a fuss or didn’t join the local A.M.A. or something like this, they capsulated you and threw you down here and they know very well that this is a prison. 

Now I know that this is known in some peculiar way because bulletin board notices exist all over the place with regard to this planet. They say: “No landings on Earth.” Why does everybody comply with this? I got here by accidentally landing here up in the Himalayas. But why does everybody comply with it? Why is this planet stayed-away-from? I don’t know. How many visitors did Alcatraz have? This is about where we sit with regard to this situation. 

Now there is another factor that is quite interesting. If they have pictures of Earth in order to show you how you died, did they get them on Earth, or are they picking them up in some weird mind-reading fact off of beings as they come up there? Have they actually figured out how to photograph a facsimile? If they’ve figured that kind of thing out why then that’s explained. But how do they know what’s going on here? That’s not finally answered don’t you see? No they haven’t done anything about these space probes. The boys have been at it here shooting stuff off into the heavens for the last several years, and nothing has been done about this. 

Now knowing very well I suppose that any time they exceeded a certain zone or area they know very well that an armored cruiser could blow anything that this planet could build like a kids’ toy, out of the sky. So maybe they’re not worried about it. Or maybe they’re counting on a decimation of population, a destruction of industry in atomic war. Another question is, how thoroughly do these people influence the affairs of Earth? We can understand that Earth is a very very strange planet. I have never seen populations behave with the same hecticness and weirdness, and of course if people who were rather revolutionary or upset, or non-conformists were picked up uniformly and concentrated on one planet, you’d get almost an ungovernable situation. Which I think rather tends to explain maybe what this is all about. I’ve seen other planets go nutty, but only when they were in external stress of great magnitude otherwise they were rather peaceful. 

The days before the Helatrobus implants on some of the planets attacked by those people, you couldn’t maintain a government with everything going to pieces all the time. But that’s an interesting question alright. What degree of influence is exerted against this planet? 

Now astrologists may have something in their favor when you realize that these planets swinging closer to Earth would make it easier to travel to Earth and further from Earth you have less traffic, or less this or that and so you would have less things happening on Earth. You see? The proximity of planets, combinations of planets or that sort of thing, maybe just to the degree of the inter-spatial relationship of the thing and so on. Maybe this has some influence on the situation, I wouldn’t know. Just discussing here points.

Now here’s another point, where do we sit? I think between thee and me that’s the point we’re interested in. Yeah well, they may be counting on an atomic war wiping out space opera and so forth. Space probes may have already excited their curiosity, there may be some purpose in this, but that they took no action when the first space probes passed them either says they’re-back-up space probing or says-some other explanation exists for that. So we can neglect all that. What is the role which we occupy in this? 

This is very very interesting. That I released this might be a source of great worry to you. But remember it’s been in one of the books carefully seized by the Fools & Druggists, the Fools & Drugs Addicts - that’s a good name isn’t it - the Fools & Drug Addicts. 

Anyway, in “What to audit.” and between-lives area are described in the book “What To Audit.” This is not unknown and “What To Audit” is many many years old, it has been kicking around for a long time, it has been available to almost anybody and look, nothing has happened. In other words, the information has already been released when the publicity on the subject of Dianetics was at a much higher pitch than it is on the subject of Scientology. So what is this? 

If we really started to run with the ball and so forth we expect a couple of meat bodies in the usual white jumper that comes along with the space opera. Except those guys by the way wear khaki, it’s an odd looking uniform. We expect them to appear on the front doorstep and says “Are you a Scientologist?” Well there’s the space ship and they take you up and throw you in the can at Pluto or something. Is this the kind of action here that we might expect? Or is it a situation where we are no threat to them? We’ll all sort of pass away. Or are they in a state where this covert action going forward for so many years would tolerate almost anything before they would disclose themselves? Or do they count absolutely on the exact camouflage which we have, we are ridiculed. That’s our camouflage. I should think if anybody was in the know, or any liaison line existed between these two systems, maybe Kennedy and other Presidents find this out the moment they step into the White House. Maybe that’s what makes them look so old in two or three years, the way they cave in. They find out why you boys are slaves you see? 
No I don’t think anything like that happens, but supposing you did get a liaison line between this society and them. What would be their best reports on us? “Fraudulent bunch of quacks.” “They’re space opera Science Fictioneers.” “Bums.” The very best authorities, the A.M.A., the Fools and Drug Addicts, the newspapers which is where they get their news, radio broadcasts, television broadcasts, all forms of news represent us as being totally unimportant. Ridiculous, and so forth. 

I think they could have all of our books sitting on a desk up there right this minute and laugh themselves silly without a bit of worry about the whole thing. They’d certainly not blow the show for it, and they’d have to blow the show, understand? They’d have to appear. Not covertly. You don’t bring space ships down in a dewline monitored society privately. Must be getting very hard for these characters to deliver the goods these days. Past the radar screens and that sort of thing. 

I think they could be sitting there with the whole library in front of them and they wouldn’t have any impulse to do anything. They say “Well a few of them .. and so on ... not important... and so forth. We wouldn’t really want to do that and we never have done anything like this, besides that atomic war is coming right up...” There’s no danger from these people because they’re a bunch of frauds anyway. There’s always some madman gets some kind of an idea like this and it all passes away and so forth.” 

Look at the Buddhist. We let him conquer three-quarters of Asia and he was trying to end this life-death cycle and keep from coming through our carefully maintained plant, and he never made it. Never did anything.” So there’s your precedent - nothing happened. Nothing happened. No, nothing happened but I was standing on their landing stage the other day, nothing happened. The funny part of it is, is a lot of us have friends. That’s interesting too.
 
And if you have to work this hard to keep somebody aberrated and working this hard you still aren’t successful in preventing a break-through, the way we have made in this society, in spite of all of the cock-eyed contrary propaganda, lies and nonsense which are leveled at this society, we are making progress. And if this continues we will make progress all the way. 

This is a polite gathering and it is no time to indulge in threats or violence or anything like that, so I won’t describe any future plans with relationship to these people. But I think the one thing they must be afraid of is having their planet rolled! Which, of course, is the one thing that will happen to them. Anyhow, the situation is much more favorable to us. It shows that aberration is very difficult to maintain. It shows that it is being actively maintained.

As far as the validity of this and the possession of one of these series of implants in your PC is concerned, I’ll vouch for it. You may not be able to run it, but it’s there. You can certainly cut a swathe out of the back end of it, that stops the thing. But to run somebody through it before he’s got the track neated up is impossible. 

So look at what we’ve got here. We’re going along our own way, the first thing we ought to do is give some attention to preventing further implantation’s of Scientologists. I’ve already given you a program by which this can be done. Your next action on the thing is dispose of them. I can see tomorrow, I can see tomorrow. The Chinese, he appear on landing stage to go through his false death and he hear words/thought wave as follows: “Be on Earth.”, “Support your local Scientologist.”, “There is no further reason to upset you this time. You’ve been a good boy.”, and show him an S and a double triangle and there he goes. Actually you’d only have to do this for two or three hundred years and Earth would start to go Clear on its own, because it wasn’t getting this continuous assistance. 

The only other source of action is the psychiatrist with his pre-frontal lobotomy and his trans orbital schizophrenia. This bloke and his avidity for doing everybody in, if you just leave a cycle alone, why he’ll come out of it. But you’ve got to leave him alone, got to let him have a rest, that’s the best treatment of psychosis - don’t do anything with a psychotic you see? Well I think that all of a sudden through finding the worseness, we also not Pollyannaishly find some goodness but actually find the answer to our problem. 

As far as the Clearing of this planet is concerned that is the easiest end of it. The hardest end of it is right now, right here and so forth. Now how can you run this incident? That must be burning through your wits right now. 

Well what you do is get your G.P.Ms out of the road. They are the only thing you can’t scan through, and get your basics on this type of incident. If you run those two things, then the incident can be scanned, and we already have the tools by which the incident can be run. The only thing you’ve got to do is make sure that your PC gets lots of T.A. action in a session and very shortly, no matter if you ran implants, did run implants or something like this, they will be jumping up there ready to be run. 

And the fact that they are, and this gave me a bad turn for a day or two, is I thought “Are all the things I have run simply jammed into this, and have I been running them at a wrong point in time?”. No, because they have been properly dated. I have been running them at a right point in time, even though they were then jammed in this particular incident. I’d been running them out at a right, and I found out that not all of them had been restimulated there. In fact a very small portion of them had been restimulated, just to make it impossible to scan though the thing. But you run down G.P.Ms, you date them on the time-track, you’re running them at that time on the time-track. You’re not running them out of the group you see. Don’t worry about that. 

But sometimes a PC will give you a date - now we’re dating years ago and their dating are years into the future. These two dates do not conflict. Their dates are wrong. Our dates are right. So re-dating gives you, of any incident, strips it out of this or any time you find an engram properly dated on the PC, you’re away. 

At first I blanched. The amount of false track I had must be fabulous and I tried to get rid of all the discreditable incidents by simply saying they were false track. Then I had to run out all of the invalidation’s, because they were my own track. I thought “Well this is a wonderful way out of it. There’s that time when I sat incapacitated for a long period of time and didn’t feel strong any more and so on, and it was obviously just false track.” No, No, it happened to me really.
 
There’s very little unreal incident of the track. Very little incident. When you finally get something durationed exactly and right you can tell whether or not it’s one of these types of implants. But the track is not the same track, it’s corny track. There’s something goofy with it. The pictures you run out on a PC by and large are the actual pictures of the PC, and when you can’t run pictures on the PC, you’ve got a wrong date or a wrong duration. 

So if you get a right date and a right duration you can run the picture and the picture can be run that way turns out to be what it is. It turns out to be a real picture or a bad picture, only the PC can tell you if you’ve got the right date and the right duration. So simply by carrying on with R3R without the slightest change, carrying on with R3M without the slightest change, you get the time-track into the kind of shape a PC could perforce actually scan though one of these implants, no matter what type or part of his time-track it had been. 

It takes a less number of hours than you would think. You’ve got the weapons with which to do it. You get the basic series of implants of any chain of implants. That is to say, you get the basics on these things out, and you’ll find very rapidly and very readily that the rest of them tend to fall away, and they de-sensitize. 

For instance if you get the first two items, let’s say we’ve got the same items firing twelve times in a row, and if you got the first two fires clean-the rest of them won’t even click. Isn’t that interesting? Whereas if you got the twelfth one, it takes you about fifteen minutes to get all the rocket-reads that’ll go off, and then you get the eleventh one. You’ve got all the rocket-reads to get off it and so forth. In other words, we’ve got the mechanism which turns the time-track right-side to and takes the charge out of the place where it counts. 

We’ve got these various mechanisms solved. In other words, what we know already, can put somebodys’ time-track in shape so that the person eventually can run straight through one of these incidents and damn the torpedoes. In fact without having all of my time-track beautifully cleaned up I was playing tag with one of these things in my last session, and I was terribly intrigued by the fact that I had become a bit contemptuous of it. I have moved around, I know what it is, it has been cross-dated - it suddenly occurred to me a “Alright, so if I find I can’t scan through something here, I’ll just re-date it.”

And sure enough it disappears on the back-track the second you do so. So you could probably take it from the year “0”, and re-date everything that appeared on the screen in front of the PC and throw his time-track back and the next thing you know the thing would be gone as an incident. Particularly if you were running basic on the incident. You can run the beginning of it off selectively, you can run the end of it off selectively, the last “100 days”. The first “fifteen” days. Without running the PC through any of his own time-track restimulating. So there is many ways this thing can be handled. 

We’ve over the hump on this situation but this thing must exist pretty well as a present time problem for every PC audited. He must be afraid of death. He must be trying to keep his body from getting sick and disappearing simply and solely because he doesn’t want an implant at the end of this line. Alright, if you were to solve that problem by stripping out his compulsion to appear in the implant stage, tell him to appear someplace else, you’ve probably solved a present time problem of great magnitude on the part of the PC. The truth never hurts, it’s only lies that aberrate. 

The very fact that this is a prison planet that is being monitored this carefully, right this minute, right this instant I’m talking here, some Joe off this planet has appeared on that landing stage and is being told how he just got through an airplane crash whereas the guy probably dies of pneumonia. See? Right this minute you see? And in this instant another guy dead. In other words this is a continuing situation that’s going on and on and on. This gives you and understanding of what’s happening. 

We couldn’t have run them in yester-year, we can run them today. The best answer is to first put the PC in shape so that he can run engrams and G.P.Ms by making sure that you can get good T.A. action running these things on the PC. The next thing to do is to run engrams and run implants and G.P.Ms on the PC until he can go over his track rather comfortably and he can come on back on the back-track and pick up this other type of time/dislocation implant, scan through those things and knock them out.
 
In other words we’ve got it made. They’ve been looting down the backs of our necks and we didn’t know it for thousands of years, each one of us as a person and as a society as a whole, and I just want to point out to you that the other day I was looking down the back of theirs. 

Thank you very much..

6307C24 SHSpec-289 ARC Breaks and the Comm Cycle

Current model session is pretty short.  Since-mid-ruds and pulling missed withholds is better than the previous beginning ruds.  An ARC break assessment at end of session is much better than any end-ruds we had in the old model session, if all lines are cleaned up as they read.  Presession stuff is the same as always.  She rest of the model session goes like this:

1. Goals for the session.

2. Since-mid-ruds, if TA up or needle dirty.

3. Check for and pull any missed withholds.

4. Body of the session.

a. Use whatever is necessary to get him through.

b. Chat a little before ending the body of the session.

5. ARC break assessment, if the PC is not very happy at end of session.

The wording of this is still very fixed.  The only problem is on what to do if a rud question is clean.  Asking the PC if he agrees it is clean can cause an ARC break if the PC feels that it is impossible for the question to be really clean.

6. Take up each goal from (1), above.  Acknowledge the PC for each one made.

7. Ask for any gains made in session.  Don’t milk this question.

Acknowledge these by saying “Thank you for making these gains.”

8. Can squeeze.

9. End of session.

The reason for a rough needle on the PC is the auditor’s out-TR-2 and TR-4.  “Clean up TR-2 and TR-4, and you’ll clean up more needles than you can shake a stick at.  It isn’t the significance of it, you see.  It’s the calm flow of the auditing cycle.” During ARC break assessments, “you normally consider a dirty needle [to be] a withhold [or] something the PC has done.” But weak or overly heavy TR-2 can do it as well.

There are two comm cycles in an auditing cycle:

1. Auditor ------------> PC.

2. PC      ------------> auditor.  

These cycles can operate independently.  Both have to be very acceptable before you get a good auditing cycle.  The PC doesn’t even have to say anything for communication to exist.  Thus, from the auditor, you can get an R-factor as an independent comm cycle, and from the PC you can get a PC origination as an independent comm cycle from the PC, as in TR-4.  In this case, an acknowledgment is not even really necessary.  An artificial acknowledgment can knock an origination off its base.  You can handle these with a head nod or a facial expression.  The PC origination only needs a ghost of an acknowledgment for the PC to know that the auditor got it.  If it is something that seems funny to the PC and to the auditor, it is OK for the auditor just to laugh with the PC.  If you can “project your think tank”, you don’t need TR-2.  Sometimes an acknowledgment can indicate no understanding on the part of the auditor.  The PC only needs to be sure that you understand.

A good auditor of children obeys kids’ auditing commands.  

In R3R, you don’t have to ask the PC whether he has done the command.  On “Move to the beginning of the incident,” he doesn’t have to tell you that he has done it.  You will get a meter-flick when he is there, and you can send him through from that point.  If the PC gives you gobbledygook, do not tell the PC that you didn’t understand.  That is a powerful phrase to use. Furthermore, by saying that, all you have done, essentially, is to ask him to repeat what he has just said.  This is a peculiarity of Homo Sapiens.  You just get the same words again.  That doesn’t help.  You are just asking for a complete ARC break.  You want the PC to vary the statement.  What you want is an explanation or a broader statement, so you have to be able to get him to do that without invalidating him.

Here we get the basis of the ARC break: there is a bunged-up communication cycle, whatever else there is.  What is bunged up about it is that the communication is not fully detected and understood.  Lacking those points, there is no comm cycle.  The intention of the PC is cause, distance, effect, and that cycle is interfered with so that the communication is not fully detected.  This is the woof and warp of all ARC breaks:  communication that is partially but not fully detected.  Or, you could detect something but not receive it.  For instance, say the PC says that he feels fine and doesn’t need to continue.  You say, “well, that’s fine, but we will continue, to fill in the time.” Here, the PC sees that the communication is not received, because no action is taken.  You said that it should be something else before it arrived at you.  Therefore there is a busted communication line.  You can get a roaring ARC break on this.  This is a primary cause of ARC breaks.  In this case, A, R, and C are out because U is out.  Actually, the communication is detected.

Expectations come into this.  You can yell at a rock.  Since you don’t expect detection, you don’t ARC break.  Auditing is different because the expectations are different.

There are no other kinds of ARC breaks.  All of them are based on the communication cycle.  The whole definition of bypassed charge is “partially detected”.  It had to be partially detected, because it must have been stirred up.  “A comm cycle, once begun, must go through.” If it doesn’t, there will be trouble, eventually.

You would think that people at cocktail parties would always be bypassing charge on each other, because they are always partially detecting that someone spoke.  The only reason wog meat bodies don’t explode during cocktail parties is that they are armored.  “They don’t expect anybody to hear them, so there’s never any partially detected charge [comm].” It is very dangerous to ask for a communication and then fail to acknowledge what is received as a result of your request.  You are inviting an explosion in doing that.

For instance, an auditor asks for the “earliest incident”.  The PC can’t give it and ARC breaks, because the question kicks in an earlier incident than the one he can see, which he cannot reach.  Thus the PC’s bank gets only partially detected, and you get an ARC break.  If the time track is like a bunch of mines laid out in a line and activated magnetically, let’s say you want mine number 4.  You throw a magnet to mine number 8, then you wonder why you get an explosion.  Mine number 8 speaks, but it is only partially detected.  One way to locate the earlier incident is to find its order of magnitude of years ago.

A comm cycle, once begun, must go through, or there will be an upset. E.g. the President promises to communicate to everyone, but lacks the ability to carry through.  This gives the background for the revolution.

People who don’t know anything about the communication cycle find this all so threatening and dangerous that they just decide to withdraw from communicating, because they don’t understand what is happening or how to remedy the upset.  Desperation only enters in when communication goes out. Think of the sessions when you have gotten desperate.  Your response to the PC ebbs and flows to the degree that you could put a comm between yourself and the aberration that’s bothering him and straighten it out and see the evidence of its discharge.” You don’t worry about a case for any other reason.  When you can’t seem to reach the PC or the bank with your comm, you get worried and upset.  When you are upset as an auditor, see what communication you are not getting home to the PC, and you, as an auditor will feel better.

If the PC is miserable, a comm cycle is awry, but this could happen in various ways, from the PC’s point of view.  “Some comm cycle has begun.  It hasn’t been ... fully detected, ... and it hasn’t been understood.” That is the basis of low ARC or ARC breaks in your PCs.  Even when the PC doesn’t have an ARC break, realizing this point will help you understand something about your PC that you hadn’t seen before.  Keep on figuring out whether you are bypassing any charge.  The basis of low ARC or ARC breaks is:

1. Some comm cycle has begun.

2. It hasn’t been fully detected, but has been slightly detected.

3. It hasn’t been understood.  Actually, in any PC you are going to see an out comm cycle, because he isn’t OT.  The telepathic cycle is usually out.  There can be the mundane result of the PC not having ever understood the command and at least faintly knowing it.  The reason that it is an ARC break is that the non-understanding brings in A and R.  It is the A and R factors that tend to make the C not understood.  Something didn’t go through.

“An incomplete comm cycle always results in BPC.” You should know that that simple little outness can bring the living lightning.  You should also know that the cause and effect always work in that direction.  The “catastrophe” that you are handling has a simple little outness as its origin, not a complex bear.

The basic things that won’t go through and get detected are A, R, and C. And the basic things that these three face are M, E, S, and T.  So you have the livingness of the person, ARC vs. the material universe, or MEST.  Or it is the individual vs. time.  That is what keeps the A, K, and C from completing the communication cycle.  There is a lie in the individual’s communication with time or with time’s communication with the individual.

“Bypassed charge originates as the beginning of a comm cycle” that is not wholly detected or understood.  Charge is energy excited and channeled to go in a certain direction.  But it never arrives, because it is not wholly detected or understood.  So it always remains as BPC, then explodes in a dispersal of some sort.  It does not always explode.  Sometimes it just results in a downtone PC who is “not feeling so well, lately”.

“We know the magic of ... the explosive nature of interpersonal relationships.” Knowing these things, you should be able to handle a session better.  Don’t be afraid that “handling” means always doing what the PC says. Just let the PC know that you got his origination and understood it, and go ahead and do what you are doing.  “You’ve got to be an expert in the detection of a communication that has begun.  The better you are, ... the fewer ARC breaks you’ll have.”

The ARC break assessment covers the number of types of comm that can be started and not detected in the activity you are doing, so that you can find the correct BPC and not have to shotgun it with something like, “An earlier incident was restimulated.” Deciding which list to use could be a problem. Look in the right place.  “If the ARC break is in the session and you do an R3R ARC break form, you [won’t] find it.” Therefore, use the right list.  If you don’t get the BPC, you are using the wrong list.  Get the right one.  Just realize that deciding which is the right list could be a problem and use another list if you didn’t find she ARC break.  The main mistake you could make is not to be sure everything is fine with the PC after you have “handled” the ARC break.  Make sure that you are right about the BPC.
Lists “locate the type of charge bypassed, the type of comm cycle that began and was never completed....  Now it’s up to you to...  locate and indicate to the PC the charge.  The charge is not on the list.  It is in the PC....  The assessment is not the location,” even though the magic is good enough so that you can often get a result just by indicating what was assessed.  You only actually get a type of charge, not the charge, with the assessment.  You must still locate and indicate the specific charge.  If you tell the PC what you got on the assessment and he feels better, fine.  Let sleeping dogs lie.  But, if he doesn’t feel better or if there is still charge there, find the exact charge that was bypassed.  You may need another list to get it.

So there are five steps to handling BPC with an ARC break assessment:

1. Find out if there is an ARC break.

2. Assess the appropriate list.

3. Locate the exact BPC.

4. Indicate it to the PC.

5. Check whether the indication was all right with the PC.  If it is a wrong date, check the one’s you have gotten, or see if it is in the first or the last half of the session. 

6307C25 SHSpec-290 Comm Cycle in Auditing

[Illustrations for this lecture are contained in HCOB 4Aug63 “Lecture Graphs”.]

Most auditors, early on, get the idea that there are all kinds of PCs: good and bad.  There are PCs who are nervier about comm breakdowns than others, but practically no PC can stand up against a good comm cycle.  The difficulty an auditor has comes from his own auditing cycle and his impatience.

There are two comm cycles in the auditing comm cycle, one with the auditor at cause, one with the PC at cause.  They are only connected by the fact that the auditor has calculatedly restimulated something in the PC which the PC discharges on his half of the cycle.  That is the whole game of the auditing cycle. 

Some auditing breaks down because the auditor is unwilling to restimulate the PC.  If the PC doesn’t answer the auditing question, he never gets rid of the restimulation.  If the PC alter-ises, e.g.  if he alter-ises the question [or if he alter-ises the data from the bank], then every restimulation gives rise to an alter-is.  The cycle of acknowledgment is another little shadow cycle, a fade-out.   Another shadow cycle is the auditor seeing that the PC has received the auditing command.  You can tell by locking at him that he didn’t get it, or that he is doing something peculiar with it.  So do look at the PC to find out.  

So there are really seven comm cycles in the auditing cycle:  the four main ones, plus three more:

1. Observing that the PC is ready to receive the auditing command.

Failure to do this one can cause trouble, if the PC is hung up on the previous cycle.  He doesn’t really get the command if he wasn’t ready to receive it.

2. Observing that the PC got the acknowledgment.

3. A tiny one before the acknowledgment, which is seeing whether the

PC has or hasn’t said all he is going to say.  If you acknowledge him before he has said all, you haven’t let one line flow to its end, so the acknowledgment can’t actually go through, and the lines jam.  When you violate one of these comm cycles, you will get trouble, in which case you might need more cycles to unsnarl it, so the auditing cycle can occur.
There’s another comm cycle inside the auditing cycle, which is between the PC and the bank.  You have an effect produced by the auditing command which results in a cause, the restimulation causing the PC to outflow.  It is actually two comm cycles there: PC to bank and bank to PC. Then you get PC to auditor.  The latter is actually the least important of the cycles, except when it isn’t being done.  And it is the hardest to detect when it isn’t being done. 

What is mainly wrong with your auditing cycle is that you have confused some of the comm cycles within it.  When you are doing a complicated action like R2H, if you are nervy on handling a basic tool like the auditing cycle, break it down and work on it while doing something simple on an easy PC. Then you will find out where it is jammed up.  

There is a different auditing cycle inside the regular auditing cycle, which occurs when the PC originates.  Just handle it as its own drill.  It handles any origin, including the PC throwing down the cans.  The pattern of cause-distance-effect is reversed, because the PC is now being cause at the start of the cycle.  What the PC causes has to be understood, so there can be some little comm cycles where the auditor gets it clarified. What the auditor uses to clarify it mustn’t just cause the PC to repeat himself.  “Tell me some more about that,” is a good approach, but whatever you use isn’t rote.  Once the origination has been clarified, the auditor acknowledges and can then resume the regular cycle, if the PC is ready for it.  Also, at the beginning of the PC’s origination cycle, the auditor should observe that the PC is about to originate and shut up and make the comm cycle of “I’m listening”.  

The fact that duplication is part of the comm cycle carries it over into A, R, C and U.  This makes the auditing comm cycle different from the military comm cycle, which doesn’t require understanding:

Military Cycle:  Cause-distance-effect-compliance

Auditing Cycle:  Cause-distance-effect-understanding.  Hence the auditing comm cycle involves A and R too.  There has to be A and R at the effect point, because of duplication, and there had better be A and R at the cause point also.  So there should be ARC at both the cause point and the effect point.

The TR’s handle comm cycles, from one side or another.  A full auditing cycle would need a full-dress TR, above what is covered in TR’s 0-4.  

A and R come into TR-1.  It is one thing to enunciate syllables clearly and another to have an understandable communication.  R is involved; it has to be duplicatable.  An accent can get in the way of duplication.  It is up to the auditor to be comprehensible, from the point of view of accent, diction, and sense, since if the auditor is not comprehended by the PC, TR-1 is out and no comm cycle or auditing takes place.

Then there is the PC who doesn’t want to be audited at all.  Here you have to establish a comm cycle with some trick, like “Tell me why you shouldn’t be audited.” Or if the PC ia misemotional and the A is out, you can do an ARC break assessment in order to pick up what is awry with the comm cycles between the PC and himself, where the BPC lies.

A repetitive auditing cycle is a specialized activity.  It gets you in trouble if you don’t realize that there is a point beyond which you shouldn’t be trying to complete the cycle.  That point is an ability regained.  That EP is of senior importance.

The major auditing cycle has as its EP ability regained.  Junior to that is the process cycle, which, in turn, is made up of single auditing cycles, repeated as needed.  So the cycles that exist in auditing are:

1. A single auditing cycle.

2. A process cycle.

3. A major auditing cycle.  Indications of flatness in a process cycle are:

1. Three equal comm lags, with the PC confidently doing the process.

2. A minor cognition; a win.

3. TA flat.
4. Major cognition.

5. Ability regained.  

The above EP’s are given in ascending order of seniority.  (1) and (2) are both absolute minimums.  The first real flat point is when all the TA has been run out of a process.  A major cognition takes precedence over the TA criterion.  To continue over a major cognition invalidates the PC.  The senior EP is ability regained, which is also the EP of a major auditing cycle. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 28 JULY AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise

	TIME AND THE TONE ARM

(HCO Secs: Check out on all Technical staff except
for percentage of cases which is not Star Rated)

I recently completed a study begun many years ago which gives us new hope and easier auditing of difficult cases.

We have known for many years (Dianetic Axioms) that Time is the Single Source of human aberration. This did not have the importance it deserved.

To make an OT one has to clear the Time Track.

This seemed very easy when I discovered a few months ago that anybody can run an engram. The reasons one can’t are just (1) wrong time of the incident, (2) wrong duration of the incident, (3) incident may contain an implanted GPM or (4) it may be false track (therefore having wrong time and wrong duration).

So anybody that can be put into an auditing session can run Time Track with good perception. If the perceptions aren’t there it’s just wrong time or wrong duration or both, or it’s a GPM in which case one reverts at once to R3N, or it’s false track in which event one finds accurately when it was installed and the duration of that incident.

All apparent grouping of the track comes either from wrong time or false track (which is also wrong time). Either one looks like incidents are grouping.

Well, that seemed to wrap up clearing and OT, but I still didn’t broadly release it; I wanted to be sure. I don’t mind being wrong but I dislike making you wrong in your auditing, it’s already happened too often.

So I carefully researched this all over again and found it was not enough just to clean track. One had to run track with TONE ARM MOTION.

That’s the real barrier to clear and OT, given the above data. One can run incidents and GPMs but do these when run give Tone Arm Motion?

Without Tone Arm Motion no charge is being released and no actual case betterment is observed beyond a few somatics removed. The pc’s session goals stay the same. The pc’s life doesn’t change.

So the clue to OT (and clear) is Tone Arm Motion. It must exist during the session. If it doesn’t something is wrong.

At first I thought that a dating prepcheck “On Dating” or “On Dates” would re-establish all ceased TA action. It will up to a point and is valuable.

Repair of cases must contain such a Prepcheck and also discovering wrong dates and durations on engrams and GPMs. This is vital.

But it will not make some cases continue to get TA motion on the Time Track.
If a case, even when cleaned up on dating and properly assessed for level and Item in R3R or on R3N, does not then get TA motion on running track, another factor is present.

What is that factor? The pc has a “fragile Tone Arm”. Just one wrong date or duration in R3R or just one wrong RI in R3N and Tone Arm Action ceases, the TA going way up or down and staying there. Stuck TA cases then give us a type of case.

So I knew there was another factor involved rather than Time alone. Time remains the single source. But a pc’s regard for or attitude about Time can make it difficult for the auditor to run R3R or R3N.

Regard for Time sums up, of course, into ARC about Time, or just ARC.

THE MECHANICS OF TIME

As in earlier writings Time is actual but is also an apparency. (See Dianetics ‘55 or other similar material.) Time is measured by motion. Motion is Matter with energy in space. Thus a person can conceive of Time as only Matter and energy in space. Such as a clock or a planetary rotation. Time is actual. But the person has become so dependent on Matter moving in space to tell Time that his Time Sense has become dependent on Matter, energy and space.

We care only for TA action. Our opinion of a pc’s Time Sense is unimportant. Does the pc get TA action on R3R and/or R3N? If so, the pc’s Time Sense is okay for making OT straight away. If not, if the TA is “fragile” (sticks easily high or low) then the pc’s Time Sense needs improving.

Time Sense deteriorates to the degree that one has depended upon Matter, energy and space to tell Time (and on Time Confusing Implants such as false track; however, running out false track on a no TA motion case is not an answer).

The dwindling spiral was as follows:

State A	— 	Time Sense.

State B 	— 	Time Sense dependent upon Matter, Energy and Space.

State C 	— 	ARC Breaks with Matter, Energy, Space and other beings.

State D 	— 	Deteriorated Time Sense.

By the time State D is thoroughly reached, you have a pc who gets no TA motion running track, as energy will not flow in the absence of Time.

There are four degrees of “Poor Time Sense”. The first is average and common but is not enough to impair TA action. The TA sticks but getting wrong dates off restores TA action which then continues. The second is a case that has to be continuously repaired and delicately handled to get any TA action at all. The third is a case that gets TA action on repetitive processes or rudiments but not on GPMs or engram running (while silently moving through an engram few people get TA action; this comes when they answer “What happened?”: the third under consideration doesn’t get any TA even when answering “What happened?” and rarely if ever RRs). The fourth is a case that gets no TA action on repetitive processes and very little if any on Rudiments.

The four types of “Poor Time Sense” compare to

Case Level 5—(first type above) Gets TA action only when wrong dates are cleaned up.

Case Level 6—(second above) Gets TA action only with constant careful handling and TA action always packing up.

Case Level 7—(third above) TA action only on some repetitive processes and rudiments.

Case Level 8—(fourth above) No TA action on repetitive processes and only now and then on rudiments.

Case Levels 2 to 4 get TA action no matter what happens.

This then (TA Action) is your best index of Case Levels. IQ, graphs, tests, behaviour in life are all incidental.

Identification (A=A=A) is most easily present when Time Sense is awry, therefore, the degree a person Identifies different things establishes the degree of aberration.

PROGRAMMING

Cases are programmed only against TA Action obtainable in auditing.

A case must not be run without TA Action or with minimal TA Action.

A case may be a Case Level 5 and need only a few wrong dates and durations corrected to get good TA Action. But it may also be a Case Level 6, 7 or 8.

Trial and error programming is best. Programme high and drop low, no matter what the morale factor may be.

Try to run GPMs, the Goal to Forget, etc, with R3N. If it can’t be done, assess for R3R (Preliminary Step) and run a chain of engrams. If still no TA, drop to processes for Case Level 7. If still no TA, drop to processes for Case Level 8.

You may see by the pc’s past auditor’s reports what the Case Level is. How stuck has that TA been?

Don’t run a case lower than it easily gets TA Action.

And don’t brand a case at a low case level and then never graduate it upwards. When the lower process is flat, the upper process should now be runnable.

The story is told by the TA with one exception—auditor ability and training. But Case Levels 2, 3, 4 are not all that influenced by the auditor ability. The auditor’s skill has to be pretty good to run Case Level 5 on R3R and R3N.

The auditor doesn’t live who can run R3R or R3N on Case Levels 6, 7 or 8. It just won’t run.

In the guess department the bulk of the cases about are 4s and 5s. A good-sized percentage are 6s and 7s. About 10% are Case Level 8. About 10% are Case Level 3. Therefore about 30% of a usual group of pcs will run with good TA on the Time Track, given trained auditing, without trouble. Another 30% will run with good TA on the Time Track with careful coddling and no serious date goofs. Except for the 1% Case 3, the rest will fall into Case Levels 6, 7 and 8, meaning that about 39% of the cases in Scientology won’t run at once on R3R or R3N, and another 30% (Case Level 5s) need a Saint Hiller hanging over the auditor’s shoulder or in the chair. And the other 30% (Case Level 4s) will run very well and easily on R3R and R3N.

So the biggest percentage group (Case Levels 6, 7, 8 combined) need special processes to graduate up to action with R3R and R3N.

These Case Level 6, 7 and 8 processes now exist and are being released as rapidly as they are demonstrated workable. R2H for Case Levels 5 and 6 has already been released. R2HL for Case Levels 6 and 7 is being readied up for bulletin. The Corner Process and others for Case Level 8 are tested and the data is being assembled. And other advances can be made.

To audit easily and relaxed with good TA Action on the pc is my immediate desire for auditors and auditing supervisors. I feel we are over the hump on this. The fundamental solution to it—Time and the Tone Arm—is contained in this HCO Bulletin.

Don’t audit a pc without getting TA Action. Either repair the wrong dates and durations before going on or drop to processes of a lower case level or both.

ARC Breaks in session won’t stop a TA. Only Time errors.

								L. RON HUBBARD 

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 29 JULY 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise
SCIENTOLOGY REVIEW

(HCO Secs, take up at a Staff Meeting.
Field Auditors, take up at group meetings.)

Exactly where are we technically, personally and organizationally?

It may be of some surprise to you that we have just about arrived. We’ve been so long on the road that some fainter hearts have begun to despair and less high case levels have begun to gloom.

Since last October I have been cracking through trying to get there before we were got.

It now is obvious that we have made it and even if we were hard hit socially or politically we would still make it. For we have the data.

I have not had time to get it all to you yet, but the data is now assembled for OT for everyone who can be audited at all. You already have most of it.

On the various PTPs of Scientology we have had some very significant wins as follows:

1. 	The discoveries about Time and the Tone Arm (HCO Bulletin of July 28, AD 13) related to case levels tells us if a case is winning, why it isn’t winning and how to make it win, and gives us far less worries as auditors auditing cases. For some time now, overlooking four score of cases, many very rough, I have been breathing easy. And they’re all winning.

2. 	Getting cases to RR on GPMs is entirely a matter of auditing those cases who don’t on current basic processes until they do. So it isn’t a worry about getting the case to RR. It’s only how to get the case to run with TA action and get high enough to RR and run GPMs. We have the patterns and technology needful now.

3. 	ARC Breaky Cases. The ARC Break Assessments correctly done finish the problem of the consequences of ARC Breaks and put the Auditor at cause over ARC Breaks.

4. 	Natter. Persons who get auditing and natter, staff members who snap and snarl, bad morale, all wrap up in the ARC Break Assessments. This, done weekly in any group on group members, clearing every line, restores a theta atmosphere.

5. 	Incredulity of our data and validity. This is our finest asset and gives us more protection than any other single thing. If certain parties thought we were real we would have infinitely more trouble. There’s actual terror in the breast of a guilty person at the thought of OT, and without a public incredulity we never would have gotten as far as we have. And now it’s too late to be stopped. This protection was accidental but it serves us very well indeed. Remember that the next time the ignorant scoff.

6. 	The cold war has gotten less threatening, differences are less violent. We have had the time we needed.

7. 	Government attacks have entered a more desultory stage. Meters will go to jury trial eventually and we will certainly win. The U.S. Government Attorney handling the case became terribly ill and had to resign it.
8. 	Economic Problems. In organizations gross income is generally on the increase throughout the world, and shows no signs of dwindling and all this in the face of bad press. Personal income depends upon steady organizational gains and more positive results on pcs. Future personal income is without ceiling.

9. 	Personal States of Case. If you heed HCO Bulletin of July 28, AD13 and are getting good Tone Arm action on any process you will eventually make OT. OT is wholly a matter of consistent Tone Arm motion, session after session, not the significance of what is run.

10. 	State of Training as Auditors. Although I would like to see more auditors trained at Saint Hill, general training has improved and training data is complete. Shortened training time will soon be a reality. A new positive goal for HPA/HCAs will make more good auditors. I feel very good about general auditing ability. I recently summed up the basic skills of auditing and find that over the years we have been working right along and winning on training. All training done has been to the good. Changing technology has not influenced the basic skills and forthcoming material follows the pattern in which we have been trained.

OTHER PROBLEMS

Solutions unexpectedly leaped up in fields where we were only vaguely aware of problems.

We bought an awful lot of time with the discovery of the exact nature of between lives implants and how it’s worked. Using this data it is possible to keep any Scientologist from ever getting another one of those implants. As the general course of living is therapeutic, it takes violent implants such as Earth people get at every death to keep people unaware of former lives and aberrated. Just by omitting those implants and using their reporting technology to keep in touch amongst ourselves, we would salvage the lot in a few hundred years in any event. Our data is too widely disseminated to be re-collected and burned.

And just the other day I was personally looking over their shoulders.

World clearing is possible without extensive Auditing if we just keep our own show on the road and keep track of each other.

This was a breakthrough I didn’t expect. And it’s all ours.

The discovery of false pasts and futures was also a bonus. For it means more TA action on more cases and faster clearing. It’s doubtful if ordinary track ever hurt anybody.

SUMMARY

All we’ve got to do is keep going as we are for things to improve now.

The only thing which could slow us down is our own self-created dissidence. All we have to do is do our jobs and keep the peace and we’ve got it.

The make-break point is behind us. Ahead are only better days, improving little by little, day by day.

We’ve made it over the worst part.

LRH :dr.cden 	L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 AUGUST 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise
A LL ROUTINES

E-METER ERRORS
COMMUNICATION CYCLE ERROR

The E-Meter has its role in all processing and must be used well. However an E-Meter can be misused in several ways.

METER DEPENDENCE

The meter in actual fact does nothing but locate charged areas below the awareness of the pc and verify that the charge has been removed. The meter cures nothing and does not treat. It only assists the auditor in assisting the preclear to look and verify having looked.

A pc can be made more dependent upon the meter or can be made more independent of the meter, all in the way a meter is used by the Auditor.

If a pc’s case is improving the pc becomes more independent of the meter. This is the proper direction.

Meter dependence is created by invalidation by or poor acknowledgement of the Auditor. If the Auditor seems not to accept the pc’s data, then the pc may insist that the Auditor “see it read on the meter”. This can grow up into a formidable meter dependence on the part of the pc.

The rise of the TA is a “What’s It?” The Fall of a meter TA is an “It’s a _____.” To get maximum charge off, the pc’s groping (What’s It) must become a pc’s finding (It’s a). If the pc asks the Auditor what or which reads on the meter and the Auditor always complies, the pc’s TA will rise more and fall less as the pc is saying, “What’s It?” and only the meter is saying, “It’s a_____.”

A pc must be carefully weaned of meter dependence, not abruptly chopped off. The pc says, “What’s It?” The Auditor must begin to ask occasionally, “Well, What’s It seem to you?” and the pc will find his own “It’s a _____” and the TA will fall—as it would not if only the meter were employed.

Milking the TA of all the action you can get requires that the pc get most of the “It’s a’s” for his “What’s Its”. (See diagram attached.)

DATING DEPENDENCE

RULE: USE THE METER TO DATE AND VERIFY DATE CORRECTNESS BY ALL MEANS BUT ONLY AFTER THE PC HAS BEEN UNABLE TO COME UP WITH THE DATE.

Example: Pc can’t decide, after much puzzling, if it was 1948 or 1949. Finally, the Auditor says, “1948” “1949” and sees the meter reads on 1948 and says, “It was 1948.” But if the pc says, “It was 1948,” the Auditor only checks it if the TA sticks up higher, meaning probably a wrong date. He checks with, “In this session have we had a wrong date? That reads, what date was wrong?” and lets the pc argue it out with himself—TA action will restore.
RIs

Reliable Items have to be clean. The pc can usually tell. But the pc can’t tell the right RI out of a list or the right goal unless the Auditor sees it RR or fall. But sometimes the Auditor thinks an RI is clean (no longer reads having read) when it still has somatics on it. In this case it’s suppressed and the Auditor checks it for suppress.

The pc saying the RI is not clean (should still be reading) carries more weight than the meter.

As the pc gets along in running Time Track and GPMs with their goals and Reliable Items he or she often becomes better than the meter as to what is right or wrong, what is the goal, what RI still reads.

METER INVALIDATION

An Auditor who just sits and shakes his head, “Didn’t Rocket Read” can give a pc too many loses and deteriorate the pc’s ability to run GPMs.

In a conflict between pc and meter, take the pc’s data. Why? Because Protest and Assert and Mistake will also read on a meter. You can get these off, but why create them?

The meter is not there to invalidate the pc. Using the meter to invalidate the pc is bad form.

You’ll have less trouble by taking the pc’s data for the pc will eventually correct it.

The meter is invaluable in locating by-passed charge and curing an ARC Break. But it can be done without a meter, just by letting the pc think over each line read to him or her from the ARC Break Assessment and say whether it is or isn’t and if it is, spotting the thing by-passed.

CLEANING CLEANS

The Auditor who cleans a clean meter is asking for trouble.

This is the same as asking a pc for something that isn’t there and develops a “withhold of nothing”.

Example: Ask “Do you have a present time problem?” Get no needle reaction. Ask the pc for the PTP that hasn’t read. That is impossible for the pc to answer. That’s what’s meant by cleaning a clean.

DIRTY NEEDLE

All dirty needles are caused by the Auditor failing to hear all the pc had to say in answering a question or volunteering data.

Charge is removed from a case only by the Comm Cycle pc to Auditor.

The Auditor’s command restimulates a charge in the pc. The only way this charge can be blown is by the pc telling the Auditor.

“Auditor” means “A listener”. The Auditor who has not learned to listen gets:

               	First     	— 	Dirty Needle

               	Next     	— 	Stuck Tone Arm
               	Finally 	— 	ARC Break

The most important line in Auditing is from pc to Auditor. If this line is open and not hurried or chopped you get no Dirty Needles and Lots of TA Action.

To continuously get in Auditor to pc and impede the line pc to Auditor is to pile up endless restimulated charge on a case.

RULE: TONE ARM ACTION OF ANY KIND WITHOUT ANY SIGNIFICANCE OF WHAT’S BEHIND IT WILL TAKE A PC TO OT EVENTUALLY.

RULE: THE MOST CORRECT TRACK SIGNIFICANCES RUN BUT WITHOUT TA ACTION WILL NOT CHANGE BUT CAN DETERIORATE A CASE.

RULE: THE CORRECT TRACK SIGNIFICANCES RUN WITH TA ACTION WILL ATTAIN OT FASTEST.

Thus we see that an Auditor can get everything right except TA action and not make an OT. And we see that TA action without running specific things will make an OT, (though it might take a thousand years).

Therefore TA action is superior to what is run. Running the right things with TA action is faster only.

Thus the line pc to Auditor is somewhat senior to the Comm Line Auditor to pc. (See diagram.)

Don’t get the idea that the process is not important. It is. People were made to talk in psychoanalysis without getting anywhere but there they probably had no TA and ran the wrong significances. It takes the right process correctly run to get TA action. So don’t underrate processes or the action of the Auditor.

Realize that the answering of the process question is senior to the asking of another process question. A pc could talk for years without getting any TA action. Got it? So listen as long as a TA moves.

Learn to see if the pc has said everything he or she wants to say before the next Auditor action, never do a new Auditor action while or if the pc wants to speak and you’ll get superior TA action. Cut the pc off, get in more actions than the pc is allowed to answer and you’ll have a Dirty Needle, then a stuck TA and then an ARC Break.

See the attached drawing of this. And all will suddenly get clearer about any pc you’ve audited. And trouble will evaporate.

By cutting the “Itsa Line” an Auditor can make case gain disappear.

“Learn To Listen.” That’s what “Auditor” means.

It has taken me so long to see this in others because I don’t cut the pc’s line very often and repair it fast when I do. So forgive me for bringing it up so late.

When the pc is talking and you’re getting no TA, you already have an ARC Break or are about to get one. So assess the by-passed charge.

RULE: DON’T DEMAND MORE THAN THE PC CAN TELL YOU.

RULE: DON’T RECEIVE LESS THAN THE PC HAS TO SAY.

Watch the pc’s eyes. Don’t take auditing actions if the pc is not looking at you.

Don’t give acknowledgements that aren’t needed. Over acknowledgement means acknowledging before the pc has said all.

SUMMARY

Running the right process is vital. Getting TA action on the right process is skilled auditing.

Listening is superior to asking.

Build up the pc’s confidence in his own knowingness and continuously and progressively reduce the pc’s dependence on a meter.

LRH:dr.cden 							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6308C06 SHSpec-291 Auditing Comm Cycles -- Definition of an Auditor

“That mixture which is not shaken, stagnates.” For that reason, we have checksheet changes.  People who ask for changes in organizational structure overlook the fact that the character of this planet and its population makes it practically impossible to do anything with this planet.  It takes incredible stress and planning to get anything done.  On the backtrack, one ia used to operating with ease and swiftness.  This planet is different.

This planet was part of a Federation, and passed out of its control due to war, etc.  This federation has been called the Markab Confederacy.  This sounds space-opera-ish, but if it is true, is should be stated, whether it is acceptable or not.  The planets of the confederacy united, out of fragments of earlier civilizations, over the past 200,000 years, but it is not native to this galaxy.  In the past 200,000 years, mental implanting has been taking place that is not native to earlier track.  The Markabians have the basic problem of how to kill a thetan.  The best way to hide your overts is to give someone amnesia and tell them that something else happened.  That’s what is going on here.  Their ideal is the conformist.  What they are conforming to is pretty scummy and low-toned.  Their standard choice citizen is the contented wage slave.  This leaves the artist, the brilliant engineer, the manager, the criminal, and the pervert all persona non grata.  They are afraid of all these types, so they condemn them to perpetual amnesia, calling it being “dead forever”.  Then they ship them here.  So on this planet, we have a minimal number of workers and a maximal number of artists, geniuses, managers, criminals, and perverts.  How do you make an organization out of these dudes? They are all non-conformists. Therefore the difficulty you get in organizations with these people is alter-is.

This has led to a civilization on this planet that is totally different from the civilization that planted it here, until recently, when current western civilization started to look like the Markab Confederacy.  The fact that current western civilization has the same image as the Markab Confederacy makes this civilization restimulative; it makes it look dangerous.  One of the highest crimes in the Markab civilization is error in income tax.  That makes matters relating to income tax very restimulative, here.

The material of the between-lives area is contained in What to Audit [A History of Man, pp. 65-66].  The Markabians have not launched a big reaction to the fact that their secrets are out, probably because they fear that a landing in force would restore everyone’s memory and blow the amnesia.  People get mad at governments and organizations on this planet because they are really mad at the Markabian government.  Almost unbelievable force was used by the Markabians to create the amnesia.  You can easily restimulate people’s amnesia by giving them some data about the Markabians.  It seems very unreal to them.

As an auditor, therefore, you are handling the roughest case in the universe.  To rehabilitate the individual, you have to rehabilitate his knowingness.  Charge on the case represents lost knowingness.  As the case moves up the line, you get an odd phenomenon:  the case remembers more.  One kind of memory that is restored is picture memory.  At an advanced state, the PC can tell the difference between a false and a genuine picture.  He graduates up to simply knowing, without depending on pictures, up to a point of knowing who and where he has been, independent of cross-proof.  Knowingness is slow to increase, but it does rise.  Over the top of that identity-knowingness, which is still rather general, comes detailed knowingness, e.g. knowing how you got here, why you are here, and other details of the past, without pictures.  That is the restoration of the beingness of the individual.  It returns gradually, bit by bit, along this gradient.

What does it take to bring about such a total amnesia? A total explosion of a spaceship in his face, twice, was enough to be a little confusing to LRH.  It takes far more force than that to destroy someone’s memory to the point where he would have a case.  The force also has to be combined with trickery: scrambling dates, giving balanced items, etc., to keep the thetan’s memories scrambled.
The amount of force it took is what the auditor has to get off the case. It’s easier for the auditor and the PC to confront things like unknownness than to confront force.  But the force must be confronted.  E.g., in running O/W, getting off critical thoughts does nothing for the case.  There’s something done behind it, which contains energy and must be gotten off.  It is the energy contained in a done that makes it hard to confront -- harder to confront than some random think.

The mission of an auditor is the restoration of a person’s awareness, which includes a restoration of his memory, his identity.  What holds it down is force, used with trickery.  Thus an individual gets an ARC break with force, and then becomes the effect of force.  So you are handling someone who has lots of ARC breaks with beings, matter energy, space, time, location, and form.  That is a PC.  An auditor has to be somebody who can release this force from the PC.  TA movement registers relief of force in the reactive mind. Force is being removed from the case as long as the TA is in motion.  When force is aberrated by trickery, the TA hangs up until the trickery, e.g. wrong dates, is handled.

You don’t always have to run a process to get the TA moving, i.e. a particular curative process.  If the TA is moving, the PC will eventually go OT.  Auditing in the absence of TA motion will never produce an OT.  If you run the right significance off the case and get TA action, you will make an OT quicker.  But running the right significances without TA won’t do it, while getting TA alone, on anything, right or not, will eventually give you an OT. If might take thousands of hours, if you audited a person randomly.  IA motion indicates the blowing off of encysted force, as it leaves the case.  When you run the right significances, it speeds up the case, because you are running the force off early track, and you get extra charge blowing which doesn’t all show up on the meter.  Sometimes you will see a repetitive blowdown as a remote force area blows up.

The most fundamental method of making a TA move is not running a process.  It is the basic definition of an auditor: a listener.  It is up to the auditor to permit the PC to blow the mass that has been restimulated by the process, which he does by listening.  His basic job is to listen, not to restimulate.  We can get away with restimulating charge because we can talk to each other.  The only way to get rid of reactive charge is by a communication line.  That is the only method [Cf. Axiom 51].  The auditor only gets hit by the charge if he stops it from flowing across the comm line.  All therapies from time immemorial have consisted of listening.  But what makes auditing different is the TA action which the auditor produces by restimulating charge and letting the PC blow the restimulated charge.

The auditor gives the command.  It crosses the distance and hits the bank square in a confrontable aberrated area.  The bank now causes an effect on the PC.  The PC now becomes cause as he tells the auditor about it, answering the question.  The PC gains some knowingness, when he observes what happens when the command reaches him.

Additionally, life is always giving commands to the PC and restimulating all sorts of charge.  As the PC tells you about his between-sessions activities, with or without since-mid-ruds, TA occurs as he gets that restimulation communicated to you.

This shows that the line from the PC to the auditor is a little senior to and more important than the auditor’s line to the PC.  In the former line, you will find all auditing failures, providing any process at all has been run. If the case was loused up by auditing, we inspect the TA in judging a particular process.  If there was TA on the process, the process was OK, as far as getting the cause-distance effect of the PC to the auditor goes.  

When that line goes out, the restimulation flows back to hit the PC.  Where else can it go?  You see the first symptom of that line going out in the PC’s dirty needle.  The auditor isn’t listening.  He is doing something to shut the PC up.  The line with the PC at cause may take many times as long as the one from auditor to PC, as the PC examines something, undoes identification, gets force off, and gains knowingness.  The more TA action you get, the more positive the PC sounds, even in just one auditing cycle.  A TA blowdown accompanies returning knowingness on the part of the PC.

The names of these main lines in the auditing cycle are the what’s-it line (from auditor to PC) and the itsa line (from PC to auditor).  The tone arm follows a pattern:  it goes up on a what’s-it (possibly the reverse happens on a low-TA case), and it comes down on an itsa.  A high TA shows you restimulated but unresolved charge.  When charge flows across the comm line, it as-ises and the TA moves down.

Knowing scientology, if you were in the Galactic Confederation now, you would be enthroned.  You could fix up all the messed-up OT’s, as long as you could listen.  In the confederation, your PCs Wouldn’t have all the enforced amnesia you have to get rid of with an earth PC.  It would be like the difference between auditing an earth case and an ant.

The progression of events that occur when an itsa line goes out and is not restored is the following:

1. Dirty needle.

2. Stuck TA.

3. ARC break.  The itsa line is the most fruitful source of BPC: charge restimulated and not allowed to flow out.  There are no ARC breaky PCs.  There are only auditors who don’t listen.

The only crime you can commit by letting the PC talk is to do it without getting TA action.  What about the PC who is just talking motivators?  Well, they don’t get TA from it.  Besides, someone who is just motivating is already in an ARC break.  So you should find the BPC so that the itsa line, which is the the same as just talk, can get in again.  So let the PC talk, as long as you are getting TA action and no longer.  Don’t acknowledge; just look intelligent and nod if the PC looks brighter at you.  This is case Level 2 [See above, for a description of this level.] auditing, by the way, if the PC is telling you all about the track.  Lower down the case levels, you have to direct the PC’s attention more.  

6308C07 SHSpec-292 R2H Fundamentals

R2H is one of the most satisfying processes you have ever run.  [For a description of R2H, see HCOB 25Jun63 “Routine 2H:  ARC Breaks by Assessment ] It takes apart ARC breaks by assessment.  However, it falls apart with inexpert handling.  It is different from any process we have ever had in dianetics and scientology.  It has great power.  It will run engrams and secondaries and may be senior to R3R.  The only thing it won’t run is a GPM, which must be run with R3M and R3N.  R3M gets you the patterns of wildcat engrams.  R3M is how you got the GPM patterns in the first case.  In R3M, don’t ask the criss-cross question on oppose.  I would ask, “What does the next pair consist of?” or “Give me the oppterm of the third pair?”, then “What would oppose that?” R3N presupposes that you have the reliable items.  On some PC’s, if they don’t random list, you don’t get TA.  Random listing gets off the locks, so you must still do this, even if you have the item.  The main thing that causes the TA to rise and stick in R3N is wrong date or wrong GPM pattern.  A cut itsa line will, additionally, send the TA up and stick it.

A GPM is hard to date and floats on the track, because its purpose was to foul up time.  The opposing items firing at each other sound like time to the PC.  The GPM floats in time and produces a no-change situation.  This makes it perilously easy to misdate one.  Also, there is an implant basic to the Helatrobus implants but much earlier, which looks the same as the Helatrobus implant.  It is at about trillions-4 (1048>s) years ago.  It is far more aberrative than the Helatrobus implants.  That ia the one that they put on the screens in the between-lives area. [See A History of Man, pp. 65-66.] GPM’s are the only things that need to be audited with a special technique.

R2H has the potential for running whole-track engrams and secondaries better than R3R, by taking all the BPC out of them and letting them snap back to where they should be on the track.  We are not actually trying to erase everybody’s time track in toto.  We are trying to take out of the time track the things that prevent the PC from having his pictures.  We are trying to pull the PC’s havingness up to the point where he doesn’t need pictures in order to know who he is.  If you can take the charge off of his unconfrontable pictures, pictures that deny the knowledge of the track to him, he can have pictures or not, as he chooses.

The main pictures that louse things up are GPM’s.  However, because the between-lives implant has the target of invalidating all your pictures, restimulating implants, and wiping out identity and memory, many people who are upset about auditing might think that you are trying to do this.  Telling the PC that you are going to erase his time track will, therefore, cause an overwhelm.

LRH was thinking about outer space tactics and figured that lack of comm is the main trouble.  He speculated about entering societies from within, with communication and wondered what would happen if we put up a Markab headquarters, complete with flag, etc.  They, when they arrive, they would think we are still loyal, etc.  But the reaction of the earth’s population to the symbols could be rather wild.  The point is that when you tell the PC that you are going to erase his time track he goes into a propitiative anaten, because that is what has been done.  However, if he had heard that you were going to return him his pictures, he would feel very different.  Pictures, if inimical, can be disowned.  The PC’s real trouble is the pictures that keep him from seeing his pictures.  Of course, they are his pictures too, but he disowns them.  You are only trying to pick out and handle pictures that bar other pictures.  When you have done this, you will wind up with a case Level 2 [See p. 414, above], with all his pictures.  Then you can get at the automatic mechanism of picture-making and place it under the PC’s determinism, whereupon you have got an OT. [Level 1.  See above.]

There is an interesting point that can occur in auditing, where the PC may disown the time track and just say, “Well, I don’t know who I am, but I am.”  From there on, you can have the track back, with knowingness.  

You could go at this another way.  Instead of erasing pictures, bring up the PC’s confront on pictures to the point where he could face the hostile ones and understand them without flinching or misowning them.  This is comparable to the old exteriorization approach, except that it gets the PC to confront his pictures.  R2H, well run, can give the PC greater ownership of pictures, and it makes the pictures better and prettier.

Life and beingness consist of potentials and abilities -- not things, but the ability or potential to have A, R, and C.  “Degree of livingness is measured by ARC: how much [ARC] is a guy capable of?” And degree of ARC is measured by the amount of livingness a person is capable of.  Think of it as potential for having affinity.

What is ARC ARC with?  With other beings.  Usually, communication with other beings goes out through MEST, i.e. it uses MEST vias. One usually has ARC with other beings through MEST.  One can, however, communicate telepathically even without high ARC, in some civilizations.  There are such things as telepathic vocotypers.  Telepathy is a hard-hitting force.  It can pick up the thoughts or fears of a thetan down the line who is also being subjected to implanting.  ARC can also go “way above telepathy.  Below a certain level, ARC depends on MEST for its communication medium.  ARC only really gets important after one drops away from telepathic communication, because it is so present before then that no one thinks of it.  When you introduce MEST into comm lines, ARC becomes the measure of life.

So one could be in ARC with thetans, matter, energy, space, time, form, or location.  Those are the principal things to be in ARC with. [See Fig. 16] The ARC an individual has expresses the degree to which he can be at cause over thetans, matter, energy, space, time, form, and location.  The potential of ARC of the individual gives the degree to which he can be at cause over the things of life.  The less life he has, the less he is.  As a thetan gets more and more solid, he can have less and less ARC, because he must have gone out of ARC with MEST, form and location, or it wouldn’t be piled on him without his choice.  So he must have had ARC breaks with these things.  But how could he, without having ARC breaks with other thetans?  It is probable that he did have ARC breaks with other thetans.  And it was having ARC breaks with other thetans that led him, normally, to have ARC breaks with MEST, form, and location.  Not necessarily, but normally.  The more the ARC, the more direct the communication.  The less the ARC, the more you need MEST to get across a communication.  So as the thetan rises up the line, he rises back up to direct communication, direct reality, and direct affinity with other beings.  When you drop away from telepathy, you enter MEST into the line, and ARC becomes subordinate to MEST.  The less the ARC, the more you need MEST to get across a communication.  Then you get very low, where a thetan communicates to MEST, not just through it.

Man is not mud.  But a man who wasn’t alive at all would think muddily and reach mud-like, confused conclusions.  That is the condition of other mental “sciences” today.  Their adherents are so far away from other beings that they are talking to MEST, not through it.  This is like the kid beating his red wagon, or cussing MEST objects.  This situation is different from investing MEST with life and other-determining it, which is on another harmonic.  You are perfectly capable of mocking up a living being or investing matter with life and then other-determining it and having it walk around and talk.  This is a potential discussed in Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science [Apparently in the form of a discussion of installing demon circuits in the mind.  See pp. 32, 60-617. But what if you felt that another living being is no more capable than a shoe?  What if you divested a living being of life? That is how far south people have gone.

ARC breaks with thetans, matter, energy, space, time, form, and location bring about the dwindling spiral of decreased ARC.  One believes that it is deteriorated, but it never really deteriorates.  R2H forecasts that by clearing up a person’s ARC breaks.  The auditor returns to the PC his ARC potential.  By cleaning up ARC breaks with MEST things, you can clean up ARC breaks with pictures of those things in the reactive mind.  Hence the reactive mind becomes more accessible and confrontable, since thetans, matter, energy, space, time, form, and location are what the pictures in the bank are images of.  Thus, in auditing, one clears up ARC breaks with things in pictures that the PC cannot confront in his reactive mind.  Therefore, the bank becomes more confrontable, and it opens up.  The basic concept of R2H is that the reactive mind is a reservoir of ARC breaks.

Space:  Space is the cure for no-confront.  The button of the bank is “no space”, so that it is right on top of you.

Time:  You get an apparent absence of time in the reactive bank, in the presence of a totality of time.  You get a nothing where a something is and a something where a nothing is.  That’s what makes the bank reactive: instantaneous response, regardless of when the response was laid in.  

Form:  This relates to aesthetic taste.  The PC’s reactive mind has a close-up stockpile of those forms that the PC has detested the most.

Location:  A = A = A.  An example is running an Australian incident as being in England.  Or, you are poking around planets that are light-years away, without knowing it.  When you run such things, they may spring back to their proper locations.

The problem is identification or disassociation.  “Disassociation is the reverse of identification.  Two things which should be seen to be similar are seen to be madly different.” R2H helps the PC to differentiate all the identifications of thetans, MEST, forms, and locations that he is afflicted with.  You could also run into disassociation, if you really put in the itsa line.  The PC will be giving you all the disassociations he runs into, as he looks over whatever it takes to answer your question.  He should see a similarity between your question and his answer, but he doesn’t, at first, so you will get non-sequitur responses.  These are things that are on the PC’s mind, as he tries to answer the question.  Hence, to get them off his mind, he says them.  The thing to do here is to wait until the disassociation is run out.  Eventually, the PC will answer the question.

Disassociation is an inversion of identification, which also gives an inversion of ARC.  You get a restimulation factor that works this way:

1. The PC knew a girl with pink hair.

2. Therefore girls with pink hair aren’t to be trusted.

3. Therefore nothing pink must be trusted.

4. The PC knows a fellow named “Pink” who brushes his teeth, so he had better not brush his teeth any more.  Below disassociation, you go into an inversion, and you get more identifications.  At lower levels, good comm is shooting people.  ARC doesn’t just decline ; it inverts, and then inverts again.  There is no bottom, but odd things happen on the way down.  Beingnesses, forms, and memory can die, but not the individual.  There is some method of communication all the way down, because ARC never ceases.  You can get into weird versions of reach and withdraw.  For instance, you have to go through the anger band.

So if you can improve C, R, or A, you can keep raising the triangle by running ARC breaks, as in R2H.  The main limit of the process is the limit of communication of the command, “Recall an ARC break,” but that can be communicated with a little work, if need be.  Furthermore, it is therapeutic to someone just to comprehend the definition of “ARC break”.

You don’t care what the PC is ARC broken with.  In GPM’s, you may get ARC breaks with MEST for obeying implanters and with implanters for debasing MEST to this use.  It is an up-scale case that recognizes a real ARC break with MEST.  It all works out if you just follow the formal structure of R2H:

1. Ask for an ARC break.

2. Get what it was.

3. Get where it was.

4. Get when it was.

5. Do an assessment, cleaning every line as it reads.

6. Work the ARC break over until the PC feels fine about it and it no longer reads.  

Take what the PC gives you.  Don’t probe.  The PC may get into trouble getting “when”.  You use your meter to help out only when the PC is in despair about the time and has utterly given up.  Then just tell him what you have seen reading.  That is your meter-dating.  You can watch the meter while the PC gives possible dates.

Repair of R2H:

1. When the TA is hung up, you have a wrong date, and you had better find it.

2. You can also get in big mid-ruds on the session or the process, because the PC has recalled ARC breaks that he has suppressed and that he hasn’t told the auditor.

3. The PC can ARC break in the session because of an ARC break in the past.

4. You may have missed a read on the assessment, so you don’t have the right BPC.

When you get a read on a line of the R2H assessment, be sure to take it up with the PC by getting the PC to tell you more specific data about the reading line.  E.g. on “Had some emotion been rejected?”, you must find out what emotion was rejected.  Don’t just indicate the generality to the PC, since that won’t handle the ARC break.  It is not the correct BPC.  If this doesn’t work, then one of the factors listed above under “repairs is out.  If the PC protests a line, fine.  Don’t shove it down his throat, but come back to it later.  It just wasn’t ready to be answered.  You should get BD’s on finding the correct BPC.  If you don’t get BD’s with running ARC breaks, you are going to have trouble with future ARC breaks.  You must find the BPC. Getting one doesn’t necessarily mean the ARC break is fully cleaned up, so check with the PC and notice the meter, after you have gotten one BD.  You ask the PC how he feels about the ARC break and watch the meter like a hawk.  If the meter is clean and the PC ia OK now, don’t go on, or you will be after a withhold of nothing, and you will create an ARC break.  Do not keep cleaning a clean.  If the ARC break isn’t clean, continue running it.

It doesn’t matter how many ARC breaks you handle per session.  What matters is how much TA you get.  Don’t leave an ARC break until it reads smooth as glass.  If an ARC break doesn’t blow down, you are asking for future trouble, because you have bypassed some charge without cleaning it up.  The mechanism that you are operating on is that the incident will blow if the mis-aligned or bypassed charge is knocked out, and that ARC breaks are caused by bypassed charge.  If you find the BPC, there won’t be an ARC break, and the PC’s bank will straighten out.  Clearing an ARC break depends on itsa.  The slippiness of the process of running an ARC break depends on knowing when to leave it and letting the PC get charge off with itsa.  You could theoretically get the PC all the way to OT with this, just by getting the charge off.  

6308C08 SHSpec-293 R2H Assessment

The original meaning of the symbol “8” has to do with money.  It represents two money bags, one on top of the other.

How can you evolve a List 1 for R2H? This has really taken some doing. R2H is a process with a new rationale.  It is the case Level 2 process [See  above, for a description of Level 2].  It is not just headed at OT, but it would give you free needles as a clear waystop, in many cases.  You would get key-out phenomena that would give you the straightened-out track that would look very like case Level 2.  It is really only a key-out, but it would have the attributes of clear.  If you combined it with R3N, when necessary, to get GPM’s out of the way, it would take you to case Level 1.

A recent policy letter [30Jul63 “Current Planning”] gave a series of scientology levels. 

Scn 1:  P.E. level scientology.

Scn 2:  Healing; care of the body.  Contains HPA/HCA.

Scn 3:  Advanced auditing and academy courses, leading up to the phenomenon of clear.

Scn 4:  Research towards OT.  This contains the present material: R2H, R3R, R3N.

Scn 5:  Social, political, and organizational scientology, or what an OT does about it.

The various levels compare with the classifications of auditors, which is convenient.  It puts more order into the subject and its materials:

Class 1:  He can listen.

Class 2:  He can do CCH’s, run repetitive processes, or cure something.

Class 3:  He can make a better human being.

Class 4:  He can make an OT.

Class 5:  He can make a sane universe.

R2H can be used at scientology Levels 2, 3, and 4.  It is phenomenal to have a process that can be used at so many levels.  It would be putting a lot of stress on the theory of ARC, to ask of R2H that it reach into Level 4, and some holes in what we knew of ARC showed up.  R2H turns out to be inadequate for certain kinds of work.

The only frailty of R2H, given an auditor who listens, and a meter that reacts, is in the list used.  If one specific type of charge was missing from a list and you used that list on all ARC breaks, that specific type of charge would tend to charge up on the case.  It would be restimulated and encysted. Eventually, it would gum up the track and overwhelm the PC.  So the weak point of R2H is the embraciveness of the list used.  LRH cooked up all sorts of fancy systems and finally hit on the formula that would give an embracive list.  It is very simple, like the itsa line.   The full derivation formula is as follows:  The CDEI scale has an upper and a lower band which were previously missing.  “Known” and “unknown” go above CDEI.  You never get curious about something you know about, so knowingness must have disintegrated down to unknownesses.  Therefore, things must be unknown before you enter CDEI at all.  In the Logics, we have had the datum, “An unknown can cause a confusion,” so that is how it fits in.  [Actually, this is not in the Logics.  Dianetic Axioms 105: “An unknown datum can produce data of plus or minus randomity.” and 107: “Data of plus or minus randomity depends for its confusion on former plus or minus randomity or absent data.” may be relevant, here.] The “know”  at the top of this expanded CDEI scale is below “not-know”, the First Postulate.[See p. 14, above.  The “know” on this expanded CDEI scale is evidently equivalent to “know about”, the Second postulate.  “Unknow” on this scale, then, is evidently equivalent to “forget”, the Third Postulate.] “Unknow” is not the same as “not-know”.  You never get curious about something you know about, so “unknow” would have to intervene between “know” and “curious about”, on this scale.  Below CDEI, there is a lower band: nothing, an absence, nothing to inhibit.  That is the “black panther” mechanism of “ignore it”.  Man routinely does nothing about things.

Below that, there is one more level: falsify.  Falsifying puts something else there, so that now you can get the whole scale again on an inversion.  The “false” at the bottom of one scale becomes the “known” at the top of the lower inversion scale.  So there is a known falseness, then unknown falseness, then curious about the falseness, etc.. all the way down.  So you get perversions of perversions, falsifications of falsifications, as you descend into lower and lower inversions of the scale.  So, in this universe, one probably never sees “know”, but always a form of “false”.  Finally, you get modern science, based on the false premise that Man is mud.  

The pure CDEI scale wouldn’t handle engrams because it was incomplete and didn’t invert the way the full scale does.  The pure CDEI scale still shows only one band, say 2.0-1.0, of the tone scale, whereas every time you go through one cycle of this expanded CDEI scale, you drop 7.0 on the tone scale.

Now you can look at ARC for an incident and ARC for an earlier incident. To each level of the expanded CDEI scale we also add “missed withhold”, and all this dives you the List 1, containing “the totality of all possible combinations of charge on an ARC break,” all possible levels that will have all possible reactions for everybody.  So, combining them, you’ve got attitude, reality, communication, and missed withhold on each of the eight questions, plus all these on earlier incidents, giving you a total List 1 with 64 questions.  That is how you would evolve List 1 if you were off in the boondocks.

You could use this schema by assessing the CDEI scale on the incident first, then assessing the level with A, R, C, and missed withhold.  The current List 1 is really the inhibit scale.  You wouldn’t have to put in KUCDEIOF on a missed withhold.  On lower level cases, some on the levels of the expanded CDEI scale are null anyway.  You can eliminate K, U, C, D, E, and 0, leaving you with I and F as the most potent sources of ARC breaks, because of the low case level with which you are dealing.  So for beginning cases, this would leave a 16 question list.  As you go upscale, you find, after awhile, that your list falls short, so that you have to add E (as “too much”).  Someone at case Level 2 would need a still more expanded list.  Don’t have anything missing on List 1.  The Dale Carnegie course is a course in the creation of and maintenance of false realities. Psychiatry isn’t even up to this.  Lower case levels probably need “emotion” on the scale, as well as “attitude”, representing affinity, in order for it to communicate to the PC.  After all, the whole know-to-mystery scale can go under “affinity”.

You might wonder why we don’t expand this schema to include “overt”.  The answer is that O/W mushes engrams and ruins pictures.  Overts and prepcheck buttons ruin the energy structure of an engram, because of GPM’s, etc.  The buttons are too powerful and fundamental.  It takes a certain amount of aberration to hold the picture together ao that you can run it.  But the buttons of ARC and CDEI only strip charge out of the engrams and make pictures better.  Big mid-ruds are OK for use on the physical universe, as in ruds, because the physical universe won’t unmock easily, at lower case levels. However, perhaps when the PC gets up the line into case Level 1, using big mid-ruds on the physical universe would be dangerous too!  We don’t want the list to be too beefed up so that it mushes things up too much.  That would defeat the purposes of R2H.

The heaviest button on the list turns out to be “falsity”.  That is what the thetan objects to most, and it is also what he feels guiltiest about. Falsity aberrates because it destroys trust.  It is part of every theta trap, and it accounts for lots of ARC breaks with MEST.

The way to get the most TA out of a list would be to go down the list, preassessing it then take the biggest read and have the PC explain and itsa about it [Method 5]. Sometimes when you use this method, some PCs will drag the BPC that got restimulated on an earlier part of the assessment on through the rest of the list with him.  Such PCs would do better being cleaned up level by level, as you go along [Method 3].  But if you do it that way, the major charge that would give you a BD has been bled of charge to the point that this major charge won’t read much on the list.  You should therefore take any change of characteristic as a read.  You get that difficulty in exchange for no dirty needle.  The best solution might be a preassessment that narrows the search. Too abbreviated a list leaves you with BPC and a high TA.

Charge moves the time wrong in an incident.  The incident is charged, say, because of something that happened in 1912, but the incident is in 1920. You could miss this, leaving BPC and eventually getting a stuck high TA, from the wrong date.

A process that would be a TA pump would be: “Recall a worry.  What was it about?”  From this you get a TA pump consisting of an alternating what’s-it and itsa.  This is not particularly therapeutic.  One other point:  What if you had a PC who got TA but got no better?  His failure to get better would be an apparency.  Eventually, he would go OT, but it could take thousands of years.  However, you also have to run the right significances.  You also have to complete cycles.  No case change may result from shifting processes on the PC, that you were getting TA on.  With this happening, the case could still get better, but uncomfortably.  Also, you can restimulate things on a case that don’t get handled for some time.  For instance, you could, early on, get screen-restimulated engrams that could not be run out right away.  This would be an unnecessary restimulation of charge.

Getting better is not how the PC feels, but whether he is getting more knowingness and more ability.  Also, current state is not a measure of getting better.  For instance, a person may have had a good memory and awareness level, and had it knocked out in the last between-lives.  This, then, would be a temporary condition.  You have to review a case over at least thirty days to know what the true state of affairs is.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 AUGUST 1963

HCO Secs
Org Secs
Franchise
Field
BPI
DEFINITION OF RELEASE
(Cancels HCO Bulletin of 14 January 1963)

A RELEASE is one who knows he or she has had worthwhile gains from Scientology processing and who knows he or she will not now get worse.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 AUGUST 1963

Central Orgs
Franchise

ARC BREAK ASSESSMENTS

In a session don’t ever do an ARC Break Assessment until the pc has given up trying to untangle it. This particularly applies to R3R and 3N.

DATES R2H

Don’t ever date anything for the pc until the pc has completely given up trying himself.

DON’T USE METERING, ARC BREAK ASSESSMENTS, DATING, or incomprehensible or new commands to CUT THE ITSA LINE. Let it run. Help only when it’s stopped.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :dr jh 
Copyright © 1963 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 14 AUGUST 1963

Central Orgs

LECTURE GRAPHS

The following graphs accompany Saint Hill Special Briefing Course Lectures of:

July 	25, 	AD 13
August 	7, 	AD 13
August 	8, 	AD 13

                                        				L. RON HUBBARD

LRH:dr.cden 
Copyright © 1963 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6308C14  SHSpec-294 Auditing Tips

1.  Audit to a gain, for a result.

2   The PC is always right.

3.  The significance is less important than the TA action.

4.  “TA action on the right significance brings about faster clearing.”

5.  “The right significance and no TA action equals no case gain.”

6.  “Keep the itsa line in.”

7.  “Get TA action.”

8.  When training an auditor, get him to figure out how many ways you can cut an itsa line.  “The smoothest auditing is the auditing which least cuts the itsa line.” “Auditor” means “listener”.

9.  “It takes a lie to hold aberration in place.”

10. Serious aberration surrenders easily.  “It’s the mediocre-type aberration that takes the long haul.”

11. The primary difference between scientology and psychiatry is that psychiatry is authoritarian and tells the person what is wrong with him, often introducing a new lie.  Scientology finds out what is wrong with the person from the person, and then knows more about it than the person, but listens anyway.

12. “Listening is the badge of Superior knowledge.  He who has privileged to listen.” Only he who has no superior knowledge talks all the time.

With this data, you could evolve all of scientology.  

Don’t discount the knowledge of scientology, even though you don’t use it to evaluate for the PC.  If a PC feels unreal about having lived for, say, 30 trillion years, let him go through the unreality and run it out.  He will natter about how unreal it is.  He has never talked about an unreality before.  But in the process of talking about it, he is raising his ARC with whatever it is, albeit slowly.  A PC has two kinds of talk: theta talk and entheta talk.  Auditing consists of two actions, corresponding to these two kinds of talk:

1. Listening, with TA action.  This is getting theta talk out of the PC, keeping the itsa line in.  It is theta the PC is generating that is blowing his bank apart.

2. Locating, e.g. by assessment, trapped charge.  “Entheta talk is handled by locating the impeded charge of theta which is barriered in the bank: BPC.” This is the first step of putting in the itsa line: Find what trapped charge is trying to get loose.

The PC is talking up out of the bank.  He has been protesting cut communication lines, unrealities, and lack of affinity.  Charge has been ticked and missed, and the PC will go on nattering unless the auditor locates and indicates the charge.

What about talking havingness down?  This only occurs when it is entheta talk.  The whole phenomenon of havingness is raising ARC with the environment.  If the PC is cutting his ARC with the environment, his havingness will drop.

How many ways can you cut an itsa line?  It would be beneficial to an auditor in training to give you all the ways he can think of it, with an example of each, and how to prevent or remedy it.  There are three parts to a successful session:

1. Get the PC in session, i.e. interested in his own case and talking about it.

2. Keep the itsa line in, so that you get maximal TA action.
3. Knock out the significances necessary to resolve the case fastest.  The above would define the super-skilled auditor.  You would get lower classes of auditors as you cut out parts of this, until you end up at the bottom with a Book Auditor whose skill is just to listen to the PC talk about his case, with no idea of TA or right significance.

When training auditors, pound one significance home at a time.  Don’t get complicated, and you will win.  For instance, on a co-audit, just keep the PC talking about himself.  Don’t worry about repeating the command or acknowledging, etc.  All you want is the PC telling the auditor about his troubles.  You can see improvements if the PC looks brighter and talks better, i.e. if he shows increased ARC.

As you move the auditor’s skill up to using a meter, you want to get TA motion.  Keeping the TA moving is the deepest problem in auditing, at present.  This can get complex.  The reason a TA stops is time.  The type of incident that is the most TA-stopping is the GPM, especially after it has been redated, cross-dated, or grouped in one of the between-lives screens, and after it has been mislocated.  If there were no GPM, probably nobody could group a bank.  The GPM gets pinned down in the between-lives screens and TA stops.  It is a time-stopper because it floats in time and appears instantaneous.  The auditing action that stops TA motion is wrong date.  It tends to group incidents.  If the incident is 3D visio and stays in the same place, as you run it, the date is OK.  If a person is running different incidents at once, he has a wrong date.  If you wrong-date a GYM, it is grim.  TA stops as if hit by a truck.  It is possible to date a GPM, but the reads on dates are tiny because it is a GPM, and it is very rough to date it.  After you have dated a GPM, the date is as valid as you get TA. If TA packs up, the GPM is very likely to have been misdated.  You could find that you have to redate a GPM when the PC gets off enough charge to spot that the first date was a screen date.  Your new date could still be only temporarily right.  You could go for seven sessions, getting it dated, which could be very fine if you kept the itsa line in and let the PC help you.

Most of the track you see is real track, but it is often invalidated. “False track” is nothing, because there really is no false track.  There are false pictures, but “false track” is just the dub-in someone has put over his actual pictures.  If you invalidate someone’s track hard enough and hit him hard enough, he puts dub-in over the top of the picture, which looks like the original except that it has a little film over it.  As you audit it, the film comes off and he sees the original picture.  The dub-in is not very different from his own track, actually.  The unreality the PC gets about the picture is the force and invalidation that has been laid in.  If you hit someone hard enough, things get unreal, down to unconsciousness.  Unconsciousness is just a total unreality.  So there are also ARC break phenomena, which prevent the meter from reading well.  That is one reason why the meter reads so little on GPM’s.  They are full of ARC brokenness.  But if you just keep trying to date the GPM and don’t cut the itsa line, you will get TA.  Having the itsa line in and blowing charge will increase the PC’s reality on the incident to the point where the date is more and more real.  Bundles of facsimiles will start to come apart.  If you just keep chewing at a GPM in this way, chewing at its date, its pattern, etc., it will suddenly be there so clearly that you will wonder how you ever missed it.  You are getting enough charge off so that he can see it.  Keeping the itsa line in while dating is very helpful but hard to do at times.  Let the PC give you anything he can tell you about the date. Get all the TA out of it first, and only go to the meter when the PC throws in the sponge.  Then work it over, and when it is all hopeless with the meter, talk from the PC takes over.  Keep at it, persevere, and relax.  It might take up to seven sessions to get the date.  The stable datum is that if you keep chewing away and trying to find it, suddenly enough charge will disappear so it all folds up and you get it.  Just keep him talking, and he will come up with it.  But the more you ask the meter for the data, the less you will win. You can kill TA by evaluating, because the itsa line is being put in for him. Don’t put in the itsa line for the PC.

The meter gives you a preview of coming attractions.  A meter reads at a deeper level of awareness than the PC.  When some charge is blown, the PC will now see what the meter “saw” awhile earlier.  You say what’s-it and the PC says itsa.  This is auditing.  But if the PC says what’s-it and you use the meter to say itsa, the TA folds up.  This will occur if you create a meter-dependency.  It is better, if you must tell the PC what the meter says, to present it as a question.  If you put in the what’s-it and get itsa from the meter, you will get no TA action.  If you have a PC demanding information, you can help him out.  It is more desirable to use the meter than to have the PC quit.  Sometimes you have to snap in the itsa line.  Try to get the PC certain before using the meter.  Then you may use the meter, but get the PC’s agreement first, as an itsa, e.g. concerning the date.  You can work back and forth with the PC and the meter, using the meter to jog the what’s-it, e.g. to get the order of magnitude, then ask the PC if he gets anything, let him find it.  If he asks, “Does that read?”, see if you can get him to say, “Itsa,” e.g. by asking, “Does it seem right to you?” Then, when he has said, “Itsa,” you can confirm it with, “That reads.”

One way to cut an itsa line is by continually asking for more than the PC can give.  For instance, the PC says proudly, “I’ve got a picture of some mountains.” The auditor says, “What kind of mountains?  Are there any people?” Or when the PC says, “I just can’t find the date.  I don’t have a clue,” the auditor says, “Well?  Come on! What is it?” This stretches an itsa line beyond its ability to stretch.  The situation is that you have bled off all the restimulation that was available. So stir up a little more by using the meter on one step or so of dating.  The PC easily invalidates his own reality and ability to know a date.  Don’t, above all, use the meter to invalidate him. It is better to leave the charge on something than to ARC break the PC about it.  If he gives you a date and asks for meter confirmation, and there is no read, make it as OK as possible.  For instance, you could say, “Well, I didn’t see one there.  It doesn’t say anything right now on that,” Use your meter to give him the what’s-it line and coax the itsa line.  At last resort, all you have is your meter, like when there is a howling ARC break and the PC isn’t talking or thinking.  That applies to sessions where the PC is out of comm. You can cut an itsa line to ribbons with ARC break assessments, as the drop of a hat.  The value of the assessment is when all else has failed, because the most operating thing you have around you is the PC.

The problem of how you discharge a GPM without cutting the itsa line is a tricky one. What if he is going over one pair of items and the next pair comes up and he wants to go on?  If you leave bypassed charge on the items you are doing, he will ARC break.  One solution is to write down the new pair, acknowledge them, and then clean up the old pair.

The what’s-it line raises TA; the itsa lowers it.  The solution of mystery is the resolution of the case and the restoration of TA motion.  The PC is stuck on a what’s-it for which he has no itsa, when the TA quits.  The PC sometimes has his own what’s-its.  He forgets the what’s-it you gave him and never gives the itsa, so you get a high TA.  PC’s do this all the time, especially during a break.  Hence you could ask, “Is there anything your attention is on?” or “Did you speculate about anything during the break?” The funny thing is that as-ising what’s-its doesn’t give you auditing.  You can’t as-is what’s-its.  You could ask, “Get the idea of questioning things,” repetitively.  This would give you a high TA.  The bank is composed of a cure to the problem or puzzle.  The reason that the puzzle is hung up is that there is something in it that was a cure.  Cures brought about problems.  To as-is problems, you have to pick up the cure, which is the itsa.  The problem was the what’s-it; the cure is the itsa.  So you announce the confusion, the PC gives you the stable datum, and you get a restoration of balance.  It blows off.  Two-way comm blows all the locks off of engrams.  For instance, if the PC says that he has a big PTP, you could ask when he became aware of it, what solutions he has had for it etc.  So you need to find the what’s-it and the itsa.  A problem is, in microcosm, a GPM.  You could ask, “What have you been puzzled about?/ What answers might there have been to it?” Auditing questions must balance between announcing the puzzle and asking for the cure.

6308C15 SHSpec-295 The Tone Arm

A meter that only had a tone arm would be useful to teach auditors to keep the tone arm moving.  It should have the same numbers.  It should probably also have a one-handed electrode.  It should be very small and rugged.  Ideally, it should be able to go “through the bottom” with no stop. You could hang it on the PC with a belt and keep him on it for CCH’s.  It would show discharge of charge.

The minimum TA you should get is 0.25 divisions per twenty minutes (0.75divisions per hour).  A small amount of TA is enough for healing.  A needle blow-off is enough.  R3T or R2T consist of putting in the itsa line and dating.  Even 0.1 division per twenty minutes is enough to blow a somatic. That is enough for healing, but not enough to make the PC feel better as a result of auditing.  This explains the oddity that dianetics heals chronic somatics, with the PC not realizing that auditing had done anything.  You would heal the illness, but the person still doesn’t believe in dianetics. You haven’t helped the person.  That was what drove us out of healing, not the medicos.  Auditors found it frustrating.

Without understanding the TA, it is doubtful if the auditor will ever be able to predict his result.  If you know about the TA, you will know that if the PC got no TA in a session:

1. He is liable to throw the auditor a curve at the end of the session.

2. He is liable to have some sort of upset within twenty-four hours.

3. You have restimulated charge, because all auditing restimulates charge.  

These phenomena are not inevitable.  The reason O/W is not being stressed is that not all auditors seem able to restimulate overts.  They accept critical thoughts and motivators and miss all the PC’s withholds.  Any auditing that requires extraordinary targeting and restimulation becomes more difficult to do.  A difficult part of auditing is in selecting the significances of restimulation which the auditor must engage in with the PC.  The degree of restimulation restimulated in the significance becomes an even greater level of skill, e.g. the question of how much GPM you have to restimulate to get the GPM run.  The skillful auditor restimulates only the number of items he wants to run.  The less skilled the auditor, the more items and GPM’s he restimulates in order to get one pair to run.  The whatsit line regulates restimulation.  On the whatsit line you should:

1. Know what you are going for.

2. Know what you have to get to.

3. Have a heart, and don’t over-restimulate.

4. Avoid Q and A.  

Auditing works by restimulation and blowing of charge.  You can blow a charge on an early incident of a chain and have the later charge blow off without registering on the meter.  That speeds things up.  If you don’t put in the itsa line and let the charge blow off, the PC stacks it up and ARC breaks, etc., etc.  Not restimulating charge at all or restimulating too little charge equally result in no-auditing.  This will give an ARC break because the expectation of auditing not fulfilled will itself bleed charge, which is then bypassed and will blow up.  Restimulating too little charge or no charge is worse than restimulating too much charge.  For instance, you will get in bad trouble if you fail to run the PC through an engram twice because he is in pain.

Incidently, a thetan in good shape probably enjoyed pain.  You can pick this up by asking the PC to “Waste some pain,” repetitively.  He will cognite that he can have it.  Sadism isn’t peculiar.  It is a lower harmonic of an actual fact: any sensation is better than no sensation.  Anything is better than nothing.  That is different from only being able to enjoy pain.  As a thetan goes upscale, he can stand more effect.

Most newspaper reporters are unauditable.  If you try to audit them, all you get is a lot of missed withholds.  The reporter’s attention is all “out there” He has no attention on his case.  This guy has a lot of ARC breaks.  He is dramatizing overts.

Indicating BPC gives the PC control over his charge.

When you run a circuit with no charge on it, it gets a sponge-like character.  Then it starts picking up charge, whether you want it to or not, out of the intention that auditing will occur.  It will still bleed charge out of the bank, and the PC will still ARC break.

TA measures the adequacy of restimulation.  It shows that an adequate amount of charge is being restimulated and that it is adequately dispelled with the itsa line.  There is really miles of margin for error on either side of the ideal amount of restimulation, where you will still get TA and case gain.  You can have the PC swamped and still get TA, or you can be running the PC pretty shallow and still get TA.  There is a lot of tolerance.  Too much or too little restimulation, beyond this margin of error, causes cessation of TA.  The meter doesn’t tell you if you are getting too much or too little restimulation.  Most standard processing is strong enough that you are not restimulating too little charge.  Auditors therefore don’t worry much, as long as there is some TA motion.  Just doing any auditing at all guarantees some restimulation.  What you are auditing regulates how much charge you are restimulating.  Using upper-level processes, you are only going to err by getting over-restimulation, since Niagaras of charge are available.  If you are going through GPM’s without getting TA, it is not because there is too little restimulation.  It is over-restimulation.

If there is too much charge, the PC shuts it down and the TA locks up. You can say that it is unreal to the PC, but unreality consists of:

1. Force: uncoordinated, raw force.

2. Invalidation.

3. Disagreement (on the thought level).  So to say that something is too unreal to the PC is to say that there is too much charge on it.  The auditor’s problem is delicately to put the whatsit line in the right place so as to bleed off charge where the PC can confront it.  If the discharge line gets overloaded, the PC will explode in an ARC break.  The problem of the auditor, therefore, is not how to restimulate more charge.  It is not the problem of how to empty the Atlantic ocean but how to bleed a few drops off of it.  The PC may beg you for a one-shot clear process.  Here you see the working of the effect scale.  What the PC needs is some small effect, some line to bleed charge that is small enough not to be dangerous.  He is very careful, because everything is a live wire.

If you run any PC at too high a level, it can become too much for his body, while still being OK for continuing to get TA.  E.g. a person with cancer is in an almost continuous ARC break.  However, if you go above the charge tolerance, then that’s it for the TA.

[LRH comments on Wilhelm Reich’s character armor.] Wilhelm Reich had an esoteric form of charge that he called “orgone”. This sort of charge was thought to be involved in the buildup of arthritic deposits.  Charge is also what caused things to break around Jung, and it is what gives people odd somatics, acute or chronic.  Acute charge destimulates in three to ten days. If it keeps on being restimulated, with no opportunity to be destimulated or bled off, one gets chronic somatics.  Even then it takes periodic restimulation at the end of each lifetime to keep a thetan as unaware and charged up as he is.  There is a preparation series of GPM’s that have thirty to forty wrong dates apiece, with a command to return, sandwiched between each of about eighty GPM’s.  The goals make life the opposite terminal.  They are all derogatory goals, like “to be wrong”, or “to get caught”.
Your first indication that the PC is nearing his limit of restimulation is a lessening of TA action.  By this time, the PC is already past the point of comfortable charge level.  Audit as delicately as possible at this point. As you go on, be sure the itsa line is very in, and don’t let any more charge get restimulated until you have cleaned up what you have.  Do not let the PC dive into earlier track, no matter how eager he may be to do so.  That is how you get stuck TA’s.  Haul out of there!  Start getting thorough.  You can ordinarily trace back any ceased TA to some action that stirred up more charge than got handled.  For instance, say we run the center goal out of the Bear implant.  Then we start running the rest of the goals.  Suddenly, we lose TA action.  We have just restimulated three or four out of five goals.  I.e. we have three or four GPM’s on restimulation.  That amount of charge stirred up eliminated TA motion.

The overcharged case is always the high TA case.  It is the whatsit line that is responsible for this over-restimulation, with resultant high or low TA, even if it is life or the PC that put the whatsit line in.  The wrong thing to do is to get wore whatsit.  “Tell me something you have been worried about,” is therefore not a good process.  It is all whatsits for the PC to look at.  If you want to cure the overcharged case, you could assess his problems to a central one and ask, “What solutions have you had for this problem?” This allows the PC to itsa and thus permits the TA to come down. The “cures” give you the itsa line.  Get all the whatsits already in restimulation and get the solutions off.  That will give you itsa, bring the TA down, and get the TA into action.  When you finish one whatsit with itsas, find another whatsit that is already there and finish it, etc.  This is guaranteed to fix the TA.  Find something small enough for the PC to let go of.

Knowingness and reality don’t increase unless you get charge off the case, so the case knows that nothing has happened, unless you increase his knowingness.  

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 AUGUST AD13 
Central Orgs 
Franchise
SCIENTOLOGY TWO
STAR RATED HCO BULLETIN

HOW TO DO AN ARC BREAK ASSESSMENT

(HCO Secs: Check out on all technical Executives and Personnel. Tech Dir: Check out on HCO Secs and Assn Org Secs.)

The successful handling of an ARC Break Assessment is a skilled activity which requires:

1. 	Skill in handling a Meter.
2. 	Skill in handling the Itsa Line of the Auditing Cycle.
3. 	Skill in Assessment.

The lists given in HCO Bulletin of July 5, AD13 “ARC BREAK ASSESSMENTS”, are used, either from that HCO Bulletin or amended.

There are several uses for ARC Break Assessments.

1. 	Cleaning up a session ARC Break.
2. 	Cleaning up auditing in general.
3. 	Cleaning up a pc’s or student’s possible ARC Breaks.
4. 	Cleaning up a member of the public’s possible or actual ARC Breaks.
5. 	Regular use on a weekly basis on staff or organization members.

There are others. Those above are the chief uses.

For long time periods the standard 18 button prepcheck is faster, but an ARC Break Assessment is still useful in conjunction with it.

The drill is simple. If complicated by adding in R2H material, dating, and other additives, the ARC Break Assessment ceases to work well and may even create more ARC Breaks.

If used every time a pc gets in a little trouble in R3N or R3R the ARC Break Assessment is being used improperly. In R2H, R3N, R3R sessions it is used only when the pc shows definite signs of an ARC Break. To use it oftener constitutes no auditing.

Unnecessary use of an ARC Break Assessment may ARC Break the pc with the Assessment.

The ARC Break Assessment may be repaired by an 18 Button Prepcheck “On ARC Break Assessments ......”.

ARC BREAK ASSESSMENT BY STEPS

STEP ONE:

Select the proper list. This is done by establishing what the pc has been audited on. If more than one type of by-passed charge is suspected, do more than one list. If the ARC Break is not completely cured by one list, do another kind of list. (All lists have been in HCOBs as “L”.)
STEP TWO:

Inform the pc that you are about to assess for any charge that might have been restimulated or by-passed on his or her case. Do not heavily stress the ARC Break aspect. Right: “I am going to assess a list to see if any charge has been by-passed on your case.” Wrong: “I’m going to try to cure (or assess) your ARC Break.”

STEP THREE:

Without regard to pc’s natter, but with quick attention for any cognition the pc may have during assessment as to by-passed charge, assess the list.

Phrase the question in regard to the reason for the Assessment—”In this session........” “During this week .......” “In Scientology ........” etc. Call each line once to see if it gives an instant read.

The moment a line gives a reaction, stop, and do Step Four.

STEP FOUR:

When a line reacts on the needle, say to the pc, “The line ........reacts. What can you tell me about this?”

STEP FIVE:

Keep Itsa Line in. Do not cut the pc’s line. Do not ask for more than pc has. Let pc flounder around until pc finds the charge asked for in Step Four or says there’s no such charge. (If a line reacted because the pc did not understand it, or by protest or decide, make it right with the pc and continue assessing.)

STEP SIX:

In a session: If pc found the by-passed charge, ask pc “How do you feel now?” If pc says he or she feels OK, cease assessing for ARC Breaks and go back to session actions. If pc says there’s no such charge or gets misemotional at Auditor, keep on assessing on down the list for another active line, or even on to another list until the charge is found which makes pc relax.

In a routine ARC Break check (not a session but for a longer period), don’t stop assessing but keep on going as in Step Five, unless pc’s cognition is huge.

END OF STEPS

Please notice: This is not R2H. There is no dating. The auditor does not further assist the pc with the meter in any way.

If the pc blows up in your face on being given a type of charge, keep going, as you have not yet found the charge. Typical response to wrong charge found: Pc: “Well of course it’s a cut communication! You’ve been cutting my communication the whole session. You ought to be retreaded ..	etc.” Note here that pc’s attention is still on auditor. Therefore the correct charge has not been found. If the by-passed charge has been found the pc will relax and look for it, attention on own case.

Several by-passed charges can exist and be found on one list. Therefore in cleaning up a week or an intensive or a career (any long period) treat a list like rudiments, cleaning everything that reacts.

Blow down of the Tone Arm is the meter reaction of having found the correct by-passed charge. Keep doing Steps One to Six until you get a blow down of the Tone Arm. The pc feeling better and being happy about the ARC Break will coincide almost always with a Tone Arm Blow Down.

You can, however, undo a session ARC Break Assessment by continuing beyond the pc’s cognition of what it is. Continuing an assessment after the pc has cognited, invalidates the pc’s cognition and cuts the Itsa Line and may cause a new ARC Break.

Rarely, but sometimes, the ARC Break is handled with no TA blow down.

PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT

The purpose of an ARC Break Assessment is to return the pc into session or into Scientology or into an Org or course. By-passed charge can cause the person to blow out of session, or out of an Org or a course or Scientology.

WITH A SESSION (formerly “in”): Is defined as “INTERESTED IN OWN CASE AND WILLING TO TALK TO THE AUDITOR”. AGAINST SESSION: Against session is defined as “ATTENTION OFF OWN CASE AND TALKING AT THE AUDITOR IN PROTEST OF AUDITOR, PT AUDITING, ENVIRONMENT OR SCIENTOLOGY”.

WITH SCIENTOLOGY: With Scientology is defined as “INTERESTED IN SUBJECT AND GETTING IT USED”. AGAINST SCIENTOLOGY: Against Scientology is defined as “ATTENTION OFF SCIENTOLOGY AND PROTESTING SCIENTOLOGY BEHAVIOUR OR CONNECTIONS”.

WITH ORGANIZATION: With organization can be defined as “INTERESTED IN ORG OR POST AND WILLING TO COMMUNICATE WITH OR ABOUT ORG”. AGAINST ORGANIZATION: Against organizationness is defined as “AGAINST ORGANIZATION OR POSTS AND PROTESTING AT ORG BEHAVIOUR OR EXISTENCE” .

The data about ARC Breaks can be expanded to marriage, companies, jobs, etc. Indeed to all dynamics—With Dynamic, Against Dynamic.

What it boils down to is this: There are only two conditions of living, but many shades of grey to each one.

These conditions are:

1. 	LIFE: NOT ARC BROKEN: Capable of some affinity for, some reality about and some communication with the environment; and

2. 	DEATH: ARC BROKEN: Incapable of affinity for, reality about and communication with the environment.

Under One we have those who can disenturbulate themselves and make some progress in life.

Under Two we have those who are in such protest that they are stopped and can make little or no progress in life.

One, we consider to be in some ARC with existence.

Two, we consider to be broken in ARC with existence.

In a session or handling the living lightning we handle, people can be hit by a forceful charge of which they are only minutely aware but which swamps them. Their affinity, reality and communication (life force) is retarded or cut by this hidden charge and they react with what we call an ARC Break or have an ARC Broken aspect.

If they know what charge it is they do not ARC Break or they cease to be ARC Broken.

It is the unknown character of the charge that causes it to have such a violent effect on the person.

People do not ARC Break on known charge. It is always the hidden or the earlier charge that causes the ARC Break.

This makes life look different (and more understandable). People continuously explain so glibly why they are acting as badly as they are. Whereas, if they really knew, they would not act that way. When the true character of the charge (or many charges as in a full case) is known to the person the ARC Break ceases.

How much by-passed charge does it take to make a case? The whole sum of past by-passed charge.

This fortunately for the pc is not all of it in constant restimulation. Therefore the person stays somewhat in one piece but prey to any restimulation.

Auditing selectively restimulates, locates the charge and discharges it (as seen on the action of a moving Tone Arm).

However, accidental rekindlings of past charge unseen by pc or auditor occur and the pc “mysteriously” ARC Breaks.

Similarly people in life get restimulated also, but with nobody to locate the charge. Thus Scientologists are lucky.

In heavily restimulated circumstances the person goes OUT OF. In such a condition people want to stop things, cease to act, halt life, and failing this they try to run away.

As soon as the actual by-passed charge is found and recognized as the charge by the person, up goes Affinity and Reality and Communication and life can be lived.

Therefore ARC Breaks are definite, their symptoms are known, their cure is very easy with this understanding and technology.

An ARC Break Assessment seeks to locate the charge that served, being hidden, as a whip-hand force on the person. When it is located life returns. Locating the actual by-passed charge is returning life to the person.

Therefore, properly handling ARC Breaks can be called, with no exaggeration “Returning Life to the person”.

One further word of caution: As experience will quickly tell you, seeking to do anything at all with an earlier by-passed charge incident which led to the ARC Break immediately the earlier incident is found will lead to a vast mess.

Let the pc talk about it all the pc pleases. But don’t otherwise try to run it, date it or seek to find what by-passed charge caused the earlier incident. In assessing for ARC Breaks, keep the Itsa Line in very well and keep the What’s It out in every respect except as contained in the above Six Steps.

SUMMARY

An ARC Break Assessment is simple stuff, so simple people are almost certain to complicate it. It only works when kept simple.

Old auditors will see a similarity in an ARC Break Assessment List and old end rudiments. They can be handled much the same but only when one is covering a long time period. Otherwise assess only to cognition and drop it.

The trouble in ARC Break Assessments comes from additives by the auditor, failure to keep on with additional lists if the type of charge causing the ARC Break isn’t found on the first list chosen, failure to read the meter, and failure to keep the Itsa Line in.

Doing ARC Break Assessments to cure ARC Breaks is not the same drill as R2H and confusing the two leads to trouble.

Handled skillfully as above, ARC Break Assessing cures the great majority of woes of auditing, registraring, training and handling organization. If you find you aren’t making ARC Break Assessments work for you check yourself out on this HCO Bulletin carefully, review your meter reading and examine your handling of the Itsa Line. If you want live people around you, learn to handle ARC Break Assessments.

Don’t worry about pcs getting ARC Breaks. Worry about being able to cure them with assessment until you have confidence you can. There’s nothing so uplifting as that confidence, except perhaps the ability to make any case get TA motion.

Don’t ever be “reasonable” about an ARC Break and think the pc is perfectly right to be having one “because ......”. If that ARC Break exists, the pc doesn’t know what’s causing it and neither do you until you and the pc find it! If you and the pc knew what was causing it, there would be no further ARC Break.

LRH:dr.cden 							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6308C20 SHSpec-296 The Itsa Line

The itsa line is the PC’s comm line to the auditor.  It is not always pursuant to the auditor’s whatsit.  Sometimes it is pursuant to the PC’s whatsit.  The auditing cycle is made up of a concatenation of comm lines.  A comm line can be very faint, as with the attention line.  There may be lines preceding the attention line, as the auditor gets the PC to put his attention on the auditor.

Having an attention line already extant, you convert it to an itsa line. There’s the situation where the PC’s attention line is on something other than the auditor.  If the auditor is adroit, he can flick it over to where he wants it.  For instance, the PC says, “I can’t stand wild parties ... Blah! Blah! ... “ It takes skill to flick the attention over to what you want the PC to talk about.  This is getting the itsa line in.  A PC will always follow the least-charged aberrative line with his TA action.  TA exists on the least-charged aberrative line at any moment.  The mind is so regulated that it will not release charges that the PC considers too dangerous.  TA action ceases when you have too much charge.  You could bleed it off, but you have gotten into too much charge.  And no TA action equals no case advance, even if you get somatics off.  You can make it even worse.  By running the PC with no TA action, you can make the needle action cease too.  The longer you run a case with no TA action, the more the case freezes up and the harder it will be to produce TA action.

The most likely way to get TA action on a case is to get in the itsa line.  Routine-1-C (Routine-1-Comm) is the process that does this.  It is a “soft touch” way of getting in the itsa line.  This is the workhorse.  It requires deftness, but it gets in the itsa line on a jammed, overcharged case, and it will restore TA action.  [Per BTB 4Dec71R I “R1C”, R1C consists of:

1. Finding something that moves the TA.

2. Running the TA out of that subject, to F/N, cog, VGI’s.  The usual method of finding what to run in general R1C is by assessment of dynamics.  Assessment by dynamics gives a series of questions covering each of the dynamics.  This is assessed by tone arm, as given in E-meter Drill 23. Take up the reading question by use of further questions on that same subject.]

The best way to restore TA action to a case that has become overcharged is to cleverly get in and handle the itsa line.  Cleverness is required.  You could ask the PC who comes into session talking about something else, “Did our last session have anything to do with this?” This puts his attention back into session, gently, without putting it on the auditor.  This is preferable to the psychoanalytic practice of letting the PC run on and on about irrelevancies. Getting your job done and having your PC like you all the time conflict and are sometimes diametrically opposed.  The crudest way to get the itsa line in is, “Tell me about it.” This is functional, however.  What you want to do is to move the itsa line around enough to relieve his problem, to the point where you can put the attention line on a significance that will give him case advance.  It is about as skilled as building a watch: very adroit, to the point of invisibility.  You duplicate what he has been talking about and pull his itsa line a bit further and put it on something you want it to be on.  You can even re-use the PC’s origination later, when you have run out of TA or itsa.  For instance, the PC complains of headaches.  You get him to examine how they are affected by what you are auditing.  Then, several sessions later, you can bring the headaches up again as needed.

Unless you can handle the attention line smoothly, you can’t get the itsa line established.  You are split between wanting the PC to think well of you and getting your job done.  In the end, they come to the same thing, but for the moment, it is a matter of making forward progress despite unavoidable, or avoidable, upsets.  Be as clever and as adroit as you can, plus a little.

There are thousands of ways to shift the PC’s attention.  Say his attention is on something.  You ask, “What have you learned about _______ ?” You get TA.  Parallel what the mind is doing, and you can control it.  Find what the PC’s attention is on, and if you can get TA motion by having the PC locate things about what his attention is on, he will recover from any obsessive or compulsive tendencies about it or toward it.  It is the TA motion that takes off the compulsion, not the significance of what he digs up.  The PC way be talking about his grandma’s jam-making, but if he is getting TA motion, he is getting gains.  The fastest recovery comes with a combination of significance and TA motion.

The least charged aberrated area of the case is where you will get TA motion.  Sometimes a direct approach to a highly-charged area may fail, until it is unburdened by getting TA off some other area first.  When you work with that area [the latter area], the PC will know that processing works for him. PC’s always make gains if they are getting TA motion.

TA motion only occurs when the itsa line is in.  Why do we call it the “itsa line”?  The itsa line is more than just a comm line.  It is seeing something to describe and describing it.  A person in jail can’t go to anywhere to see if itsa.  He can’t say, “Itsa beach,” or “Itsa Brighton,” etc.  A nightmare is the inability to itsa, followed by mocking up something that can be itsa’ed that is wrong.  Itsa is the way the thetan orients himself:  itsa ceiling, itsa floor, itsa wall, etc.  Itsa.  Therefore I’ma. [Cf.  Descartes with, “I think. Therefore I am.”] Hide somebody, and the itsa line is cut on himself.  No one else can say, “Itsa.” Disassociate somebody from his identity and he won’t be able to itsa himself.  he won’t be able to say, “Itsa me: Joe Jones.” This is the basic aberration: inability to orient, identify, declare, or recognize.  It is not just the inability to solve.  If itsa is so important to ability, memory, identity, and power, then we would expect the major trick on the track to be that of cutting the itsa line, one way or the other.  And so it is.  Implanters give you all sorts of false data.  You get killed one way, and they convince you that you died another way, or that you didn’t die at all.  They disrupt your itsa line.  This can go on to the point where people believe that they live only once.  The report-back mechanism is even used by doctors, when they have insane people report back for shocks, etc.

People think that what we are doing is unreal, but we know the substance of their unreality.  We know where their itsa line is out.  The notion, “Man is an animal.  At death there is a cessation of cellular commotion,” makes nothing of everyone.

The itsa line can be out of ARC and on KUCDEIOF, the whole scale for R2H.  Tell someone that something that is, isn’t, and his itsa line will go out.  Give someone chalk for candy; he bites into it.  His itsa line is out. This is the “false” level.  Nothing:  Say that nothing haunts this planet; it’s all natural, and anyone who thinks otherwise must be paranoid.  Say something isn’t that is, or that something is that isn’t, like the Darwinian theory.  Inhibited: Tell someone not to examine something because it is dangerous.  Enforced: Know this or be shot!  Desired: A want-to-know itsa.  Curious: a curiosity itsa.  Not just curious about.  Then there’s unknown itsa: You have reality on the unreality of people on this planet.  The itsa is their unknowingness.  A thetan’s tolerance rises to where he can confront an unknown comfortably, without doing anything about it.  X, in algebra, would be an example of this.  A mathematician has gone overboard on the subject of unknownnesses and having to solve it all.  Some auditors, likewise can’t stand the PC’s being in an unknown as he is working on an itsa and have to leap in and get the itsa line in themselves with the meter.  Known:  An itsa line can be too known.  For instance, some crimes are unsolvable because they are committed in too known a fashion.  The obviousness of the postman makes him the ideal murderer in a mystery.  He is too known.  Sometimes things are too obvious.  That also includes the “Everyone knows,” that never gets examined.

Itsa identifies, either individually or, if that is not possible, by classification, by type.  You get a comfortable feeling from this which every now and then gets betrayed, e.g. when you find out that you are in a stage set, not a room.  This gives you an ARC break from the false itsa.  GPM’s are full of such false itsas.  The subject of itsa has to do with straightening out one’s ARC with the universe.  It is an interesting question why there should be this passion for itsa.

Getting the itsa line in has nothing to do with getting the PC to auditor comm line in.  The latter is more likely to be related to the PC’s attention line to the auditor.  Getting the itsa line in is getting the PC to identify, inspect, decide about, and differentiate things in his bank or in the physical universe, e.g., in objective processing, the room.  You could probably get TA by running “What’s that?” and pointing at things.  This is not always workable.  Itsa is familiarization, e.g. with a car or a typewriter.  That is why familiarization processes like, “Touch that _______ ,” work.

A person who is really itsa-ing is blowing off encysted charge caused by former confusion about an area.  That is the mass aspect, the force aspect of it.  When you have itsa’d on a area, the area never comes up again.  Until then, the area keeps coming up -- in the future, ten years in the past, two trillion years in the past, as this, as that, etc.  While the PC is looking for the itsa, what drives some auditors nuts is the extra itsas he puts in and takes out.  “This ... No, that....” A lot of apparent itsas come off before you get the final itsa.  But you could almost say that all the running of a case, on through to the final cognition, the final itsa, consists of conditional itsas.  An auditor should never expect only permanent itsas.

It is adroit of the auditor to use the PC’s attention line to get the itsa line in by steering it to areas that can be itsa’d.  Put the PC’s attention on things he can identify.  Letting the itsa line exist is the lowest level of auditing.  Putting the itsa line in is more active.  The universe is full of whatsit lines, so concentrate on the itsa line.  The itsa line will suffer from being too known, as in “Everyone knows.” The itsa line is the PC’s line to the auditor.  

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 AUGUST AD 13 
Central Orgs
Franchise	
SCIENTOLOGY THREE & FOUR

R3R—R3N
THE PRECLEAR’S POSTULATES

We have long known that the preclear’s postulates made at the time of the incident contained charge.

As the preclear is moved back on his time track beyond Trillions Three, you will find that incidents and Reliable Items contain less charge proportionately to the pc (who was stronger then) and that the pc’s postulates made then contained more charge.

In short as you go earlier on the Time Track, the incidents seemed weaker to the pc then and the pc, being more capable, had stronger postulates.

Thus it is not uncommon to find a GPM on the early track producing only falls on the pc and the pc’s postulates made at that time rocket reading (or falling).

This, in fact, gets even more disproportionate so that on the very early track you might find that running RIs out of a GPM produces no TA motion, but taking the pc’s postulates out produces a TA blow down that “goes through 7” (around the whole TA dial and back up).

In my recent surveys of the Tone Arm and its relationship to auditing, it became apparent that three types of charge existed in a GPM.

1. 	Charge as an engram.

2. 	Charge as Reliable Items.

3. 	Charge as postulates.

All three must be removed from a GPM.

Any incident, wherever it is on the track, contains postulates (comments, considerations, directions) made by the pc at that time.

Thus in all incidents the pc’s postulates must be called for and removed.

To remove a postulate from any incident, have the pc repeat it until it no longer reacts on the needle of the meter. If it comes down to a persistent tick get suppress off it and get it repeated again, just as in the case of any RI in a GPM.

DON’T LEAVE POSTULATES CHARGED.

Treat them like GPM Items whether in a GPM or an engram.

Add to your ARC Break L lists L3 and L4, “Have we by-passed any postulates?”

There are implants which tell the pc not to erase his own postulates. There is also a Bear Series Goal “To Postulate”
Sometimes the postulate lies ahead of the actual engram in R3R. Example: A man decides to get hurt, then enters into an engramic situation. The engram does not wholly free until the postulate is removed.

Occasional calling for “any postulates, considerations or comments you had in this incident” while running R3R engrams or R3N will keep the incident going well. When the pc says one, have him or her repeat it until it no longer reacts on the needle.

I bring this up at this time as I have found a case that got no TA action on engrams or GPMs or RRs on RIs until the postulates were given special attention, at which time TA action of an excellent kind occurred.

SUMMARY

A stuck TA is always caused by running the pc above the pc’s tolerance of charge. You can stop any TA by ramming the pc into incident after incident without cleaning them up. A postulate is only one kind of charge.

At any position on the Time Track also look for the pc’s postulates. Early on the Time Track expect them to occasionally “blow the Meter apart”.

Flatten any postulate found by getting it repeated until the reaction is gone off the needle. And all charge, of course, on anything, whether falls or RRs, must be removed from engrams or GPMs.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: dr.bh 
Copyright © 1963 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6308C21 SHSpec-297 The Itsa Line (Continued)

Things look more complex than they actually are.  Sitting somewhere in back of every thetan’s bank is a tremendous insecurity, in which the thetan believes implicitly that the universe is dangerous, or that he is in danger, or that he cannot live or survive as a powerful being.  The itsa line could look to you like a simple communication line on which, if you let anyone talk enough, he will get better.  This is not so.  If you understand the itsa line, you will see the PC go through a cycle of fishing for an itsa.  If the auditor tells the PC what is there by putting in the itsa with the meter, it leaves the PC in a zone or area of insecurity, as will any interruption of the PC’s itsa.  The PC has to be responsible for putting in the itsa line.  If the auditor does it too much, e.g. saying, “The meter reads that it is before 1850,” etc., you have created a psychiatric, potentially hypnotic, evaluative set-up.  It is OK to give a little help, but not to put in the whole itsa line for the PC.  When you tell a person that there is hope for his case, you are putting in an itsa line, the “Hope Factor”.

But what about the line plot, for instance?  This puts in an itsa line for the PC, to some degree.  The line plot for the GPM is the lesser of two evils.  It allows the PC to identify it to his own reality, and it is less undesirable than letting the PC wrap himself around a telephone pole.  It was an other-determined thing in the first place, and the most important thing is to get the charge off of it.  Similarly, if the PC is trying to date something and bogs utterly, you should help him with the meter, enough to increase his ability to see what he is after by narrowing his search.  Even if you get down to the hour and minute and the PC never spotted it, at least you’ve got it dated.  But it is still a bit of a lose.  The only time you totally lose is when you have to put the whole itsa line in.

Aberration is a means of perverting the itsa line.  Pure evil is denial of the itsa line and aberration of it.  Perversion of the itsa line has to be very direct in order to be very aberrative.  Given the slightest chance, the PC will put in his itsa line.  But the question is: will he put it in on anything aberrative?  He won’t, unless directed to it.  Psychoanalysis directs the itsa line to something non-aberrative, lets him itsa, and then evaluates, putting the itsa line in totally, analyzing it for him.

Putting in a hope factor by saying that something can be done to change conditions puts in the itsa line, to a small degree.  Even, “Start of session” puts in an itsa line, with the intent of putting the PC in a position to itsa.  The intention makes the difference, where one puts in the itsa line for another.  An evil intention, [in this respect] is one that is devoted to decreasing the person’s ability to itsa.  That is the way to make slaves.  A good intention is an intention to improve someone’s itsa.  Get the person to identify, spot, and point out, and he will be in better shape than he is.

This corner of the universe is suffering from a surplus of lousy civilization.  It was recently conquered, but it was set up to be conquered by the use of degrading mental technology.  The civilization in this area implanted their own soldiers “to be loyal” “to be brave”, etc.  Such a civilization has no power, because for an implant to stick, it has to have two items: one positive and one negative, e.g. “to be a loyal soldier” and “to be a disloyal soldier”.  So fifty percent of the implant is in the negative.  Also, the fact that the implant was done at all destroys loyalty.  The Galactic Confederacy, with no implanting, lasted eighty trillion years.  The Espinol Confederacy, with implants, lasted a few hundred thousand years.  Rome died at the hands of her slaves, not at those of barbarians.  Being a free man didn’t pay, so who wanted to fight for Rome?  Slavery produced a civil war.  The first families of Boston made their money from slaves [and so we got a civil war, too.] It is not just a matter of sentiment.  Statistically, slavery never pays off.  It is dangerous.  Russia is having trouble because of the slave economy, which is a hang-over from pre-revolutionary Russia.  Probably the white Russian nobility came back from the between-lives area as communists.

Slavery always produces a backlash because a thetan never really gives up.  He can hold the postulate that he was right all the way down to the bottom of unconsciousness.  The effort to dominate and to deny power of choice to others is the road that this universe walked towards the Hell it became. Fear stands ahead of that.  The nonsense behind it is that a thetan can’t do anything but survive, so for him to fear non-survival is foolish.  How to kill a thetan is the biggest problem in this universe.

How can a being who cannot cease to survive get into a state of mind where he is afraid that he won’t?  It takes a lot of trickery.  Usually it is on an extension of self into a possession, like making a minion: mocking up a mock-up, endowing it with life, and protecting it when someone attacks it.  It can be a body, a state, etc.  The thetan must have confused himself with it to the point where he thinks his survival can be affected.  That is the first step into aberration.

The next step is elementary.  One is worried about survival, so one solves the problem of survival by domination.  This solution is not successful in the long run.  That which is not admired tends to persist.  That is one reason why domination stays around:  domination is not admired.  Thetan A, to protect something, dominates thetan B.  In so doing, he sets himself up to be dominated in turn.  Having set up a cause-effect line, the line can reverse. It is a comm line, with duplication, which makes it easy to reverse.  Any custom on this planet has this reverse duplication element.  You can count on its having been the reverse at some time.  The duplication factor easily makes cause look like effect on this comm line, and it leads to the overt-motivator sequence.  One commits overts.  Then, one day, one slips into effect and gets what one caused.  Running O/W frees up a vicious comm line and cures some mis-identifications, thus undoing aberration.  For instance, waiters wear black tuxedos.  Any custom was a reverse custom at an earlier date.

If communication is so dangerous, why does a thetan communicate at all? It is because he wants to be oriented.  Once oriented, a thetan uses his best tool: communication, to dominate, to do people in and to mess up things that he tries to identify with.  He mis-uses his comm line.  It is there because he is lost and feels the need of orientation, hence his desire for communication.  There is insecurity behind this desire, the reason for which we don’t know yet.  In using the itsa line, “we’re using the obsession to identify, which lies back of the communication line.  We are using a principle higher than communication, coupled with communication, in order to orient and rehabilitate the thetan.”  

All we are missing is what lies behind the insecurity that caused him to start the whole cycle.  Originally, the thetan was not insecure, was not reaching, not protecting anything, and he was not communicating!  How and why did anyone get to him, originally, to the point where he felt that he needed to be oriented to be comfortable?  It is hard to figure this out because there was no communication at the time.  But “you show me the problem, and very shortly later, I’ll show you the answer.”

Just as it took only one step to start down that road, so it takes only a step at the other end to go back up.  The PC gradiently comes up to OT, then breaks through with a shock that may scare him.  Processing is the cure for having to be familiarized with things to itsa.  We are undoing the tendency to itsa by using it.  Once a thetan is free of those things, he will snap back to his original lost power, at least until he rights some wrongs and slips, briefly.

Self-determinism, pan-determinism, and personal power is restored to the individual along the line of minimal help and maximal recovery of self-determinism, of self-ability to itsa, on the part of the PC.  As the case goes along, its progress is measured directly by the degree to which self-determinism is returned into the PC’s hands.  Thus you could get a fantastic number of engrams and GPM’s run and have a foggy PC, by dating everything in the bank for him or by invalidating some datum of the PC’s, no matter how slightly.

An auditor has the same problem a mother has:  to give enough help, but not too much.  The amount of help required is not constant from one PC to the next, because PCs are at such different levels of independence and aberration.  Both could be high!  The problem is to determine how much help the PC needs in order to know.  What you want to do is to take whatever ability you find and reduce any dependency you find.  Give the PC all the help he needs to get along, and then reduce it.

Added into all this is your flubs.  You will never reduce them to zero, so don’t try.  You will get caught in cross-currents of communication and purposes.  Since the PC’s comm line is so often fogged up in session, the auditor’s ability to handle it perfectly is nil.  So the auditor shouldn’t be afraid of mishandling the PC, because an occasional mishandling is inevitable.  So, when this happens, you have to get slippy and handle the intention line, if possible.

Don’t put the PC’s attention on the auditor.  This can happen by mistake, but watch out!  E.g., don’t say, “Do you want to tell me about it?”  This inadvertently diverts attention to the auditor.

The PC’s itsa line will get better to the degree that it is permitted to exist.  Don’t just let the PC talk, but direct his attention to things in the bank that he can identify.  Don’t tell him what he is looking at, if you can avoid it, but if you do have to tell him, let him itsa it.  If you don’t, his ability to identify will deteriorate, and his ability to know whether he is right will decrease.  That is the effect of confirming his itsa line with the meter.  If you look on what you are doing as improving the PC’s ability to know that he is right, to be positive, you will make minimal mistakes.  That is the chief ability that is there to be improved on a case.  If you look on a case as something from which significances have to be removed, regardless of the PC’s ability to be certain, the PC will still make it, but it will take much longer.  The PC’s case improves by removal of charge but is impeded by the auditor cutting back his ability to itsa.  

An “ARC breaky PC” is probably one with a high degree of independence, perhaps swamped by charge.  You can create dependency by telling him everything.  There is also the point to be considered, that if you don’t tell the PC when an item is finally discharged, early in running GPM’s, the PC will leave items charged, and the mechanism of the bank will cause him to bounce and ARC break.  So you put in the itsa line: itsa discharged.  Sooner or later, the PC will start to tell you that it is.  At that point, stop telling him that it is clean.  Don’t stop if he still can’t tell.  To do so would leave him with live RI’s and postulates.  Wean him off from the meter slowly, validating his knowingness as it develops.  Give the PC all the help he needs.  If a PC can’t tell what is in his bank, he can’t live with it.  There is a certain minimal help that a PC needs to get started.  He can’t do it all on his own.

On the other hand, you could get a PC who hasn’t been here long, who cognites on the Axioms, knocks out the bank, does change of space processing between the auditing room and the next building [See The Creation of Human Ability, pp. 37-39; 171-173.  This is the “Grand Tour” process, the object of which is to get all areas into present time by directing the PC to be in a variety of places.], and says goodby and thank you.  Fine.  You audited him.

ARC breaky PCs sometimes get into the situation of having their concept of their own independence cut up by people putting in itsa lines for them. They dramatize.  A PC who is routinely ARC breaky undoubtedly has something wrong with the itsa line, and not from auditing.  He could benefit from an 18-button prepcheck on the itsa line.  Those eighteen buttons are the most powerful itsas there are or ever have been in the universe.  Another approach would be to handle the fact that the PC is using the ARC break to solve a problem.  But the prepcheck normally gets it cleaned up.

A cut itsa line is the most colossal PTP there is.  A person’s itsa line to the rest of the universe is cut just by the fact of his being on earth.  If he tries to leave earth, he goes to the between-lives area.

The only missing piece is: why does a thetan have a compulsion to itsa?  

6308C22 SHSpec-298 Project 80

“80” is a mathematical trick to say “oo and 0”.  It embraces “all”. Project 80 has to do with organizational targets, dissemination, and technical planning.  1964 will be the Year of Scientology for Everyone.  Organizations suffer from loss of personnel.  One would be rich if one just lived and persisted long enough.  If you are persistent, you yourself become a sort of institution.  To “solve” a problem is a MEST universe way of looking at things.  The right way is to find out, “How did it become a problem?”  LRH operates on the basis that if he conceives of a problem, he is about forty-eight hours away from seeing what made it a problem.  An organization’s problem of losing all its people is one that we have licked.  With all the shifts and changes, we, the people, are the stability in the development of the tech.  We have the material for Scientology 4 [Research towards OT.  See above.], making OT’s, wrapped up, as far as research is concerned.  In view is a wrapping up of the between-lives area, so as to strip out the report-back mechanism.  It is a bit tougher than LRH thought it would be. There are, in addition to GPM’s, screen-type incidents and postulation-type incidents.  The GPM’s are all negative on the beginning end of the screen and positive on the leaving end, so the dichotomy makes them tend to collapse.  Some rules for cleaning up charge faster have developed, but it is all just auditing -- keeping the PC’s attention directed to those areas of the track where he gets TA action.  That is the highest level of professional skill.  Drills for a thetan exterior is all wrapped up.

Not everyone will reach the technical level of those who are at St. Hill, who have been through all the developments and changes.  That is too much to expect.  Auditors elsewhere are operating at different levels of reality, which establish different levels of ARC for them.  The gap between our R and theirs has been getting wider and wider.  So we are in an informed ivory tower, with no bridge behind us.  That is rather important.  This planet is in slightly different circumstances then others.  It has a chance not to get tilted.  Things put here tend to stay.  Other nearby planets are more tightly governed and are harder to enter, to salvage them.  They are invasionary planets.  This area used to be controlled by the Espinol Confederacy, but their return platforms are closed off.  That spells defeat [for them].  Is there some other implantive system that is deeper into the heart of this galaxy -- a system that is going to backfire against this one?  Probably so. It is probably coming up soon.  But conquerers almost always spare the jails. We can’t bet on the preservation of earth, but we can bet on this planet having a better chance of becoming a rehabilitation center than other planets.  But what if we have left no bridge in the rehabilitation center, so that everybody flounders around with no way to improve?  If you don’t leave a bridge, you will wind up with a group of people who are very angry at those who might assist them.  That would be very undesirable.  We’ve got to leave a bridge.  However, at present, our feeder lines into the public are weak, not organizationally, but technically.

Project 80 is the bridge.  It requires that we find what the public agrees with and use that to improve their ARC up to another level, and that we keep doing that, in order to bring them up gradiently.  We are not necessarily improving their ARC with us.  We are just improving their ARC to a point where we can hit another level of agreement.  The dynamics, various scales, the ARC triangle, and the dynamic principle of existence -- all of these are too high-toned for Scientology 1.  So they comprise Scientology 2.  [See above for a description of the Scientology Levels.] So we are back to 30-60 day HCA/HPA training.  This is only possible because of the discovery of the itsa line.

Some of you, as auditors, overlook what is a win for a PC.  Knowing that your goal is to run out GPM’s, etc., you miss the fact that the PC has had a win in being able to talk to an auditor, when he couldn’t talk to anyone before.  The feeling that one is getting case advance, and real case advance, lies in the fact that the itsa line is in and the TA is moving.  Get the itsa line in and the TA moving, and you will get a level of improvement and result never before achieved.  This has nothing to do with significances.  If you get somebody talking about his health or his lumbosis, you find out that the cures, solutions, decisions, discoveries, cognitions, comments, reiterations, and hopes about that lumbosis, in their aggregate, caused the individual to have lumbosis.  If you get them off with TA action, you get a recovered lumbosis.  The condition could well vanish just from getting the PC to itsa about these cures, etc.  This does not apply to broken legs -- yet.  Someone who has been trained in getting an itsa line in and not cutting it, given also some basic training in the Auditor’s Code, the Axioms, the ARC triangle, the CDEI scale, etc., would have good results and wins.

Scientology 1 operates at the level of: “It is possible to have a happy marriage,” or “If you want to get along with children better, listen to what they say and let them know you heard it.  Don’t just ignore them,” or “Employee-boss relations are mainly problems of communication.”  In fact, you should make communication the stable datum.  How you design this line is all regulated by what people can go into ARC with.  You have to talk to people at a level where they can have ARC.  R1C is a list of questions that you can use to get in an itsa line.  Specific questions from this list could be used by a Book Auditor to run on someone’s lumbosis.  This could be done on a co-audit basis and would get fine results.  That is the auditing level of Scientology 1.

Lower grade Scientology 2 (HPA/HCA) can get fabulous results with R2C. R2C is R1C, preceded by an assessment on the expanded CDEI scale, plus the eight dynamics.  [See HCOT/F 17Oct63 “R2C: Slow Assessment by Dynamics”, as well as HCOB 17Oct63 “R2C:  Slow Assessment by Dynamics -- Directions for Use of HCO Technical Form 17Oct63” and HCOB 31Oct63 “R2C: Slow Assessment by Dynamics (Continued)”.] The tone arm is used.  The PC first looks over the CDEI scale to see which level best characterizes his life.  It might take ten minutes and it might take fifty hours.  The PC has to see which levels applied, at which times in his life, and where and how and which they are, and how they relate, etc.  You can get a lot of TA on examining the scale. Eventually, the PC comes out with a level, X.  Now give him the eight dynamics, expanded, i.e. broken down into sub-parts.  He has to find out which ones he has been most concerned about this lifetime.  This could also take ten minutes or fifty hours.  Eventually, the PC comes out with a dynamic, Y. Therefore, the question becomes X, Y.  The PC gets asked about the combined assessments, e.g. curious about children.  The question could have a third component:

Considerations

Solutions

Decisions about

Concern for.  

So you have matched up the ARC triangle with MEST, form, and location.  The PC will start off with ARC vs. ARC.  Then, when he can confront MEST, he will get into the sixth and seventh dynamics.  So, as you repeat this operation, the PC will go up the dynamics to the sixth and seventh.  This would be a way of clearing this lifetime.

Upper-grade Scientology 2 would use R2H, ARC break dating, and any other process, like prepchecking, that uses needle action as well as TA.  It is a retread level for HPA/HCA’s.  So the line-up for Scientology 1 and 2 is:

Scn 1:

a)  Non-auditing: P.E.-level scientology.

b) Auditing: Book Auditing, on a co-audit basis.

Scn 2:

a)  Lower level: HPA/HCA level.  Uses R2C.  Tone arm used only, not needle action.

b)  Upper level: HPA/HCA retread level.  Processes using needle action and TA.

Another element enters the scene: the ARC break assessment.  This would be a specialized activity.  It can be done by central orgs or auditors in private practice, to patch up field auditors’ PCs, and, at the same time, the field auditor whose PC needs this action can be nudged about following the Auditor’s Code, e.g.  about keeping his mouth shut.  Try to bring it home that ARC break assessments need to be done.  We can use them, both on PCs and on auditors. You can keep a lot of co-auditors straightened out by having someone around to do ARC break assessments.

You could have a course in which you can give a classification of HBA (Hubbard Book Auditor).  The student gets a gen on:

1. The itsa line.

2. The Auditor’s Code.  This course would also include testing and co-audits.

The whole secret of our communication is that it is up to us to establish the level of the communication that we engage in.  We have considered it somewhat dishonest to put our communication at a level of anything less than everything we know.  But it isn’t really dishonest to say less then we know. There is no reason to overwhelm people with all the data.  It would just be out-reality.

There will be snags in the program.  There will always be people who are uncomfortable with motion and change.  These people will try, overtly or covertly, to stop it all.  They will be the people who despair of getting a result by doing the usual, because they won’t do it.  They will be the ones who keep applying unusual solutions.  Don’t get your attention pinned on one bad apple and forget that everywhere else it is going fine.  To do this would be to embark on a crusade in an ill-advised direction.  Probably all evil generates from too great a concentration on evil.  If you concentrate on how the show isn’t getting on the road, when it is in fact on the road, you will contribute to keeping it from being on the road.  You should take care of such matters on a routine, rather than an emergency basis.

When we have auditing at lower levels totally shaped around the definition of an auditor as a listener, we will have no trouble getting the whole project well done.  

6308C27 SHSpec-299 Rightness and Wrongness

People use mental technology the way they do, in this universe, because they don’t know what they are doing.  The purpose of mental technology must be one of survival, with a consequent necessity to dominate, so it must consist of being right and [making others] wrong.  Survival, rightness and wrongness, and domination fit together.  Apparent contra-survival actions are the thetan’s effort to be right.  This is the lowest ebb of aberration, because the thetan can’t do anything else but survive.  In order to survive, you have to be more right than wrong, so you get obsessed with being right.  The beginning of succumb is the recognition that you are wrong.  This is not sensible, but it is the way a thetan behaves.  Therefore, if an individual is surviving at all, he must be right, even if it is only an insistence on being right.  A = A = A.  If an individual is undertaking an action and is surviving, then it must be a right action.  A thetan has to enter a basic lie on the scene to worry about his survival.  This is idiocy, because there is no reason for a thetan to worry about survival.  A thetan first worries about the survival of something else -- something that can be threatened with non-survival.  Then the thetan identifies himself with that thing.  This is the first lie.  When he starts worrying about his own survival, because he has taken the idiotic step of identifying himself with his creations, he enters into the necessity to dominate to ensure his own survival.  There is no reason why, if you are protecting sand castles, you have to take the idiot step of becoming a sand castle, and you can go on   protecting them indefinitely without doing this.  But once you have identified yourself with a sand-castle and are worried about your own survival, you enter into the necessity to dominate to continue your own survival, to be tougher than the other tough boys on the beach.

You don’t even have to become a sand-castle to start the game of domination, if that is what you want to do.  The game of domination consists of being right and making the other fellow wrong.  That is all there is to it.  It’s a silly game, really.  For instance, Russia and the U.S. are each devoting so much of their production capacity to defend themselves from each other that they are failing, economically.  People justify all sorts of insanity on the basis of rightness and wrongness.  Even a skid-row bum is being a bum in order to be right.  Everyone has tried to make him wrong for what he does, so he has to continue to be right.  If he admits he is wrong, [he feels] he will die.  You may be confused, just watching what is being done, because some of it could have good results, but the basis can still be a nutty rightness.  People assert nutty rightness, because everyone is always making then wrong for the nuttiness.  If someone agrees that he has been doing something wrong, he is liable to collapse, since he has identified wrongness with succumbing.

Behavior doesn’t necessarily have everything to do with the whole track. Behavior is behavior.  People have tried to aberrate it one way or another. They have tried to make people behave some other way, but the science of life still remains the science of life.  The factors of life still remain the factors of life, and if you were to delete all the GPM’s and incidents and everything else, you would not have removed the basic laws on which scientology is built.  GPM’s, etc., merely use the existing laws of life to enslave people.  They simply enforce, exaggerate, and destroy freedom of choice over the exercise of the ability to be happy, powerful, etc.  They destroy the ability to be self- or pan-determined.  They make people one-sided about everything.  They use basic laws, unwittingly, to exaggerate certain things, which then lead a person to enslave himself.  The basic mechanism of enslavement is:

1. Insistence upon surviving, followed by

2. The necessity to dominate, followed by

3. The necessity to be right or wrong,

4. Which then becomes as irrational as the original postulate to survive, and then

5. The person becomes more and more degraded.  The postulates made by the individual go downhill to the point where you would be amazed at what the individual is doing to be right.

When you get down to very aberrated rightness, you are dealing with death, because at that level, cessation of survival is so imminent that it gets dramatized before it happens.  In that way, the individual is still right by succumbing.  Currently, there are three organizations under attack:

1. Scientology.

2. Buddhism.

3. Theosophy.  

The U.S. government is supporting the Vietnamese government in its attacks on Buddhists; it has attacked the Theosophists recently, and it launched a raid, via the FDA, on the FCDC, in Washington.  But these are the only three groups that believe in reincarnation, i.e. they are the only groups that don’t believe in death forever.  In attacking them, the U.S. government is asserting a rightness about death.  

To get some sort of aberrated behavior of this kind straightened out with someone, you would have to get him to tell you how the behavior makes him right.  You would get an automaticity for starters, which would finally run out.  Then you could see how it makes someone else wrong.  When that is all run out, the individual will have far less inclination to do the behavior that he previously had to do to be right.  The strongest intention in the universe is the intention to be right.  The diagnosis of how you could make a person wrong depends on what that person most insists upon.  That is what you can make him wrong on.  [This would be getting a person’s goat.] Behavior doesn’t consist of an aberration that someone is dramatizing.  It consists of an aberration that a person dredges up in order to make someone else wrong. That’s behavior:  It works, too.  Making someone wrong all the time does worry him.  Furthermore, one can be made wrong to the point where one inverts, goes into agreement with what is being said by the person who is making him wrong, and now makes the former wrongness an obsessive rightness.  The “right” label gets identified with the wrong action.  A government may be made wrong about bringing in law and order, to the point where it now exercises criminality, using the label of law and order.

The issue of rightness and wrongness has been further booby-trapped by guys on the whole track who implanted people with GPM’s that contain the words, “right” and “wrong”.  However, when making himself right and others wrong, an individual is not acting because of the GPM.  That just intensifies the action.  If you try just simply to run someone on right and wrong for very long, you run into the GPM and can’t keep on in that line, ordinarily. Getting in an itsa line on the aberration will de-intensify its power, however.

If a guy has accidents frequently:

1. Find out what he is having (wrecks, accidents, injuries, etc.).  This doesn’t take very long.  You have to isolate what it is that the guy  is doing.  The obvious action may not be his intention.  Maybe it is not his automobile accidents that are making him right.  Maybe it is getting injured.  When you have the right thing, he will run easily.  

2. Ask the PC how (an auto accident) makes him right.  You will get an easy itsa line.  

3. Ask him how (an auto accident) would make them (or another) wrong. You will get another avalanche.
  
4. Ask (2) again, then (3), etc.  Keep it balanced, and you will avoid bumping the GPM as hard. 

This process is below the level of recognition or cognition.  It undermines neurosis.  Neurosis is defined as an anti-survival action that is compulsively undertaken by the individual.  The only qualification to this process is that we have to be capable of communicating with the person and listening to him. And we have to get our hands on him first.  But on a cold-bloodedly practical basis, service fac processes are a more practical mental technology than the alternatives: implants, drugs, electric shock treatments, etc., just because of the backlash from angry thetans who want revenge on implanters.  The hole in implanter tech is that the survival of the implanter can, in the future, be threatened.  Implants can be undone.  Many implant set-ups have been destroyed.  Implanters do implanting because they are trying to be right and to make others wrong.  That’s all.  It is a mere dramatization.  When you see someone acting simply to be right and to make others wrong, you will see a worsening condition.  You are looking at the last dregs of domination. The person who is being “right” is, in fact, getting worse, as are the people in his vicinity.  Implanting works only over a short-term period, e.g. 100,000 years, which is short-term, on a galactic scale.  Implanting worsens not only the people implanted, but also the implanter and everyone in the vicinity of these people.

What is true of neurosis is also true of psychosis.  Psychosis has the same mechanism at a lower level, and it gets treatment from psychiatrists at the same low level of make-wrong and Q and A.

The overt-motivator sequence also fits into this effort to dominate and be right.  When you get two people, each insisting on his own rightness, their ideas eventually commingle, and they can’t tell who is doing what.  This is because both are saying, “I’m right and you’re wrong.”

If a “science” is dramatizing an unknown one of its parts, it is not a complete technology.  It is impossible to have a science of life under these circumstances because you can’t fully understand something that you are dramatizing a part of.  A science of life should be a complete understanding, and since one is dramatizing at least a part of living, one can’t have a total understanding of it.  [In other words, “being right” should be one of the parts of a mental technology.  However, if “being right” is being dramatized by the practitioners of a mental technology, then clearly they don’t have full understanding of the mind.] This is a particular problem with the science of life.  Hence there is a tendency to withdraw from life.  A total cessation of the dramatization of the game called “life” would put one in a confused state of thinking that the way to do it is to separate oneself from life by going off to a cave and meditating.

But a person that can’t experience easily has to experience, compulsively.  The final challenge of a science of life is, “Does it produce life?”, not “Does it produce death?”  If you know all the answers, you can live.  It is remarkable to be in a situation where this can be sorted out.  As one goes along, getting more understanding, one doesn’t have to work so hard to experience existence; one doesn’t have to be convinced that one is surviving, being right, dominating, etc.  When a person is no longer able to select his own behavior, he must obsessively be right by doing something wrong.  It is OK to be right, if you are being analytical.

However, there is a level at which rightness and wrongness cease to be analytical and become obsessive.  It is below that level that we speak of aberration.  You can find what the person is doing that he doesn’t like to do, then ask the person how that makes him right.  Everyone has a few of these actions.  They generally arise from some overwhelm of the person’s self-determinism, where he has accepted another’s rightness.  The person is out of valence and dramatizing someone else’s aberrations.  [You could perhaps pick this up on Flow One of Level 4 triples.] But we aren’t interested in other people’s aberrations.  The dwindling spiral is really entered where the person accepts inability, weakness, stupidity, etc., as a way to be right. Any dramatization of mental science that brings about further disability is wrong for the civilization that uses it.  Anything that brings about more life, livingness, and beingness is right for that person or society.  

Anything that is crazy in a person was OK at some higher level.  All madness is an exaggeration of some ability or capability.  For instance sexual misbehavior is a lower-scale dramatization of the ability to create.  It becomes aberrated in the following way:

1. It was really right.

2. It was a method of survival.

3. It was a method of domination.

4. It was a method of being right in order to make others wrong.

5. Then one got enough overts such that the communication line switched around.  What was right about it is now wrong about it, and vice versa.  The sexual misbehavior or other aberrated behavior is practically unrecognizable from its [original] state, as far as the person’s behavior is concerned.  When you understand this, you understand much of the nonsense that you previously only protested against.  The explanation for the behavior that is offered by the individual so obscures what he is really doing that it gets confusing.  The main line of human behavior is along the lines of:

1. Survival.

2. Domination

3. Rightness and wrongness.  

However, when an auditor invalidates another’s assertion of rightness, it only drives the PC downscale and cuts the only communication line that can help the PC.  “A dramatization of rightness and wrongness is not the answer to a dramatization of rightness and wrongness.”

6308C29 SHSpec-300 The TA and the Service Facsimile

If you cannot make a keyed-out clear with a prepcheck in 25 hours or less, the PC is operating on a service facsimile.  This is startling but elementary.  A prepcheck fits in with the itsa line very closely.  The 18 buttons are hot.  They give the key itsas of the case.  If they are not working, you have a service facsimile on your hands.  In doing a prepcheck, it is assumed that you are using a time-limiter in order to keep the amount of restimulation under control.  If you don’t control the itsa line, the PC will restimulate more charge than you can get as-ised.  The time limiter you use can be by subject or location, as well as by date.

A PC answering prepcheck questions is giving you key itsas.  If a prepcheck is done for this lifetime, you should get a keyed-out clear, per the Book 1 definition of clear.  [See DMSMH, pp. 8-17; 770-17]  Clearing in this way is destimulation by knocking out the points where restimulation took place, making incidents inert.  An inert incident can be restimulated, however.

Degree of restimulation is not important to state of case; neither is the condition of being restimulated.  But there is a state of case with respect to restimulation.  All cases are restimulated to some degree, but some are over-restimulated.  A case that is over-restimulated will not discharge the restimulation by ordinary means, because discharge has somehow been prevented.  This condition is important; it is getting ahold of too much and not discharging it.  A uncontrolled itsa line can cause over-restimulation. An incident that is discharged has been relieved of charge, so that it can no longer be restimulated.  Restimulation can be let off without the incident that was restimulated being discharged.  It can simply be destimulated.  So, with a bank, you can either destimulate it by knocking out the key-ins of the original charge, or you can discharge it by running it.  A discharge is a flowing off of charge.  When an incident is discharged, it is gone, and it is no longer capable of being restimulated.

Let us assume that the reactive mind consists mainly of inert incidents. If they would just stay quiet, you would never have to clear anybody. However, the PC’s attention can be directed at the incident, by life, auditing, or the PC himself, at which point the incident converts the PC’s attention to restimulation, over which he has no control.  If the PC’s attention goes to the incident so as to have understanding and confront, you will see TA motion, and the incident can be discharged, or erased.  On the other hand, if the PC’s attention flicks over the incident, giving a key-in, you can knock out the moment of key-in by having him look at it, and it will destimulate again, i.e. it will key out.  Bank is inert until life or auditing causes the PC’s attention to go onto a portion of it.  The PC’s attention is the actual source of charge.

An 18-button prepcheck should key out anything that keyed in.  It can destimulate somebody to the state of clear.  So you don’t have to make a clear to make an OT.  You only have to make a key-out clear.

The state of case of the PC is directly represented and analyzed by the tone arm, and the free needle.  The eight levels of case compare with eight states of the tone arm and needle.  [See above for a description of the eight levels of case.]     Case Level:  

8. Stage 4 needle.

7. Continuous rock slam.

6. Stuck needle at clear read (dead thetan).

5. Low TA.

4. High TA.

3. TA moving in the high range.
2. Good TA through and past clear read.

1. F/N at clear read.

When LRH tried to go from destimulated clear to discharged clear, he found that there was no waystop short of OT.  The condition you’ve got to have, to take anyone to OT, is a TA moving through clear read, with good TA. Without that, there is too much restimulation present for you to get the PC to discharge material from the backtrack or to get into GPM’s.  If you tried to do this anyway, the PC’s TA would tend to stick, then to go high, then to go low, then eventually to stick at clear read.  If you then did a prepcheck, which would now be harder, you could send him back to all those states of TA, as you destimulated the case.  You wouldn’t have to go all the way to F/N to go to the backtrack, now.  The subject isn’t how you discharge the incident; it is when.  The TA should be moving around, preferably through 3.0, before you try to go backtrack.

So you can make a clear by prepchecking a few prepared subjects.  The case will feel wonderful, sometimes for years, until he starts wondering whether he still has any worries about what used to bother him.  Then he starts restimulating himself and gets keyed in.  A mere key-out clear can’t be OT, because when he tries to turn on the power, it kicks in the inert incidents.  The only way to make clear completely stable would be to discharge everything in the bank.  From F/N’ing, the meter goes blank, because you’ve got nothing to measure.  That’s OT.  

Over-restimulation is the cause of amnesia, edgy and bad body feelings, etc.  If you gave the PC three sessions in a row without getting any TA,  he would feel rather bad, because just the auditing would have restimulated charge, and you would have an over-restimulated case.  When this happens, memory gets bad, facsimiles get harder to see, incidents get jammed together. The bank gets to be a mess.  All this is due to over-restimulation.  If the PC now gets prepchecked and destimulated, he can approach the track, but this can be done with good TA only if the auditing is done gradiently, with good clean-up of everything contacted, discharging it as you go.  Don’t fail to pay attention to the TA and go backtrack, hoping to get the incident responsible for the restimulation.  You will restimulate more than you discharge, in the process of looking for the incident.  A cheerful PC equals the itsa line in and the TA moving.  It almost doesn’t matter what the TA is moving on.  Case level relates to over-restimulation, not to the amount of bank the PC has.

The auditing target is always the restimulated charge, not the inert material in the bank.  The PC can always restimulate more, once he has discharged what was available.       

“Clear” means “nothing in the restimulation chamber”.  If too much gets restimulated, by life, auditing, or the PC, the auditor can destimulate it with prepchecks and ARC break assessments, [See above.]  It is not possible to audit someone without doing one of three things:

1. Restimulating 

2. Destimulating.   This is the same as keying something out.   or  

3. Discharging.  This is the same as erasing.  

Auditing is always doing at least one of these three things.  When a case is already confused and is not confronting well, naturally the amount of destimulation and discharge are minimal, so restimulation takes over.  You will get no TA motion.  When you don’t destimulate or discharge anything, you will restimulate more and you will get no TA.  Lack of TA is a danger signal. The auditor should find out why.  There are two possible actions:

1. The auditor may do something that can discharge [or destimulate] the restimulated charge, e.g. prepchecking or flattening what has been left unflat.  Prepchecking or R2H would be safest.

2. He can look for something that is preventing discharge.  [E.g. by doing an ARC break assessment to find the correct BPC.]  If the TA is not restored immediately, only one thing is wrong:  the case is sitting in a service facsimile and will only worsen until the service facsimile is cleared.

If a small amount of auditing doesn’t restore the case to a clear state, the PC has a service facsimile.  If he is sitting in one, it must be run, or he will not improve.  Prepchecks turn on mass in the presence of a service facsimile, because the PC has no intention of getting rid of it.  The PC won’t let go of the service fac and the service fac won’t surrender to the prepcheck.  This also includes hidden standards.  Now that we know that the anatomy of a service fac is a rightness-wrongness computation, we can do something about it.  We knew of their existence before, as can be seen in Advanced Procedures and Axioms [pp. 7-11].  The 18-button prepcheck should key out the PC.  If it doesn’t, the PC has a service fac.

A prepcheck is just a series of types of decisions that a thetan makes about things.  If it turns on mass, it must be in conflict with rightness and wrongness.  So, in the PC’s eyes, the auditor is trying to make the PC wrong with the prepcheck, and the PC moves the facsimile forward as a defense, increasing mass.

The only reason for high TA is over-restimulation.  The two things that prevent its cure are:

1. The case’s over-restimulated condition.

2. A service facsimile that the case isn’t about to give up.  To some degree, most cases fall into the service fac category, but most don’t have the service fac directly in the road of auditing.  Only service facs that lie across the road of auditing interfere with clearing.  If the service fac has to do with the PC’s spiritual condition, with his case itself, then you have to handle it so that he can get case gain.  The more a PC is trying to be right by having a wrong case, the less progress the auditor will make with this case.  A PC says, “If I didn’t have a bank, they’d give me one,” So having a bank is “right”.  
Don’t let the PC itsa beyond the answer to the auditing question.  It is far better for the PC to feel that his comm has been cut than for him to pull in restimulation by being permitted to overrun an answer.

An 18-button prepcheck on an assessed this lifetime subject or subjects should give you a key-out clear, but a service fac won’t surrender to a prepcheck.

6308C29 SHSpec-301 The Service Facsimile

Although we call it a “service facsimile”, there is more to be known about it than was in earlier definitions.  In the past, it has been said that a service facsimile is “what a person uses to explain his condition or get his way in the world.”  It is called a service facsimile because it was of service to the PC.  The service fac manifestation is a blood brother to the O/W mechanism.  It is how you make people guilty.  The current definition of service fac is that it is that condition which the individual uses to make himself right and others wrong.  Using this definition, we can crack cases. The only hazard is the use of right/wrong in GPM’s, but the use of a time limitation to “in this lifetime” obviates any danger of restimulating the GPM.  The GPM is not the reason for the service fac.  There is an upper-scale rationale: survival.  For instance, the Darwinian implant [See above] has “to persist” at the beginning of it, all by itself.  But this is rare.  However, when the goal “to survive” occurs, it is couched in the word “persist”.  There is no GPM known, to date, that contains the word, “survive”.  This concept is therefore not motivated by bank.  Therefore you can use “survive” in processing pretty easily.  Implanters used the words “live” and “alive” a lot, but “survive” is the top scale of all this.

It is OK for us to go back to healing now, since:

a. Doctors (the AMA) haven’t appreciated the fact that we ever stopped healing people.

b. They will be socialized in five years, anyway.  

They are convinced that “curing” is impossible.  However, 22 1/2% of people, e.g. patients, PCs, or whatever, get well with any or no or fraudulent treatment.  They are apparently in an hypnotic state and respond to suggestion.  So any healing profession should get at least a 22 1/2% Cure rate, unless it is doing something to depress the patient and to prevent healing from occurring.  If you get less than 22 1/2%, you are actually impeding the cure.  Only two things prevent the scientologist from healing PCs:

1. Inability to get in communication with the PC, e.g.  because he is dead.

2. The service facsimile.

If we allow for the fact that it takes a relatively short time to train an auditor into using this-lifetime techniques; if you take such an auditor and don’t worry about making him into an auditor who can make an OT; if you turn him loose with only an understanding of the service facsimile, the itsa line, and repetitive prepchecking, limited to this lifetime; if you let him rely on the tone arm, there he would be, practically sweeping the boards, as far as illness is concerned.  

For a person to have a bad back, he must have more than a facsimile of an experience involving a bad back causing it.  He must have had it restimulated by something, and to have a real bad back, something must be keeping it in restimulation.  Something has to kick the facsimile in and hold it in.

You must add to the restimulation factor a mental aberration factor.  It is not just what is restimulated.  It is what the PC feels might become restimulated, what he himself opposes, what he becomes afraid of when he is restimulated. So the individual is added to the equation.  The experiential pattern of an individual -- regardless of incidents containing pain, etc. -- might be aberrative.  For instance, say a person has lived all his life in a very cold environment.  He gets knowingness, in the process.  If you throw him out in the 40-below cold, either he has confidence that he can withstand the cold, or he doesn’t.  Accordingly, he either freezes to death or lives, respectively.  This is true even though a person is conditioned and trained to handle the cold.  People may react differently to the same engram.  There is no guarantee that someone will respond one way or the other to their “stimulus-response” conditioning.  One person will be terrified by some danger; another person will ignore it; another will look and say, “Oh.”  What makes the difference?  We come back to the service fac for the answer:  How could you use a facsimile to make people wrong?

So there are three reactions to an engram:

1. The guy who is terrified of the facsimile has, in back of this, lots of ways to be right and to make others wrong by having this facsimile.  

2. The guy who ignores it has no use for it at all, one way or the other.  

3. The guy who confronts it has another method of making others wrong: being competent with regard to this type of facsimile.  The rightness-wrongness possibility is present to some degree in everyone and in every bank.
 
To the healer, this represents a barrier, because someone who is using an illness or disability to make someone else wrong won’t respond to treatment. Or, if you cure one thing, he will pick up something else to do the job of making himself right and others wrong. [Symptom-substitution.  See also Haley on oneupsmanship games.]

Aberrated behavior is a service facsimile in at least a goodly percentage of cases.  When you do mimicry processing and the PC persists in crazy behavior, he has a vested interest in acting crazy.  This makes it hard to tell how good a deaberrative technique is.  However, if it works on a lot more than 22 1/2% of cases, it is probably a good technique that is rendered ineffective in some cases by a service fac.

The tone arm turned out to be a reliable measure of case progress.  If you don’t get destimulation or discharge, you will get restimulation, because something is happening.  If you don’t get any TA action, you know that you are not getting any destimulation or discharge and that therefore restimulation is all that is occurring.  Therefore, don’t audit without TA action.  The margin of time during which you can audit a PC without TA action before he starts feeling horrible is only about three sessions.  If a PC is upset about auditing, is having trouble handling life, etc., it is only because of over-restimulation, from whatever source -- GPM’s, ARC breaks, or whatever.  

What about a medium, or “acceptable” amount of TA action:  fifteen to twenty downward divisions per 2 1/2 hour session?  Excellent TA would be about thirty divisions per session; acceptable is 15-20.  Below that level, more restimulation than discharge is occurring.  These are just approximate figures.  A great deal of adding-up has not yet been done, to tabulate the figures exactly.  So there is a point where there is an apparency of TA motion, yet the PC is not getting better and only restimulation is occurring. Auditing a PC on and on with no TA will over-restimulate him all the way up the TA dial, backwards through 7, all the way to dead thetan.  [LRH introduces here the idea of a TA counter.]

Why does a TA go up and stick?  Only because of the pressure of over-restimulation.  If you have no TA action or if you are getting a rising TA without discharge, you get [over-]restimulation, because you are overwhelming the PC’s power of choice.  You are trying to get a discharge, and the PC won’t let go of it, and he becomes more and more ARC breaky.  If the TA is going up even when you are not auditing backtrack, you must still be overwhelming the PC’s power of choice.  Between not getting TA and getting high TA, we move into service facs.  When you are doing a prepcheck and it turns on mass, you have bumped into something that shouldn’t be there.  A service facsimile has moved in to assert whatever you are prepchecking and trying to get rid of.  Any mass, for a thetan, is an assertion that something is wrong, and there is something weird about it.  The mass comes from the complete disagreement that you and the PC have, concerning whatever it is that turned mass on.  You want to get rid of it.  But the PC does not intend to get better, because he has to hang onto bank, to make someone wrong with it.

It stands to reason that any thetan that has been hit hard and continuously, that has had continued loses, and that is trying to get back at and attack some area, will be unable to put the itsa line in on that area.  He can’t say if the area is bad or good.  He can’t say what it is.  He doesn’t feel that he can be at cause over that comm line.  So his final method of staying at cause is to be right and for the other person to be wrong.  This goes down to the point where he merely has to hold the concept of being right and the other person being wrong.  This way, in a sense, he is still being cause.  This mechanism persists, therefore, because the PC can’t as-is it, because he can’t observe it anymore.  One can be haunted by a nonexistent thing if one doesn’t have the comm lines to observe it.  The PC never knows when it goes away.  If you can’t inspect something, you can’t inspect its cessation.  Therefore, for survival, the best thing to do is to assume that the thing is still there.  That is the safest course.  Life teaches you that it is dangerous to go look and see.  You operate on the principle that if you can’t ascertain that something has ended, you had better assume that it is continuing.

Something that the PC can’t cure with processing must be a service fac. You can ask the PC how he is making others wrong.  Then, when you get it, you can ask him how he is being right with it.  Aberrated survival mechanisms all sit around on buttons of rightness-wrongness, survival, and domination.  The O/W system is connected with this through the make-guilty mechanism.  These are survival mechanisms, buy they are not sensible.  Unfortunately, the words, “rightness”, “wrongness”, “survive”, and “dominate” are also in the bank.  So you have to indulge in some broken-field running to handle these buttons.  

The more force there is and the less one can stand it and be cause over the user of the force, the more one goes into forms of aberrated rightness and wrongness against the holder of force.  Hence people break minor laws to be right about the government, since it is so overwhelming.  This is quite irrational.

To find a service fac, you could use the original listing steps of R2 or the preliminary assessment of R3R, or you could ask the PC, “What have you been trying to resolve about your case, in processing?”, taking anything that didn’t resolve with processing as a service facsimile.  “What would be a method of making others wrong?” could also get it.  Be prepared for the service fac not to be very sensible, but don’t reject it, even if it does seem reasonable, as long as it is something that hasn’t yielded to auditing.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 SEPTEMBER 1963
Central Orgs
Franchise
SCIENTOLOGY THREE

CLEARING—CLEARING—CLEARING

ROUTINE THREE SC

There has been such a rush on in technical that it may have looked to you that we were in a state of rapid change. This was occasioned by a speed-up caused by various events. You are getting about a century of research (or more) in a very few months. So bear with me. The end is not only in sight. It’s here. My job is mainly now to refine and get the data to you.

The order brought into our work by making FIVE LEVELS OF SCIENTOLOGY is paying off rapidly. Level One is in development. Level Two is well away. Level Four is complete. And suddenly Level Three leaped to a final phase.

We can CLEAR, CLEAR, CLEAR.

This has been a stepchild for months, even years now. It has been mauled, messed up, invalidated and rehabilitated and knocked around. But a BOOK ONE CLEAR was what most people came into Scientology to obtain. And now I’ve done it. I’ve found out why not and how.

And this HCO Bulletin is a hurry-skurry outline of the steps so you can do it. There will be lots of HCO Bulletins on this. The tapes of August 27, 28 and 29, AD13, give most of its theory.

CLEAR DEFINED—Book One definition holds exactly true. A Clear is somebody with no “held down fives” in this lifetime (see Evolution of a Science).

CLEAR TEST—Clear sits at Clear read on the TA with a free needle. No natter. No upsets. No whole track keyed in. No SERVICE FACSIMILE.

CLEAR STABILITY—We are not concerned with stability. But we can now key out so thoroughly that we need not stress “keyed out clear”. I have found the means, I am sure, to make this state far more stable and recreate it easily if it slips.

So forgive me for being indecisive about clear states for these past many months.

The breakthrough is stated as follows: IF YOU CANNOT MAKE A CLEAR IN A 25-HOUR PREPCHECK THE PC HAS ONE OR MORE SERVICE FACSIMILES.

The barrier to clearing and the reason for fast relapse when clear was attained has been the SERVICE FACSIMILE.

SERVICE FACSIMILE defined: Advanced Procedure and Axioms definition accurate. Added to this is: THE SERVICE FACSIMILE IS THAT COMPUTATION GENERATED BY THE PRECLEAR (NOT THE BANK) TO MAKE SELF RIGHT AND OTHERS WRONG, TO DOMINATE OR ESCAPE DOMINATION AND ENHANCE OWN SURVIVAL AND INJURE THAT OF OTHERS.

Note that it is generated by the pc, not the bank. Thus the pc restimulates the bank with the computation; the bank, unlike going to OT, does not retard the pc in this instance.

The Service Facsimile is usually a this lifetime effort only. It might better be called a SERVICE COMPUTATION but we’ll hold to our old terms. The pc is doing it. In usual aberration the bank is doing it (the pc’s engrams, etc). Where you can’t clear the pc by auditing just bank, you have to get out of the road what the pc is doing to stay aberrated. If you clear only what the bank is doing the clear state rapidly relapses. If you clear what the pc is doing the bank tends to stay more quiet and unrestimulated. It is the pc who mostly keys his bank back in. Therefore the pc who won’t go free needle clear is himself unconsciously preventing it. And by knocking out this effort we can then key out the bank and we have a fast clear who pretty well stays clear (until sent on to OT).

The state is desirable to attain as it speeds going to OT.

All this came from studies I’ve been doing of the Tone Arm. The Tone Arm must move during auditing or the pc gets worse. All those pcs whose Tone Arms don’t easily get into action and hang up are SERVICE FACSIMILE pcs.

Note that the SERVICE FACSIMILE is used to:

FIRST: 	Make self right.
	Make others wrong.

SECOND:	To Avoid Domination.
	To Dominate Others.

THIRD: 	To Increase own survival.
	To hinder the survival of others.

The Service Facsimile is all of it logical gobbledegook. It doesn’t make good sense. That’s because the pc adopted it where, in extreme cases, he or she felt endangered by something but could not Itsa it. Hence it’s illogical. Because it is senseless, really, the computation escapes casual inspection and makes for aberrated behaviour.

TO MAKE A CLEAR

The steps, in brief, are:

1. 	ESTABLISH SERVICE FAC. This is done by Assessment of Scientology List One of 2-12 and using that for a starter and then using the Preliminary Step of R3R as published (HCO Bulletin of July I, AD 1 3). One uses only things found by assessment, never by wild guesses or pc’s obvious disabilities. These assessments already exist on many cases and should be used as earlier found.

2. 	AUDIT WITH RIGHT-WRONG. Ask pc with Itsa Line carefully in, FIRST QUESTION: “In this lifetime, how would (whatever was found) make you right?” Adjust question until pc can answer it, if pc can’t. Don’t force it off on pc. If it’s correct it will run well. Don’t keep repeating the question unless pc needs it. Just let pc answer and answer and answer. Let pc come to a cognition or run out of answers or try to answer the next question prematurely and switch questions to: SECOND QUESTION: “In this lifetime, how would (whatever was found) make others wrong?” Treat this the same way. Let the pc come to a cog, or run out of answers or accidentally start to answer the first question. Go back to first question. Do the same with it. Then to second question. Then to first question again, then to second.

If your assessment was right pc will be getting better and better TA action. But the TA action will eventually lessen. On any big cognition, end the process. This may all take from 2 hours to 5, I don’t think more. The idea is not to beat the process to death or sink pc into bank GPMs. The pc will have automaticities (answers coming too fast to be said easily) early in the run. These must be gone and pc bright when you end. You are only trying to end the compulsive character of the Service Facsimile so found and get it off automatic and get pc to see it better, not to remove all TA action from the process.

3. 	AUDIT SECOND PROCESS. Using the same method of auditing as in 2. above, use the THIRD QUESTION: “In this lifetime how would (same one used in Step 2) help you escape domination?” When this seems cooled off use FOURTH QUESTION: “In this lifetime how would (same one) help you dominate others?” Use THIRD QUESTION and FOURTH QUESTION again and until pc has it all cooled off or a big cognition.

4. 	AUDIT THIRD PROCESS. Using the same method as in 2. above use the FIFTH QUESTION: “In this lifetime, how would (same one) aid your survival?” and then SIXTH QUESTION: “In this lifetime how would (same one) hinder the survival of others?” Use FIVE and SIX as long as is necessary to cool it all off or to produce a big cognition.

5. 	PREPCHECK WITH BIG MID RUDS, using the question, “In this lifetime, on (same one) has anything been . .. ?” and get in Suppress, Careful of, Failed to Reveal, Invalidate, Suggest, Mistake been made, Protest, Anxious about, Decided.

If the pc has a really shattering cognition just halt Prepcheck and end it off.

This Prepcheck is done of course off the meter until the pc says no, then checking it on the meter and cleaning it off. Once you’ve gone to meter on a button stay with meter for further queries. But don’t clean cleans and don’t leave slows or speeded rises either. And don’t cut pc’s Itsa Line.

That should be the end of a Service Facsimile. But a pc may have several, so do it all again through all steps as often as is needed.

Pcs who have had Scientology List One of R2- 12 should be given these as the first things used. Pcs who have had assessments done for R3R chains should have these assessment results used (or as much of them as apply) for the next runs. Even if the chain assessment has been run on R3R still use it for R3SC.

COMPLETING CLEARING

To complete clearing then, it is only necessary to give a permissive In This Lifetime 18 button Prepcheck making the pc look hard for answers, short of ARC Breaking pc.

And you should have a beautiful free needle and TA at the clear read and the pc shining.

If clearing did not occur these following faults were present in the auditing:

1. 	Pc did not agree with assessment, it read only because pc did not understand it or protested it.

2. 	The assessment was wrong.

3. 	The atmosphere of auditing was critical of pc.

4. 	The Itsa Line was not in.

5. 	The auditor let the Itsa Line wander to early track.
6. 	The auditor Q’ed and A’ed and went off process and into engrams on pc’s “sell”.

7. 	The process was not done.

8. 	The assessment was done by physical disability inspection or by choosing pc’s habits, not by actual assessment.

9. 	The auditing did not produce TA action (wrong assessment and/or Itsa Line out would be all that could produce no TA action).

10. 	Pc already sitting in a heavy ARC Break by reason of whole track by-passed charge.

11. 	This process used instead of an ARC Break Assessment well done, thus making this process a punishment.

12. 	Questions phrased wrong.

13. 	Questions were over-run.
	
14. 	Questions were under-run.

15. 	Auditor too choppy on Prepchecking.

16. 	ARC Breaks in these sessions were not cleaned up.

17. 	Pc trying to plunge into early track and stay restimulated.

18. 	Pc trying to get early track GPMs or engrams run to avoid giving up Service Facsimile.

19. 	Auditor missed withholds accumulated during clearing.

20. 	Process end product “clear” overestimated by auditor, pc or supervisors.
	The keynote of clearing a Service Facsimile is INTEREST. If pc isn’t interested in it, the assessment is wrong.

The keynote of auditing tone is permissive, happy, easy, not militant. Let pc run on and on.

On phrasing question, no matter what is assessed it is always IT MAKES PC RIGHT AND OTHERS WRONG. Pc is not trying to make it wrong.

An ordinary Prepcheck, done with a Service Facsimile present, will turn on mass on the pc. Why? Pc is asserting Service Facsimile.

Well that’s the fast rundown on R3SC (Routine Three, Service Facsimile Clear). And that’s clearing. A lot of theory is missing in this HCO Bulletin but not one essential step. You can do it.

If a person is cleared before going on to OT they make it hundreds of hours faster !

(NOTE: All OT processes will shortly be released with R4 designations but with little other change.)

LRH:jw.cden							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6309C03 SHSpec-302A R3SC

[Some of the data in this tape are contained in HCOB 1Sep63 “Scientology Three: Clearing-clearing-clearing:  Routine Three SC”.]

The reason a person doesn’t recover under auditing has been a subject of investigation, off and on, since 1949.  It was most recently looked at with regard to R2-12.  It has now come up again with the discovery that to get case gain a PC had to have TA motion.  The fact that you are getting TA action doesn’t guarantee that the PC will feel better, but no TA action does guarantee that the PC will feel worse.  A PC could feel no better, despite getting TA action, because he is getting somewhat over-restimulated, while still getting some charge off.

By classes of auditors, here is what should happen with TA motion:

Class I:   He may or may not be able to get TA; it’s mostly chance that determines it.

Class II:  The auditor has to be able to direct attention enough to be able to get TA action while he listens.  It is very light attention-directing.

Class III: The auditor directs the PC’s attention towards service facs   and clearing.  The itsa line is controlled more firmly, to limit the PC’s attention to this lifetime and to what you are trying to run, using mid-ruds, etc., to do it.

Class IV:  At this level, you are dealing with living lightning: backtrack stuff, GPM’s, slippery track, etc.  If you see the various classes of auditors arranged in order of increasing control of the PC’s attention, rather than by degree of complexity of material studied, it is all quite clear.       

By overwhumping the PC, by restimulating more on the backtrack than you can discharge, and by not controlling the PC’s attention and letting him skid around restimulating things, you get get the PC into a condition where restimulation is too great even to permit.  the discharge of the key-in.  This is quite a problem.  The resolution of this problem comes with running the service facsimile.

A service facsimile is a solution that the person himself has so restimulated that it won’t discharge, and nothing will discharge past it.  It is so valuable as a solution that the PC feels he would perish if he got rid of it.  It’s an overcharged solution which the PC himself is keeping charged up.  It sits there, and no charge is permitted to flow by it.  Unfortunately for the being, it has a weird sort of workability.  It is a non-survival solution that has become survival.  It appears to make sense until it is inspected.  It has lots of A = A = A in it.

When you start to run a service fac by running engrams of the thing, it will grind, and it won’t erase.  This is another odd datum.  The service fac is mainly diagnosed by the fact that the TA hangs up, not by how the person acts in life.  The low TA or dead thetan case always has a service fac.  The dead thetan case is sometimes hard to spot.  Sometimes he is just sitting in something, and when you ask a question, you get an F/N.  A high TA case probably has a service fac, although it is questionable.  A case whose TA is between 3.5 and 3.75, with a responsive needle, has a good chance of having a service fac, but doesn’t necessarily have one.  A person who tends to be out of control on the backtrack is over-restimulated.  You might even try to find a service fac on him.

When a PC has a service fac, the normal river of discharge is blocked by a stable datum that the PC feels is vital to his survival: the service fac. The hallmark of a service fac is that sometimes, when it is being run out or between sessions, the PC questions the wisdom of getting rid of it.  A service fac is present where life has done so much overwhelming and the PC has done so much overwhelming that life makes no more sense.  He has abandoned it, and in lieu of it, he has erected this insane stable datum:  the service fac.

It might be better to call the service fac a “service computation” or a “survival computation”, since it isn’t actually a single facsimile at all.  It is the person himself keeping the facsimile in restimulation because he knows it is best.  There are also third dynamic service facs, such as the current prison system.  Penologists know very well that the current prison system does nothing to handle crime.  It only increases crime.  This system, which was adopted in 1835, was intended, not to rehabilitate criminals, but to dramatize making criminals wrong.  Prisons are actually universities of crime, maintained at public expense.  Similarly, the FDA’s actions are the result of a basically good idea, namely that the public should be protected against noxious food and drug products.  But this idea has gone bonkers.  It was a good solution that has been plowed in, so that it appears lower and lower of the tone scale and becomes an aberration.  [The legal system of precedent is based on the same principle as the service fac, in that it involves maintaining old solutions without necessarily inspecting them.]  

It is not true that every solution becomes a service fac.  A service fac is a solution that is insisted upon but won’t itsa.  A solution, to be a real solution, leads to a further ability to itsa.  If a solution reduces the ability to itsa, it is a potential service fac.  The FDA is taking over the public’s ability to inspect goodness of food and denying the public an analytical attitude towards products, thereby reducing the public’s itsa.  The public no longer inspects and decides.  The FDA can now go in and can pass stuff as good that isn’t, because of politics, corruption, etc.  The public can now be caved in by it.

You would never look to travel agencies as a source of social aberration, because their business is to increase itsa.  It can occasionally occur that they do, though there can sometimes be problems associated with this, e.g. British West Indies immigrants flooding the U.K.  However, it is reducing itsa that has a bad effect on society.  Generally, those things that result in or produce a solution without inspection that is too broadly applied generate service facs.  The service fac prevents itsa of charge that comes up, thus causing the accumulation of mass.  This mass gets restimulated when you prepcheck something that nicks the area.  Lack of itsa also causes lack of TA action, since without itsa outflowed, there is no discharge of charge. Families can get into a no-itsa of their individual members.  Lack of itsa results in a failure to handle a situation in its own zone of reality, which is all that aberration is.  A service fac makes it [apparently] unnecessary to cope with anything in its own sphere of reality.  That is the “service” that a service fac performs.  The resultant accumulated mass causes no TA in the area, no result in prepchecking or other processing.  The more service facs the PC has, the harder it is for you to get TA action on him.

In some cases, there are definite advantages to getting service facs out of the way before proceeding to running back track.  You can save time and stabilize clears by destimulating what could key in.  R3SC is a very workable process.  Just inspect the folder, past assessments, etc., looking especially for periods when the TA shut down, i.e. where TA motion stopped for awhile. Whatever TA motion stopped on will be a likely candidate for R3SC.  Don’t overrun it.  If the PC has trouble answering it, come off that particular subject.  The right subject gives very good action.  The faster you get the real service fac, the sooner TA action is restored.

So this makes R2-12-type processes unnecessary.  It solves the problem of rockslammers, chronic PTP’s, hidden standards, and body masses.  Mainly, it restores TA action.  R3SC, run on a few service facs, advances the case to clear.  It is a Level III process because it is a clearing process.  Current Routine Threes that actually produce OT’s, e.g. R3N, will be renumbered as Level IV processes.  

6309C04 SHSpec-302 How to Find a Service Facsimile

Apparently, there is more to know about service facs than has been relayed, probably because it is so simple.  PCs don’t defend their service facs against discovery.  If you point the PC in the right direction, he will go right to the service fac, unless you prevent it.  So don’t prevent it!

In assessing for service facs, there is no substitute for knowing what a service fac is.  A service fac is, first, a tremendous solution, always aberrated, in PT, as part of the PC’s environment, which, the PC believes, would result in his survival being threatened if it were disturbed.  It is something which others keep telling the PC is wrong, causing him to assert that it is right.  This assertion of rightness is very integral and important to the service fac.  It makes the PC unauditable to the degree that he is getting auditing only to prove that it is right.  It sticks out like a sore thumb.  One could have more trouble labeling it than finding it.

The human body is a service fac, but if we used that, we would be going for OT, and we aren’t shooting for that.  We are just using the service fac on this lifetime, to get the PC auditable.  So the body isn’t the service fac that we are trying to target.  Having found a service fac, we don’t use it to make an OT.  We are only trying to get someone auditable and to get the constantly restimulated solutions out of the way, to clear this lifetime.  On the whole track, obviously, having a bank is a service facsimile.  That accounts for the reluctance to go clear noticed earlier, while finding goals. “Being incapable” could still be a service fac at an OT level, if, say, the OT couldn’t tilt a planet.

But attacking this kind of service fac directly is too steep a gradient. You could run service facs at all different levels.  The concept of a service fac is based on confusion and stable datum theory.  In running a service fac, we are attacking a solution that is a barrier to getting rid of a confusion. You can pluck the stable datum out of the center of a confusion and thus get a discharge of the energy of the confusion.  A stable datum holds a confusion in place.  This is the reverse of using a stable datum to handle a confusion. Charge is an electrical confusion.  As long as a stable datum holds a confusion in place, the confusion will not discharge.  

Confusions are tolerable and are not always aberrative.  Most have no aberrative value, e.g. in a card game.  Life is not, in itself, an aberrative action.  There has to be some force and violence involved in the confusion, or at least a fairly real threat to survival, for it to be aberrative.  The thetan “knows” that if he ceases to dramatize a service fac, he will die.  The immediate thing someone is worried about may not be the service facsimile itself.  It could be the consequence of something else that is a service fac. The consequence could be very hidden; the two things could have at best a faint connection. As you take off service facs, the central one on which they all lean eventually comes off.  As you audit the case, you could get off several before the central one comes to view.  The apparent service facs lean on the main service fac.

A rote procedure to apply to this would be a logical solution to a very illogical area, but it is better to understand what you are doing.  If the case has been audited, you could collect a list of things that have been found on the PC, e.g. old lists, R2-12 assessments, etc.  By discussing them with the PC and following the PCs interest, you could find some service facs.  You might have to reword some of the things you come up with, The right-wrong bracket is always the same.  The question is, “How would (the condition or thing found) make you right and make others wrong?” The service fac is the PC; it is something he has; it is not like an oppterm.  It is something he has, to make him right and others wrong.  The PC will slop, on the auditing command. E.g.  the PC may misduplicate the auditing command as, “What would be made wrong by it?”  You don’t worry about this.  Let the automaticity run out. Then re-ask your original question and get it answered.

A service facsimile is not an action.  An action would be the result of a service fac.  The service fac turns on automaticities because it is an automatic, unanalyzed solution.  For this reason, you don’t run it as a repetitive process. “Automaticity” means that more answers than the PC can articulate are arriving from the bank.  When this happens, when words are coming too fast, you know that you are getting the service fac.  Throw the question in and let the lions tear at it for awhile; let the automaticity run out.  Let “er buck when the PC starts to run.  Then, when he runs out of answers, turn it around and run it the other way, if he hasn’t already done it himself.  You are trying to get rid of the avalanche of automaticity and get TA.  Also, don’t overrun by insisting on more answers than the PC has, or you can get a stuck flow.  Run it permissively.  It is sometimes difficult to keep the PC answering the question, just because he is in a dissociated area.  The solution is holding back a tremendous amount of aberration, which won’t as-is as long as the solution is there.  The solution just keeps accumulating mass.

The solution is always below 2.0 on the tone scale, because it is perforce a substitute for an itsa line.  The PC felt that he could not itsa the object that he was trying to make wrong, so he dreamed up this solution as a final solution, and that is a substitute for an itsa line.  Then there is no as-isness or itsa on the environment.  Since there is no as-isness, you get an accumulation of mass.  Since it is a substitute for an itsa line, the service fac is referred to whenever the PC refers to anything.  When the solution is below 2.0, it propounds the idea that to survive, it is necessary to succumb. That is what it boils down to, aberrated though that is.  For instance, the solution may be not eating [as in anorexia nervosa].  

The service fac doesn’t even have to fit in with the guy’s environment. It is often totally hidden.  You can’t necessarily spot the service fac by what the person is doing.  It often goes underground, especially the very hidden ones.  Some are very obvious, too, sometimes so obvious that you miss them.  You could ask, as an L and N question, “What do you think your service fac is?”  Interest is the keynote.

The service fac is not a deliberate solution.  It is a sub-awareness automatic solution, which the person is on the verge of all the time.  That is what makes service facs easy to spot.  If you’ve got the service fac, the PC can’t stay out of it.  It has to be specific enough.  You can use a “represent” on something that is too general.  You can assess the list according to interest.  The PC tends to fall into the whirlpool of the service fac.

If the PC has a fragile tone arm, easily stuck, then you’ve got a service fac, a solution there that is preventing the charge from running off.  The PC doesn’t have to look at things; he’s got it solved.  Once you have the service fac, get the PC to tell you how, in this lifetime, it would make him right, etc.  Don’t go for the backtrack.  This improves the PC’s ability to get TA action.  The peculiarity of the action you are looking for is not particularly great, compared with the peculiarity of social mores, but it is posing as survival when it clearly isn’t pro-survival.  The PC will be interested in it, and it will get TA, because it is a fixed solution.  Your main interest is TA action.  Just get the mass flowing that was hanging up.

A service fac is a fixed, contra-survival solution which the person hasn’t inspected.  It could even be a fixed survival solution, but then that wouldn’t interfere with auditing.  However, using conduct as a criterion makes anyone liable to be put away.  A service fac is batty when compared, not to the mores of society, but to actual survival.  So you could say the following about a service fac:

1. It is contra-survival, but poses as survival.

2. It has the PC’s interest.

3. It sticks the tone arm.

4. It is always protruded into PT.  Thus any constant PTP can contain a service fac.  For instance, you could ask, “What did you come into scientology to resolve?” That is one reason that service fac processing is beneficial.  However, it is dangerous to list too many problems on a PC, because you are giving the PC too much whatsit, while an incomplete list will ARC break the PC.  So you had better two-way comm it. Use a friendly discussion, so you can move out of it if it gets sticky.  Don’t list it.  When you find an appropriate problem, find the solution in back of it, and that fixed solution will give you the service fac.  If the discussion does get sticky, you could free up the TA again by asking for a solution that the PC has had to each problem he mentions.  Getting a fixed solution means that you’ve got the service fac.

Notice that R1C and R2C are designed to strip away solutions and stable data.  Therefore, they are not likely to freeze up the TA.  Find out if the PC has run R1C and R2C.  You can use this for data.  You can ask what the PC found interesting.  Don’t ask, “What problems would that solve?”  That sticks the TA.  Assess it.  Then you can get the service fac.  The R3R preliminary assessment is almost a dead-center pitch at the service fac, providing it winds up with a stable solution.  This solution should be something that makes sense to you and the PC.  Getting the item with the PC’s interest will give you the service fac.  The level assessed will be too broad.  The service fac is a magnet.  You are asking for right answers, and the PC is giving you the rightest answer of all.  You can even get the service fac as a non-sequitur item on a list.  So watch for service facs on any list.  The fact that the item that is a service fac is dissociated gives you a clue.

The PC will handle your session with his service fac.  Eventually it downs on you what he has been doing.  Keep running service facs until you get change in the PC and a free needle and good TA.  The service fac is the source of the PTP that the PC keeps coming to session with, so getting it saves you all sorts of time and trouble, when you get it out of the way.  Get rid of the service fac, and over-restimulation of the case ends.  This would reduce by 50% the total restimulation on the case, so cases wouldn’t keep dropping between sessions because of environmental restimulation.

Having the PC’s attention on disabilities keeps his attention off the bank.  Thus a good handling of service facs increases by a hundred to one the runability of the case.  So you can now run him on a steeper gradient.

6309C05 SHSpec-303 Service Facsimile Assessment

We have been walking around the edges of the field of psychotherapy for some time.  There is a third dynamic service fac in this field, in that medical doctors, who have no training for and have no business in the field of mental healing, are attempting to take dominance over this field.  They have no understanding of the mind; only an understanding of the brain.  All you would have to to is to get legislatures to pass laws that would only allow those trained in the field of the mind to practice in that field, and you would have secured the field.  There are only 272 mental practitioners in England, so we have mocked up our own opposition, our own extra item.  So people qualified at Level III will soon have a certificate as a psychiatric consultant.  There is no legal patent on the name.

Level III is expected to be able to clear.  It also, incidentally, takes in the ability to treat insanity: neurosis and psychosis.  These are just a different degree of what is wrong with the mind.  The person who can’t even manage himself and the environment, we call insane.  What is wrong with him is that he has got the final solution: some solution that is so all-pervading that he doesn’t have to itsa anything.  After that, he never has to look, so he just disappears in a mound of un-as-ised mass.

In processing, a certain amount of introversion takes place, for the purpose of bringing about extroversion.  The only time introversion and erasure do not bring about greater reach and greater ARC is when over-restimulation is brought about.  That factor still exists in Class IV, but there it is whole track that is most likely to get a PC into an over-restimulated condition, not just itsa on this lifetime.  At Level III, you could over-restimulate someone who was already batty.  The worse off a case is, the more careful you have to be of over-restimulation.  For instance, someone who had been running on a conceptual basis, who did not have much reach and not much ARC with the environment, might get over-restimulated if you got them to contact the pain in the thing that they are running.

To clear somebody, you will stay in this lifetime.  Only at Level IV do you leave this lifetime, and that is when someone has an active TA that doesn’t go high or low.  With any PC on this planet, it is environmental restimulation that is the straw that breaks the PC’s back.  You can go backtrack, but it is rough.  It can make the PC unauditable.  An HGC, operating with raw public, or even with scientologists, has to battle with environmental restimulation, not with the bank.  Neurotic and psychotic states are caused by environmental restimulation.  The two factors involved are:

1. The amount of environmental restimulation.

2. The inherent susceptibility of the individual.  Therefore, if all you did was to try to reduce environmental restimulation, some people would go sane and others would go mad with boredom.  It is a question of acceptable randomity.  Do-gooders end up reducing randomity, and things can get pretty boring.  An acceptable level of randomity equals the amount of environmental restimulation divided by the amount of restimulation the individual can withstand: this being equal to some constant.  PCs usually audit only what they consider safe.  The mind starts to shut off any restimulation that would overwhelm it [Cf. “the  mind’s protection”].  The PC’s ability to resist restimulation is too low for him to face up to track.  So how are you going to get anything done?
There are three types of cases:

1. Normal confront of bank: those which audit easily.

2. No confront of bank: those who refuse to approach the bank.

3. Suicidal confront: those whose eyes are bigger than their stomachs, so that they go in over their heads all the time.  We want to convert the two latter sorts of cases into the former.

All cases tend towards the safe solution.  Some cases also adopt a vengeful solution, like getting even with people by dying.  Even a dangerous solution seems like the safe solution to the PC.  All cases, when they become more auditable, do so along the channel of the safe solution.  A safe solution is a safe decision, a safe environment, a safe assumption, etc.  All human rights disappear down the channel of the safe solution.  That is the hole in the bathtub.  It is actually very dangerous to have a safe solution -- it inhibits observation, and anything that inhibits observation, destroys. Someone who is very neurotic or psychotic is so to the degree that they have adopted a safe solution.

This datum underlies mental healing as sweepingly as the datum that “survival is the common denominator”.  It is another way of saying the same thing.  People adopt survival solutions, when then become so “safe” that they become contra-survival.  The safe solution makes the person right and others wrong, enhancing the person’s survival by putting him in a position of dominance and letting him escape domination by others.  It lets him survive and causes others to succumb, he thinks.  This reaches extremes of craziness, e.g.  the miser who starves in a household of $100 bills.  His method of survival is to have lots of money.  It is a very safe solution, but in his obsession with this safe solution, he has neglected to spend any of it to live.  So his attention becomes more and more concentrated and less and less sensible.

For someone to be wise, he must be able to observe his environment; he must be able to reach.  It is not good enough to have maxims tucked away, to which you can refer in times of stress.  Philosophy becomes, not wisdom, but a study of safe solutions.

The safe solution is the service facsimile.  There are times when you will have to be very clever to find just what it is.  In the PC, it is complicated, alter-ised, and not believable.  There could be thousands of them.  You want to get the One.  The test is, “Did it resolve the case?” In the first ones you find, the most you can hope for is to find something that moves the TA and brings you closer to resolving the PC’s case.  When you have found the service fac on the case, the needle will be looser, and the TA will be in a more reasonable state, acting better.

When something you have found doesn’t run on the right/wrong bracket, you prepcheck.  This is an invariable rule.  You could fix the PC up by taking anything that has been found charged on old assessments and prepchecking it. That which you couldn’t prepcheck with TA, you could run on “right/wrong”.  If it goes nowhere on that, OK.  There is no harm done.  All this will eventually reveal the service fac.  

One way in which you could be too clever with this would be to get over-ambitious and throw the PC in over his head, as follows:  You are pulling the stable datum out of the confusion.  Therefore, the PC may be thrown into the confusion, which makes him feel weird.  If you run R3SC on the stable datum until it is flat, it will make it all right for the PC.

One of the tests of the service fac is that the PC is likely to say, or at least think, that he is not sure that it is wise to get rid of it.  Be very sure, if you are working with someone who is already shaky, that you unburden the case gradiently, even though he is standing there saying his service fac. Environmental restimulation has to be reduced on such a case before you add any processing restimulation.

The better the assessment and the less gradient there had been, the greater the shock to the person.  Remember: the PC adopted the safe solution because he couldn’t stand the environmental restimulation.  So you don’t necessarily want to get the big stable data first.  It is better to start off with R1C or 2WC on solutions that he has had to his problems.  The more solutions he has had to a problem, the more it will stick.

How do you raise someone’s ability to withstand environmental restimulation?  You pull his service fac, since that is what reduces his ability to see his environment.  The more safe solutions he has adopted, the more environmental restimulation he isn’t as-ising, the less he is confronting, etc.  Oddly enough, or not so oddly, the thing that reduces his ability to handle his environment is the thing that he has adopted to handle his environment for him.  When you remove that thing, he can now confront and inspect the environment and handle it.

When you get the environmental restimulation out of the way, the PC can confront the backtrack.  We have gone into this line because we want a faster run to OT.  “I don’t care anything much about clearing or whether he gets clear or not.” We are not trying to make a happy persons we are trying to make an able person.  You can make a clear by getting off enough service facs.  It makes a better human being, but the point is to cut down the time spent at Level IV, which is already a sizable amount.

At Level III, then, we can handle environmental restimulation.  By knocking out the service facsimile, which is what encourages environmental restimulation, we have enough attention free so that We can go whole-track and erase things faster, and we are not held up by low TA’s and high TA’s.  [So we don’t have this situation:] “W started to do a GPM; we got a little bit mixed up; we got into the Bear goals; then we got into the Helatrobus -- didn’t realize it, but we were into the Invisible Picture Goals all the time....” By knocking out the service fac, session restimulation also drops, because the session is part of the environment.

The assessment for R3SC is a simple one.  It is L and N.  The lists don’t have to be super-long.  In fact, they should not be longer than eight to ten pages, with twenty items per page, unless it is just safe to keep on listing. A list should be only as long as it has to be to keep the PC from ARC breaking because it is incomplete.  

Here is the R3SC procedure:

1. You do a Parts of Existence list and null it down to some one item that the PC doesn’t object to, say “peanuts”.  It doesn’t matter if  the item is right, so long as the PC doesn’t argue about it.  If, say, four items are left in and the list isn’t complete, we will just do  step (2) to all four of the levels left in, as long as the PC isn’t protesting.  PCs dramatize doing only what is safe, ss they move in towards the service fac, so you may need to do this assessment several  times.

2. Take the item found and list safe solutions to it, safe assumptions about it, or safe decisions about it, whatever clears with the PC.  The item you get, e.g. “not eat them”, is probably either as close as you can get to the service fac at this time or the service fac  itself.

3. Take the item and work it over until it is a solution to more than just that one dynamic, e.g. a solution to more than just “peanuts”.  You could ask, “How could that apply to other dynamics?”, etc.  We want a broader version of the safe assumption, to get closer to the  real service fac.

4. In any case, take whatever you get from (3) and run R3SC brackets or prepcheck on it.

5. Repeat the entire procedure, starting with a new Parts of Existence  list.

6. Run it to free needle.

If you run something and you still have some charge on it, list for safe assumptions about that topic.  Look for identifications.  PC’s will mention assumptions that don’t make sense.  Such an identification is a cousin to one or more service facs.  Note them when you find them.  This whole operation does take some genius. 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 SEPTEMBER 1963
DofT, 
DofP
SCIENTOLOGY FIVE

INSTRUCTING IN SCIENTOLOGY AUDITING
INSTRUCTOR’S TASK
D of P’s CASE HANDLING

As given at the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course Instructors Conference of this date, the task of the Scientology Auditing Course Instructor (and D’s of P handling cases through uncleared staff auditors) is to accomplish training and processing and therefore auditing with uncleared students or auditors.

The following drawings and explanations were made.

In Drawing A we see the auditor’s perception of the pc as limited by auditor’s own Service Facsimile.

In Drawing B we see the Auditor’s perception of the pc the way it would be if the Service Fac were removed.

Thus we see judgement missing because of lack of perception of the pc or his or her condition or case in Drawing A, thus permitting only processes not requiring high level perception or decisions based upon the momentary condition of the pc.

In Drawing B we see that perception is not limited, judgement can be exercised by the auditor because the pc can actually be observed by him. Higher level processes can only be run by an auditor approximating the observation condition shown in Drawing B.

In Drawing C we see the actual observation limitations of auditor or pc in an aberrated condition. The keynote is SAFE ASSUMPTIONS as per Service Fac. Thus only Safe Assumptions will be entertained and no real auditing occurs. Only ineffective assumptions or questions are likely to be asked or viewed. Example: “What about thinking about stealing a paper clip from HASI?” This actual question was once asked in O/W, and its prototypes keep real auditing from occurring since neither pc nor auditor get close to any real aberration. (That either auditor or pc consider the assumption safe does not mean it is not aberrated and subject to fault.) So no real auditing of the case is undertaken and when something worth while auditing is contacted, either auditor draws off or pc (unobserved by an aberrated auditor) draws off. This reduces processing results to next to nothing. It also sometimes leads both auditor and pc in over both their heads as little is observed and all these “Safe Assumptions” are also aberrated.

The Instructor’s (and Case Supervisor’s) Solution is seen in Drawing D.

Auditing at lower stages, done by aberrated auditors (who have Service Facs in place) must be assumed to be independent of observation of the PC Occurrences (since observation of the pc as in Drawing A does not exist).

The Instructor therefore directs the Student Auditor’s attention toward the Scientology Body of Data in order to get effective auditing done. So does any Case Supervisor. This body of data is designed to accomplish auditing independent of Observation of the pc and the many varieties of changes and differences amongst pcs. The Instructor uses such mechanisms as “If you can breathe you can audit,” “Do it exactly by the Bulletin.” He instructs only in broadly workable processes and along definite rote lines. He uses the habit patterns of discipline to enforce the auditor’s attention to and compliance with workable drills and data.

If this is done (and only if this is done) will auditing occur that is capable of producing effective results independent of the condition shown in Drawing A.

If the condition shown in Drawing C is permitted to occur, then all manner of squirrel processes and actions will occur in sessions, wild solutions will reign and general chaos will result. But more importantly the auditing necessary to produce the ideal condition shown in Drawing B can occur only in the presence of Instruction or Supervision shown in Drawing D.

Thus one produces cleared auditors by operating only as per Drawing D. These facts are not the result of theoretical supposition, but of careful empirical observation and test. Therefore, Instruction and performance of uncleared auditors must follow Drawing D.

The accomplishment of Classes II and III auditing and Levels II and III results is possible by following Drawing D. It fails only when Drawing D is not understood and followed by Instructors and Auditing Supervisors.

The liability is that the student’s or auditor’s Service Fac may contest Instruction as shown in Drawing D. There is no liability if the student is already capable of Drawing B observation (which is rare in uncleared persons). If a Service Fac is in the road of Instruction as per Drawing D, it still has been and can be overcome far more easily than overcoming various erroneous and varying observations of pcs, as to confront the pc is to confront aberration directly and to confront the Body of Data is to confront only an orderly and pleasant arrangement of truthful facts that will still hold good when the student is cleared, whereas the pc’s aberration, unstable before processing, will be gone.

Thus we study valid workable data that is broadly true and enforce compliance with it rather than studying or classifying Individual Cases and their aberrations as was done exclusively in older Mental Sciences (which failed where we have already succeeded for years).

Class IV material (OT and Whole Track) is sometimes too much for the uncleared auditor since it is complex. It requires strict adherence to the Body of Data as well as some observation of the pc. Thus Class IV materials (OT and Whole Track) are best done when the conditions of Drawing B and Drawing D both be present in the session.

This establishes levels of data and classification of its use. Some auditors with Service Facsimiles in place will be unable to successfully handle Class IV data. And some pcs unless cleared of the added restimulation of this life and the environment before being put on Whole Track will be unable to climb the hill.

Therefore all instruction and use of Scientology Auditing Skills and Materials are most successfully done as per Drawing D and have proven unsuccessful when auditor observation of the pc was assumed or auditor judgement relied upon while the auditor or student was in an uncleared state as per Drawings A and C.

This shows an Instructor in or Supervisor of Scientology Auditing his surest route to success with students without blocking those students already in condition to observe pcs. Those students whose Service Facsimiles revolt at Drawing D will also most surely prevent their observation of the pc and Instruction and Supervision Methods as per Drawing D can overcome the barrier whereas nothing will actually surmount the failure to observe the pc, short of clearing the auditor’s Service Fac. This last is a matter, also, of close observation of students over a period of two years.

The object is to get auditing done under supervision and both during and after Instruction. Only then can we ever broadly attain cleared auditors or any of our objectives.
Instruction fails when these principles are not present or when done without heavy stress on the Body of Data and compliance with good auditing practice.

This is in no way critical of students or uncleared auditors. It is simple observation. It is effective.

It is no mean development to accomplish auditing without observing the more subtle conditions of the pc. We have done just that. Therefore, as the student or auditor does not usually observe the pc because of his own Service Fac, and as Level II and III can be done entirely by data, drills and rote procedures, all but Class IV can be attained without cleared auditors. If only cleared auditors were permitted to audit then nobody would be able to start the clearing. This shortage of cleared auditors will exist to nearly the end of this universe. So it is a good thing to have the problem resolved, as it is in this HCO Bulletin.

Of course, the most valid reason for using this approach is that only the disciplined Body of Data used exactly is capable of resolving cases and no amount of confront of PC Occurrence would by itself resolve anything.

It’s the Body of Data exactly and precisely used that resolves the human or any other mind. And that’s the main reason to make the student concentrate upon it. So this is a safe thing to do—concentrate on the Body of Data—no matter why.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: dr.bh 
Copyright © 1963 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 9 SEPTEMBER AD13
Central Orgs 
Franchise

REPETITIVE RUDIMENTS AND REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING
(Compiled from HCO Bulletins of July 2, 3 and 4, AD12)

HOW TO GET THE RUDIMENTS IN

Just as an E-Meter can go dead for the auditor in the presence of a monstrous ARC break, I have found it can go gradiently dull in the presence of out rudiments. If you fail to get one IN then the outness of the next one reads faintly. And if your TR1 is at all poor, you’ll miss the rudiment’s outness and there goes your session.

To get over these difficulties, I’ve developed Repetitive Rudiments.

The auditor at first does not consult the meter, but asks the rudiments question of the pc until the pc says there is no further answer. At this point the auditor says, “I will check that on the meter.” And asks the question again. If it reads, the auditor uses the meter to steer the pc to the answer, and when the pc finds the answer, the auditor again says, “I will check that on the meter” and does so.

The cycle is repeated over and over until the meter is clean of any instant read (see HCO Bulletin of May 25, 1962, for Instant Read).

The cycle:

1. 	Run the rudiment as a repetitive process until pc has no answer.

2. 	Consult meter for a hidden answer.

3. 	If meter reads use it to steer (“that” “that” each time the meter flicks) the pc to the answer.

4. 	Stay with the Meter and do (2) and (3).

The process is flat when there is no instant read to the question.

One does not “bridge out” or use “two more commands”. When the meter test of the question gets no instant read, the auditor says, “The meter is clean”.

The trick here is the definition of “With Session”. If the pc is With Session the meter will read. If the pc is partially against session the meter will read poorly, and the rudiment will not register and the rudiment will get missed. But with the pc with session the meter will read well for the auditor.

FAST CHECKING

A Fast Check on the Rudiments consists only of Steps (2) and (3) of the cycle done over and over.

Watching the meter the auditor asks the question, takes up only what reads and, careful not to Q and A, clears it. One does this as many times as is necessary to get a clean needle. But one still says “The meter is clean” and catches up the disagreement by getting the additional answers.

When the question is seen to be clean, the question is left.

In using Fast Checking NEVER SAY, “THAT STILL READS.” That’s a flunk. Say, “There’s another read here. “

REPETITIVE PREPCHECKING

We will still use the term “Prepchecking” and do all Prepchecking by repetitive command.

STEP ONE

Without now looking at the Meter, the auditor asks the question repetitively until the preclear says that’s all, there are no more answers.

STEP TWO

The auditor then says, “I will check that on the meter” and does so, watching for the Instant Read (HCO Bulletin May 25,1962).

If it reads, the auditor says, “That reads. What was it?” (and steers the pc’s attention by calling each identical read that then occurs). “There .....That .....That .....” until the pc spots it in his bank and gives the datum.

STEP THREE

	The auditor then ignores the meter and repeats Step One above. Then goes to
Step Two, etc.

STEP FOUR

When there is no read on Step Two above, the auditor says, “The meter is clean.”

This is all there is to Repetitive Prepchecking as a system. Anything added in the way of more auditor questions is destructive to the session. Be sure not to Q and A (HCO Bulletin of May 24, 1962).

Be sure your TR4 is excellent in that you understand (really, no fake) what the pc is saying and acknowledge it (really, so the pc gets it) and return the pc to session. Nothing is quite as destructive to this type of auditing as bad TR4.

END WORDS

The E-Meter has two holes in it. It does not operate on an ARC broken pc and it can operate on the last word (thought minor) only of a question. Whereas the question (thought major) is actually null.

A pc can be checked on the END WORDS OF RUDIMENTS QUESTIONS and the charge on those single words can be made known and the question turned around to avoid the last word’s charge.

Example: “Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?”
The word “difficulties”, said to the pc by itself gives an Instant Read. Remedy: Test “Difficulties”. If it reads as itself then change the question to: “Concerning your difficulties, are you willing to talk to me?” This will only react when the pc is unwilling to do so.

Caution: This trouble of END WORDS reading by themselves occurs mainly in the presence of weak TR1 and failure to groove in the question to a “thought major”. With good TR1 the END WORDS read only when the question is asked.

IN PRACTICE you only investigate this when the pc insists strongly that the question is nul. Then test the end word for lone reaction and turn the question about to make it end with another end word (question not to have words changed, only shifted in order). Then groove it in and test it for Instant Read. If it still reacts as a question (thought major) then, of course, it is not nul and should be answered.

DOUBLE CLEANING

“Cleaning” a rudiment that has already registered nul gives the pc a Missed Withhold of nothingness. His nothingness was not accepted. The pc has no answer. A missed no-answer then occurs. This is quite serious. Once you see a Rudiment is clean, let it go. To ask again something already nul is to leave the pc baffled—he has a missed withhold which is a nothingness.

LRH :jw.bp.cden 						L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

6309C10 SHSpec-304 Destimulation of a Case

Use Arabic numerals to apply to routines; use Roman numerals to apply to a body of data, e.g. “Scientology III”, not “3”.  Auditor Report Forms are getting a standardized format.

When handling service facs, you are handling stuff that can bypass more stuff than any other thing there is.  If the PC gives you his service fac and you refuse it, you have bypassed the major charge on his case, and he blows his skull off.  The service fac is what keeps the environmental restimulation restimulated.  When you are handling the service fac, you are handling what makes aberration permanent.  Many PCs have second dynamic service facs.  This has nothing to do with life, but it has to do with your situation on this planet at this time.  The sickness and incidence of illness on this planet is unusually high, because the way to make everybody wrong is obviously to produce nothing.  Everybody counts on guys going ahead and making bodies, keeping the civilization wheeling, to keep thetans interested enough so they will keep reporting back.  The industrialist is in trouble at this time, because he is producing.  On a whole-track basis, a thetan is in trouble simply because of MEST.  That is how he looks at it.  If he could have arranged never to have created anything, he would not now have anything to be in trouble with, clearly.  So any creative activity is doomed to attack, and the artists and musicians of this planet always attract someone who caves them in.  The same is true of industrialists, etc.  They don’t have enough force to protect their creativeness, so people attack them. Therefore you find a lot of service facs having to do with the second dynamic.

R3SC is a thin-ice activity.  If you go one step too far, you are in the soup.  So be careful to word questions with, “In this lifetime....” That way, you will avoid a lot of trouble from over-restimulation, from getting onto the whole track.  With service fac running, we are engaged upon key-out, not bank erasure.  Keep the PC’s attention on this lifetime.  And be careful, since it easily goes to other areas, which can then easily become BPC.  That is the second factor that makes service facs fraught with potential ARC breaks.  [The first factor was that if the PC gives you his service fac and you refuse it, you have bypassed the major charge on the case.]

The moment you combine Scientology III with Scientology IV, you will lose; you will have had it.  You will have left on the PC restimulation both from the PT environment and from the whole track.  How do you handle this, so as to avoid this situation?  Word questions so as to avoid all goal-type answers.  If an item rocket reads, don’t take it, since only GPM’s rocket read.  You could get away with running it, if you handled it very gingerly, with “In this lifetime ...”, and if you were very careful and didn’t oppose it.  You can note it for later reference.  The best way to avoid problems is to ask questions that cannon be answered with a goal.  Asking for a safe assumption about (item) is pretty safe, in that you don’t get goals, but asking for a safe solution to something tends to give you goals.  Service facs are almost never, “To....” But they can be expressed that way.  Avoid it.

Scientology III bypasses less charge, run skillfully, than Scientology IV, just because you are not among so many potentially heavily charged restimulatable things.  What you want to do with Scientology III is to destimulate the case, so don’t restimulate it.  In running service facs, you can be wrong by restimulating -- the more you restimulate, the more wrong you are.  The value of destimulation appeared in the search for TA action, which is the only way to advance the case.  The whole track is too restimulative for most PCs.  Getting into it produces over-restimulation and stops TA action. The only reason that the TA doesn’t move is that the PC is in over-restimulation.

Take a room and fill it half full of cotton bales (representing charge). A person in that room won’t be able to move too well.  Then put some more cotton bales in the room -- now the person will have even more trouble moving.  Trying to handle the situation by putting even more cotton bales in the room stops his entirely.  The proper course of action is to get rid of as much as you can that is already there.  Clearing is getting all the false data and this lifetime restimulation off the case prior to recovering the truth. One gets very good TA action doing Scientology III just by working on that line.

Any case is over-restimulated when you start work on it.  The basic mechanism of entrapment is to keep the person’s attention diverted, to financial matters, for instance, to keep kicking him ground with various forms of trouble and worry so that he doesn’t have a chance to observe what is really going on.  The thetan wants something out of this planet, and he thinks there is some pay.  He thinks that he is getting something out of it.  The trap wouldn’t run at all unless the thetan was so busy in it that he never had time to look at it.  If he could see the trap, he could get out of it, but his attention gets diverted in it.  He then makes foolish decisions to hold off foolish confusion and gets still more entrapped. It is a perfected system of attention fixing, shifting, and dispersal, a real trap, not just a cynical snide comment.  Those aspects of this planet that you protest are probably there to excite protest and over-restimulation, e.g. finances.  Money is a bum itsa.  What is it?  In socialism, you can never buy yourself off.  You stay tied down.

Life is a constant restimulation.  The PC comes into session subject to all this environmental restimulation.  Restimulation comes in several different forms.

1. PT environment.

2. Restimulated bank, restimulated by the service fac.  Actually, there is an interrelationship between environmental restimulation and service fac restimulation, in that the PC wouldn’t have the PTP of environmental restimulation if it weren’t for service facs.

3. Auditing restimulation: what has been restimulated in auditing and not erased.

4. Current session restimulation: what you are going to restimulate in the session, or what you are in the process of restimulating in session.

5. Auditor restimulation: restimulation occurring simply from being audited, if the auditor is rough, restimulation from flubs.  All of these sources of restimulation are interactive.  To some degree, they all hinge on the service fac.  Cross-restimulation occurs; the only core on which it sits is the service fac.  The service fac keeps the environment restimulated.  It has great bearing on other forms of restimulation and prevents their discharge.  However, it can be knocked out.

The most notable thing about the service fac is that the thetan is doing it, right now. He is making himself right and someone else wrong, all on his own cockeyed determinism.  He is keeping the GPM in restimulation because he is using the service fac.  He is mocking up his bank, and he is the effect of it too, but he is responsible for everything that is happening to him.  The preceding is happening right now.  He is doing it; it is decisional.

How does the auditor restimulate something?  By putting the PC’s attention or letting the PC’s attention go on any heretofore inert charge that can be restimulated, i.e. anything that is not already discharged.  The PC is totally incapable of causing trouble in a session.  The auditor can let the PC’s attention wander all over, restimulating anything his service fac directs him to.  You wouldn’t have psychosomatic illness unless the thetan had, as all do, the service fac that the best way to handle a situation is to get sick. That is a service fac that goes backtrack easily.

The way an auditor restimulates something is to let the PC’s attention wander to it or to mention it.  How much it gets restimulated just depends on how often you mention it and with what intensity.  The mechanism of restimulation is “name it”.  The way to get an ARC break is to name something and permit no itsa.  This gives you instant BPC, as when the auditor says, “Sorry about that last session we had.” Another way to get an ARC break is to let the actions of the session bar the discharge of materials already restimulated.  E.g. the PC comes into session itsa-ing, and the auditor “getting model session in”, shuts the PC up.  Auditors often ask silly questions to be sociable, then shut the PC up in order to start the session, cutting the itsa line.  An auditor can goof at start of session by putting in a whatsit, e.g. “How are you doing?”, and then not letting the PC itsa: “We’re going to start the session now.”  You can do this any time.  It results in an explosion.

On an uncleared PC, the service fac is interacting with whatever else is restimulated, so the PC is putting in a continuous restimulative factor in sessions.  You will get restimulation trouble as long as a PC has a prominent service facsimile.  Getting one out of the way knocks about half the potential restimulation out of the way.  Audit smoothly as you do it.  If you, the auditor, do the tiniest little thing wrong when you are approaching a service fac, the PC targets you as the one to be made wrong.  Provide good, specific, small targets for the PC’s attention, and don’t let his attention slide around.  It is a trick to find a service fac without restimulating everything.  Here are some tips:

1. Audit smoothly.  This is the solution to session restimulation.

2. Restimulate no more in your current auditing than you have to.  Don’t start naming a whole bunch of things.

3. Give the PC frequent “on auditing” prepchecks to handle charge from past auditing.  Do this every five or six sessions.

4. Keep up with the PT environment.  Audit at least 2 1/2 hours a week.  In a case that was over-restimulated, one would look to see what was practical to cut out.  Normally, the auditor would be concerned with reducing the auditing restimulation.  This is often overdone by:

a) Excessively big targets.

b) Loss of control of the itsa line.  The auditor lets the PC talk too much.  

One reason an auditor goofs is that he has his own service fac.  He is unwittingly trying to make LRH or the tech wrong.  He will usually come around when this is pointed out.  Another phenomenon is that, as you look for the PC’s service fac and jog it, he will target you to be made wrong, which can be fairly restimulative and make the auditor flub.  One way to handle that would be to switch auditors.

You want to key out service facs, so in assessing, always use “In this lifetime.” You don’t want whole track.

“Only a GPM rocket reads.”

If you have a room full of cotton bales, you won’t get anywhere with that [finding the service fac] directly, because there is no room to move around. But you can reduce the restimulation in other ways.  If you handle all auditing on the basis of reducing restimulation, you will seldom be wrong. Any PC who is running badly is doing so because of over-restimulation.  Any solution of the auditing situation or the case has to take into account reduction of restimulation, either by discharge or destimulation.  You can destimulate the person’s life somewhat.  You can reduce one or more of the five sources of restimulation [See p. 503, above].  You could destimulate any restimulatable area -- whatever you can, in fact, work with.  Then audit out this lifetime service facs. “A case is as hard to run as it is restimulated” -- no more than that.  Anything that reduces restimulation on the case is valid auditing.  For instance, you could destimulate past therapies. Psychiatrists add more environmental restimulation than they pick off a case, so of course they fail.

6309C11 SHSpec-306 Service Facs and GPM’s

HCOB 8May63 “Routine 3 -- The Nature of Formation of GPM” says, “The early GPM’s contacted are implants.  This does not mean the PC’s own GPM’s do not exist.” The PC’s own GPM has power and velocity over an implant GPM in a ratio of 1000 or 100,000 to 1.  There is a great difference in order of magnitude.  The whole and entire amount of implanted GPM’s -- all together -- are one RI of one of LRH’s GPM’s: the oppterm goals, which is one of about a hundred RI’s on a personal GPM, which extends from trillions 30 to trillions 20 on the track and is actually still continuing.

A number of you have some protest on the length of the time track -- multiple trillions of trillions, etc.  “Modern times” is trillions 13 to now -- the stuff that is likely to influence the PC in PT.

What you are doing in R3SC is “fooling around with the PC’s current RI in his existing PT goal line of his current truncated goal [GPM].” There is an opposition to it.  Clearing up this stuff is clearing a dumbbell pair out of the PC’s own GPM, restimulated in PT, out of sequence on the track.  The PC’s goal will fall out of this with a thud.  It is probable that while you are listing for the PC’s service fac, you will get the PC’s goal, rocket reading.

The amount of aberration required to reduce power must be comparable to the power reduced.  To account for the reduction of power of the thetan, we must find some force of equal power that could aberrate him.  All the implant GPM’s did was to confuse you as to what was your goal and what was an implanted goal.  Implanted goals were installed backwards, from top to bottom.  An actual GPM is run the way it was lived: from bottom to top.  Use R3M2  to run actual GPM’s.

[R3M2 is apparently a variant of R3M.  R3M is a method of running the sequence of actual GPM’s, RI by RI, starting either with an RI or with a rocket-reading goal.  Starting with the goal, the first RI is obtained by using a “goal oppose list”, also known as a “source list”, more or less with the wording, “Who or what would (the goal) oppose?” Subsequent RI’s are obtained by “RI oppose lists”.  These have to be listed right-way-to.  There are different rules for finding the item on these two sorts of lists.  Each RI, after it is found, is packaged by relating it to the goal and to the RI found just before it, and, when verified, is added to the line plot.  This packaging step also lets you know when you have entered a new GPM, as the RI’s will no longer relate to the goal previously found.  When this happens, the new goal is found by doing a new goals list for a new rocket reading goal.  Or the PC may volunteer the new goal.  You can also start R3M with an RI, perhaps one that was obtained from R2-12.  In this case, you just keep doing RI oppose lists and getting new RI’s.  By the time you have several RI’s, the PC will give you his goal.  But you continue with the RI oppose lists.  Other references on R3M are to be found above.]

Don’t use an early actual goal as a service fac [and try to run it as such.] If you do this, you are making the guy look down the goals channel. The goal in an actual GPM is the furthest item from PT, being the bottom terminal.  When you get the PC to reach down for that goal, he is, to some slight degree, traveling through time between that goal and PT, and he livens up the whole track, which is a lot of charge.  It is like looking down between the rows of the Helatrobus implants.  You get a tunnel of blackness.  That is what happens when you reach down a GPM.  The same thing happens with the PC’s GPM channel, only it is a quite different order of magnitude.  With the Helatrobus implant, it is not so good to do this, but with the PC’s own actual GPM channel, it is like having your head shot off with a sixteen inch cannon. The residual charge in an actual GPM is incomparably greater.

If the goal comes up as you look for a service fac, put it in the Auditor’s Report Form, clearly marked with a red circle, and don’t do much with it, except in R3M2.  If you run it, you are getting the PC to look down through the GPM to the beginning of some track, with at least a hundred RI’s between you and it.  You will get TA, etc., if you run it as a service fac, but the PC running it will scuff up his track.

The PC’s own GPM looks like a black island, floating.  It is quite meaty.  They come in different sizes, but each is a distinct size.  You are running the PC back and forth from the bottom of a mass maybe three feet thick, 75 feet long, and 30 feet wide.  You could well restimulate so much mass that the TA will, all of a sudden, freeze up.  You would have to remedy this by working out the GPM with R3M2.  The PC’s own GPM has the beauty of disintegrating as you work with it.  You get rocket-reading blowdowns.  The black islands turn grey, then start shaking and fraying, like opaque jello that someone left in the sun.  The power in this early GPM is commensurate with the native power of a thetan, i.e.  there is a lot of charge on it.  This charge doesn’t discharge through the PC or the meter, luckily.  

The technology for handling this is all in R3N [See above] and R3M2.  RI’s relate to a goal, but each as its own central postulate, with regard to the goal.  This is true of every RI in the PC’s GPM.  For instance, the current RI might have a central postulate of “to ring bells”, where the goal is “to go to school”.  You might get an oppterm of people who bring their lunches.  Without knowing the goal, this would be puzzling.  That’s why it would be an aberrative factor.

R3SC will land you somewhere in the vicinity of the current oppterm or terminal of the PC’s own GPM. as it applies to PT, or it may land you near some old RI that is in restimulation in PT.  That will be the source of the PC’s PT restimulation.  With R3SC, you can knock that in the head.  You can pull its central postulate.  But when you try to make the service fac make sense, you may find it impossible to do so until you relate it to his goal, by running R3M2.  So that is actually what you are auditing when you find the service fac.

You could find a service fac without a meter by having the PC write a list of solutions, until he is easy about it and feels that it is complete, then looking on the list for the solution that makes the least sense. However, when seen as an RI, such things can be seen to make sense.

When you are handling a service fac, you are handling the central postulate of an RI.  So running R3SC disintegrates the RI.  The thinkingness of the RI is sometimes different from its beingness.  E.g. you may have the RI, “a lame man”, but from that, you may not know what the significance is that lies within it, i.e. you may not know what the central postulate is.  You could list for this and find it.  It may turn out to be “lameness”.

Things can be audited nicely without being related to the GPM where they occur, even though, under these circumstances, they might not make sense.  A service fac is actually not a whole RI, but just the central postulate of an RI.  You are handling the central postulate of an RI when you are handling a service fac, so you get a disintegration.

A being assumes an identity because it has a solution in the middle of it.  For instance, in the middle of the identity, “a lame man”, we may find “lameness” as a solution to something.  Sometimes an RI comes up as its own thinkingness, but a beingness RI in particular may have an idea at its core. An RI always has an idea at its core, but sometimes you don’t have the central idea when you have the RI.  Given the RI, you could list for the central significance, which is “an automatic solution.  It’s safe.  It solves everything.” [This safe solution would be the service fac.] That is how an RI is generated.  The thetan has an idee fixe, so he never has to inspect in order to solve, so therefore he never as-ises the mass, so therefore he gets caught in the middle of the mass.  If the thetan does this with a goal, he gets an accumulation of RI’s resulting from this goal.  Each of these RI’s has the goal carried through into it, but there is also a new idea that makes each RI.  And that whole mass comes together as a GPM, so you get this huge mass, this huge block of energy, with its separate items in it.  They don’t appear separate.  The whole thing is all squashed together from so much attack and so little inspection.  The whole thing is dominated by one goal, e.g. “to go to school”, which is common to every RI or identity within it.  This is what it is accumulates it.  But that goal, all by itself, is no-inspection; it is a way to solve all problems, totally uninspected, in a fixed way.  For instance, the goal “to solve all problems, go to school”, is a totally uninspected solution and now gathers to itself identities who have this idea, as well as other characteristics.  Because the goal is uninspected, automatic, and fixed, it generates into itself the second step of identities, e.g. “an idiot child”, that have the goal as a central idea, but which already have their own characteristics.  They have the main idea -- the goal -- as dominant, but the characteristic of the identity, after it is no longer able to carry out the postulate, is something like that of an idiot child.  The idea of “an idiot child” is “people like unintelligence.” So the central idea may be “unintelligence solves everything”, but the RI is “an idiot child”. The only way that it could exist in the first place was that the thetan had the idea of the goal. [“to solve all problems, go to school”.]

So there are three types of ideas in GPM’s:

1. The goal of the GPM.  This is the first postulate and central idea of the GPM.

2. The central idea or postulate of the RI, which in itself forbids inspection.

3. The identity or individuality or the RI.  This is the accumulation of mass that results from the fact that (1) and (2), above, being fixed, uninspected solutions, forbid itsa and hence forbid an as-isness from occurring.  That is the anatomy of an RI, but it also tells us what a service fac is.

This is what gives us the dwindling spiral of abilities.  RI’s, substitutions of ideas for thetans, the thetan’s O/W’s -- all these get piled up on these fixed ideas.  The biggest fixed idea was a goal, which then developed into a GPM.

“That which is not inspected tends to persist,” because it is never as-ised.  What happens?  A person gets Hell knocked out of him.  The RI and its significance is the constant invitation to attack, but it is never the right enemy.  The constant O/W and battling that ensues from this fact accumulates as the mass of an RI.

It is interesting that an idea is most easily substituted for a thetan because it has no mass and seems to contain some wisdom.  “I am a guard” implies “I don’t have to understand or inspect.” The thetan has tried to “solve” a screw-up with a fixed idea or postulate.  This is a sort of “sweeping under the rug” that permits no inspection, therefore no as-isness, therefore persistence.  Any idea is liable to become substituted for a thetan, because he does it himself.  When one gives up on one goal, one gets another. For instance, say the last three or four mountain ranges the thetan built fell down and fouled up his planet.  So, on the ideal planet, “Never build mountains” becomes the solution that holds all the confusion uninspected.  It is “solved” instead.  Sooner or later, we will find him running a Society for the Prevention of Building Mountains.  He is now an identity.  He is the idea, “Never build mountains”, substituted for a thetan.  The PC keeps abandoning old solutions as they fail, and keeps getting new goals.  This is covered in R3M, basically, except for finding the PC’s own goal and distinguishing it from implant goals.

So be alert to anything you find in R3SC that rocket reads, but don’t run it with service fac tech.  You can’t run a GPM with service fac tech, but you can run one RI with it.  But that rocket read is more than just a service fac.  R3SC does handle the RI that is part of the PC’s PT environment.  

If you find an RI, and your PC is having energy doing odd things to him, giving ghastly sensations, body distortion sensations, etc., the PC is liable to disclaim the RI in an effort to get away from it all.  Getting towards the service fac causes qualms and invalidation in a PC.  The service fac is “pro-survival”, so he doesn’t want to give it up.  Don’t Q and A with that invalidation.  To do so will just restimulate it worse.  If the invalidation occurs, pick up everything found as a service fac and finish it off standardly, with all of the R3SC steps.  When a stable datum is pulled out and not run off completely, you leave some of the confusion behind.  So just get it with R3SC.  If you take the stable datum half way out of a confusion, you leave the confusion.  This is what happens when you leave R3SC on something half-run.  The result is that the person will get foggy; his memory will deteriorate.  If you took the stable datum all the way out, you would blow the confusion.

The postulate in the center of the RI is so far downscale that it is twenty TA divisions below “hide”.  It is an idea that has turned into MEST. You run it only as far as cognition, but it may enter at any of these levels:

1. Solutions.

2. Right/wrong.

3. Domination.

4. Survival.  But a real GPM item service fac goes through the steps of:

1. Solutions.

2. Right/wrong.

3. Domination.

4. Survival.

5. Domination.

6. Right/wrong.  Then the next:

1. Solutions.

2. Right/wrong.

3. Domination.

4. Survival.

Etc.  Again, the service fac may enter at any of these stages.  It starts off reasonably sensible, but becomes very weird, like “cows are kissable” as a safe solution to “how to repair motor cars”.  This service fac will turn out to be intimately related to “solution” or “domination”, etc., in the PC’s mind.  When you try to run it, the PC may not be able to fit it in on “right/wrong”, so check it over on the other buttons.  He may well cognite on it and blow the charge.  You could then see how it is a solution, how it would make or has made him right and others wrong, around and around on the buttons, until the PC is out of answers and the buttons are clean.  Do an 18-button prepcheck, and it will all cool down.

The auditor is always in danger of grabbing the GPM accidentally, getting the goal instead of the service fac.  This has advantages too, since the PC’s goal is hard to sort out from implant goals.  The PC’s own RI’s are probably what make implant goals read.  They read off the top of the PC’s own RI’s. The service fac doesn’t have to rocket read.  You can accept one that does, but be equally prepared to take one that just ticks.  

The PC’s service fac is his current solution, his current RI, monitored by the goal.  It is a very aberrated stable datum.  It is an unexamined solution that keeps the PC from doing anything.  It was a decent solution when the thetan first got hold of it, but then it started running his life. Therefore, it does not even vaguely take care of environmental enturbulation. [The rule:  “When in doubt, communicate,” is an attempt to overcome the effect of service facs.]

You have to work at it to do R3SC wrong.  The best way to do it wrong is to be completely unthorough, to leave everything unflat.  The PC will get very confused, from having all his stable data pulled away.  When you handle a service fac, all the incomplete cycles that the service fac has caused hit the PC at once.  This generates confusion.  When the service fac running is not completed, the confusion gets even worse.  So it is a good idea, from time to time, to clean up what you have done.  Get it all finished up.  Some service facs won’t run quite in the order given for R3SC.  It may start on a later step than “right/wrong”, or earlier, at “solutions”.  A real service fac behaves outrageously, in that regard.  Something else that isn’t a service fac may be far more mannerly, while still giving TA action.

Keep your eyes peeled for the PC’s goal, since this is the best means of finding it that we have developed.  Keep running service facs until the case is in good shape and the PC’s goal has shown up.  You get the best TA on the PC’s own GPM channel.  You can use R3M2 when you get his goal, but that is not your immediate purpose.  R3SC is for destimulating the PT environment factor. 

6309C12 SHSpec-305 Service Facs

The difficulty with getting a PC’s case forward is that the PC has a hidden standard, which is that by which he measures his progress.  It is often unknown, even to the PC.  That is why it is “hidden”.

An aberration is an out-of-control exaggeration of the positive or negative of anything a thetan can do. [Hence Aristotle’s doctrine of the Golden Mean.] The fact that something is normal doesn’t mean that it isn’t aberrated.  For instance, the difficulty of exteriorization is accepted, but it is not anything much in line with the thetan’s abilities.  So departure from the normal is no particular index of case state.  Auditors sometimes have trouble because a PC runs too easily.  So in judging case level, don’t use the PC’s behavior as an index.  Use the amount of TA motion.

By running service facs, the case can change very quickly.  So worrying about the PC’s “normal” behavior is unnecessary and irrelevant.  It is easier to measure a person’s case against some scales of abilities than against behavior, and it is more accurate.  The condition of restimulation of the case has more to do with understanding the PC and handling him effectively than does the PC’s behavior.  The only things you worry about with a PC are:

1. Can he do the process?

2. Is he getting any gains?

3. Is he getting TA motion?  

The fact that someone has a hidden standard merely means that he has a chronic restimulation that is throwing extra charge on the case. It is some facsimile, or whatever, in chronic restimulation.  If it was changed in the session, the PC had a gain.  If you got TA, some of the chronic restimulation will have gone, so the PC will have had a gain and will probably say so. That, unfortunately, isn’t all that happens with a hidden standard.  The PC is also trying to fit every process to this thing, to resolve it.  He is so introverted in session as a result that he doesn’t as-is anything, and you don’t get TA action.  Time and the TA fit together, and the PC drags his hidden standard facsimile up into every incident, or whatever, in order to evaluate it.  Therefore, the PC is always misdating something.  The hidden standard isn’t the date of it, whatever date he is in.  That is why it is the most effective TA stopper.

There is a way of getting rid of the hidden standard: a process called R3T, now called R4T.  In this process, one simply asks the PC for his chronic psychosomatic -- what he is experiencing and what is always present.  He answers, and you date it, whatever it is.  Then you get the itsa line in on it.  In most cases, that is the end of the hidden standard.

The hidden standard always expresses itself physiologically.  It is never hidden physically.  It will be what the PC complains about.  Sometimes it will take you an hour or so of itsa to find out what it is.  When the PC spots it, he will feel better, and you will have been getting TA.  Don’t let him start giving you problems, or you have had it, since problems are not itsa.  So perhaps you should stick to, “What physical condition are you trying to solve?”

He will finally itsa it out, if he doesn’t tell you all at once.  If he gives it to you right off the bat, you might get some TA with, “When has this troubled you in auditing?” or “ ... in this lifetime?” You can take it up with R3T and date it, taking it back as far as need be.  Sometimes dating it will cause it to blow on the spot, especially if you don’t get it so narrowed down that you get the PC into an engram and have to run it with R3R, or, if he gets stuck in his own GPM, with R3M2, or if in another GPM, with R3N.  [R3T seems to be the precursor to the date portion of the date/locate, for handling intractable pressure somatics.] R3T is commonly overrun.  You’ve got to watch the PC.  When you first start using R3T, you are likely to overrun it roughly 80% of the time.  Eventually you get slippy and stop overrunning it.
Not every PC has a hidden standard, to the point where it ruins the auditing.  But a hidden standard exists in every case that has a difficult or delicate TA, that the auditor has to worry about.  So R3T is the weapon to use to get the TA moving again, when all else has failed.  R3T can fix it, but a little goes a long way.  Don’t try to run the whole case with R3T, since if you tried to do this, you could end up with a messed-up PC.  However, you could do R3T on everything the PC is worried about in PT.  You could clear somebody with R3T, as long as you you kept good control over the PC and just dated all his PT hidden standards.

The service fac has to be severely located on the time track in this lifetime, so that it will key out.  Handle every hidden standard that the PC could dream up.  But don’t let him pull anything up from the back track in the meantime.  Use TR-2.  If R3SC goes nowhere, you can still clear the PC using R3T.  The tough case is the PC whose service fac is his hidden standard.  The only workable handling is carefully to get it dated.  

This is all destimulation, so you have to be careful not to run anything.  The reason you are trying to destimulate the case is so that the PC doesn’t have PTP’s, so that he can put his attention on the session.  If you start a destimulating action and then go backtrack and start running something, the PC will get restimulated.  And if the PC’s service fac includes making you wrong, that is the first thing he will do.  He will try to restimulate more than he can handle.  How do you keep the itsa line in on a PC that wants to restimulate more?  Be awful damn careful of your whatsits. Remove all social actions and chit-chat from your auditing.  Avoid all violent attention shifts, and attention shifts directed by a whatsit, and don’t direct the PC’s attention in a way that ARC breaks him, so that he has to get even with you by whatsiting.

The type of model session to use on a case that isn’t getting much TA is your W-unit type model session: no social frills.  [W unit was next after the V unit, which was heavily supervised R2-10 and R2-12 on a co-audit basis.  W unit contained ruds, havingness, CCH’s, and assists.  It used “GF model session” or “goal finders model session”.  See HCOPL 8Dec62 “Training -- Saint Hill Special Briefing Course: Summary of Subjects by Units” for a description of W, X, Y, and Z units.  GF model session is given in HCOB 15Oct 2 “Goal Finders Model Session”.  This bulletin is not on the SHSBC.] Over-restimulation leads to self-invalidation and invalidation of scientology and other dynamics.  The PC invalidates his own case, chews himself up all the time, and he doesn’t know.  So let that be a warning sign to you.

The case, minus the service fac, is subject to less restimulation because he pulls in fewer PTP’s in his environment.  A case without good processing gains has PTP’s.  The way to handle them is by handling service facs.  There is a way of listing for service facs that nails PTP’s:

1. “What’s a safe assumption about your environment?”

2. “What would be a safe method of handling your problems, here and now in life?”  

This is only one of many solutions to this situation.  Such a question will drop into your lap the stable datum that the person is using to hold at bay various sectors of his existence.  So in that respect, it becomes a method of destimulating the environment.  You wind up with what he uses to handle his family, his job, etc.  Take the PC’s whole environment to pieces.  Find out where his life is in conflict and what it is in conflict with, in PT.  Get what PT consists of.  This orients the PC and is good Scientology I.  [See above, for a description of Scientology I.  Note also the similarity to the PT environment list in expanded dianetics.] You should both categorize things and locate them spatially.  This is good for the PC’s itsa.  After you have all of PT, use the above process on it.  You could plot the PT environment out and find where most of the PC’s problems are.  The PC gets gloomiest when talking about this area.  The TA dies down as you keep talking about it, indicating that there are more problems there than the PC can confront.  He can’t put any itsa into the vicinity.

As the PC looks at the stable datum that he is using to hold sectors of existence at bay, and as he finds out more about it, you will get his confront on the environment increasing and increasing, as his ability to differentiate comes up.  This is a terrific HGC approach.  
Now that you know about the hot spots and fixated areas in the PC’s environment, you have subjects where he can’t itsa.  You can assess by rising TA to get a zone where there is a service fac in operation.  As long as one can’t itsa something, he will continue to have PTP’s with it, so since the PC can’t confront the areas of rising TA, he will have PTP’s there, make mistakes, etc.  The frequency of PTP’s is the measure of no-confront. No-confront is caused by a substitute confront, which is a service facsimile. It isn’t that the thetan can’t confront.  It is that as long as the PC has the service fac, the things he is not-confronting can keep caving him in and restimulating him.  Here is a lesson that you should learn about life:  Don’t stay in places that you don’t want to keep confronting, because your non-confronting will lead you to pick up a stable datum to do your confronting for you in that vicinity, and the next thing you know, this is going to be a gorgeous piece of mass and will give you more PTP’s than you can ordinarily count, and your life will become very restimulative.  The rising TA is less observable than the PC’s attitude.  If the PC hasn’t got anything to say about something, he isn’t observing it.  Something is observing it for him, and that something is a service fac.  Find this and run R3SC steps on it.

If you are having trouble with R3SC, you have collided with the RI of the PC’s ongoing GPM.  It will still handle with R3SC, if with some difficulty.

You use several assessments to get something to run on R3SC.  You can use a scientology List One assessment or a discussion of PT doingness and environment, with observation of where the PC goes downtone and where the TA rises, indicating areas where the PC can’t confront and itsa.  When you run the brackets step of R3SC, you will get TA by as-ising stable data and letting confusion fly off.  Do a thorough PC Assessment Sheet.  You can use the PC Assessment Sheet to find out about the PC’s PT, if you treat it as a leisurely 2WC activity, looking for TA action, not data, i.e.  doing it as an R3SC assessment.  When dealing with this lifetime, let the itsa run free.  When dealing with past track, control the itsa line very closely.  An assessment at Scientology IV is a rapid, bang-bang assessment.

B O A R D  T E C H N I C A L  B U L L E T I N
12 SEPTEMBER 1963R
REVISED & REISSUED 7 SEPTEMBER 1974 AS BTB 
(REVISION IN SCRIPT) 
Remimeo
CANCELS
HCO BULLETIN OF 12 SEPTEMBER 1963
SAME TITLE

CCH’S DATA

The CCHs are a highly workable set of Processes starting with Control, going to Communication and leading to Havingness, in that order. The CCHs are auditing specifically aimed at and using all the parts of the Two Way Comm Formula.

CONTROL is the first action of the CCHs and is highlighted by being done Tone 40 for the first two CCHs (CCH 1 and CCH 2).

The reason for Control being the main point is simply to bring about an awareness of Terminals to which communication will be possible; this is done by A. bringing to the PC’s awareness that his body and he are being controlled from a particular KNOWN SOURCE POINT and B. that he also is a Source Point of Control with Control over self and body, all of which is accomplished with CCH 1. i.e. Awareness of two known terminals:

Once the above has been done with CCH 1, the gains can be developed further with CCH 2 by finding for the PC more known points (environment) and familiarity in this “new” environment plus the beginnings of the next major step forward in this developement of Communication, the awareness of distance.

COMMUNICATION (CCH3) is the next major step forward in the rehabilitation of your PC. Tone 40 is used in the next step but only on the motion. Communication is encouraged. The type of Communication practised by the actual auditing actions is that of “one way communication” i.e.Cause-distance-effect with intention, attention, duplication and understanding, plus the first glimmerings of cause being given to the PC by Auditor receiving PC’s comm and then getting the PC to get the idea of contributing to the motion. In this section you are also going to develop the PC’s ability to reach by showing him it is safe to reach across a distance (hand contact mimicry) and then reduce his dependency on YES? and increase his reach even more (hand space mimicry).

As an added bonus to the above you are also on the beginning step of Havingness (Duplication) as you will be teaching the person to duplicate as a being in two way communication and not as a body with reference to body Right and body Left.

HAVINGNESS is the final step in this portion of the CCH formula (full formula CCHCACTCH where A = attention (control) T = Thinkingness (control)). This step of CCH 4 is the final culmination point which restores the PC’s ability to be in good two way communication with a high level of Havingness. By the use of Duplication, the full Two Way Communication Formula is practised in a physical manner with the result that you will have travelled a very very steep case gain from No Comm as a Thetan to full Two Way Communication as a Thetan with lots of Havingness. i.e. The emanation of an impulse or particle (Book and Motion) from Source Point across a distance to Receipt Point with the intention of bringing about at Receipt Point a Duplication and understanding of that which emanated from the Source Point, with Receipt Point then becoming the Source Point back across the distance to the Source Point which has now become the Receipt Point with intention, attention, duplication and understanding.

OBSERVED GENERAL ERRORS

1. 	Not knowing how to change from Hand Contact Mimicry to Hand Space Mimicry.

ANS. 	The change occurs on the run through the CCHs after Hand Contact Mimicry is flat with no change, i.e. CCH 1, 2, 3 (HCM with change), 4,1,2,3 (HCM with change) 4, 2, 1, 2, 3 (HCM 5 commands only, no change), 4, 1, 2, 3 (Hand Space Mimicry).

2.	Trying to handle “verbal originations” on Tone 40 CCH 1 and 2.

ANS. 	Tone 40 is used to overcome revolt of circuits, Body Originations are handled, circuits are not validated.

3. 	Overwhelming PC with very slow, very fast or continuously varying speeds of movements.

ANS. 	An overwhelm is always wrong. Velocity plays an important role in being part of the Comm Formula. By all means experiment with it but pay close attention to PC, make for wins and increase tolerance, not losses and decrease tolerance.

4. 	Interrupting PC to handle a Body Origination.

ANS. 	Body Originations must be picked up when they occurs. In deciding to pick up a Body Origination the Auditor should bear in mind that it is against the Auditor’s Code to prevent a PC from carrying out a command.

5. 	While doing CCH 4 Auditor tells PC to do it Mirror-image-wise.

ANS. 	When the process is being done as per the Two Way Communication Formula you will see that the PC will be executing the command “mirror-image-wise” (the receipt point has become the source point). However, to tell the PC to do it mirror-image-wise is absolutely wrong as such a direction will prevent the PC from looking and put him on a self-audit.

6. 	Not being sure of a CCH flat point.

ANS. 	Flat Point = 3 cycles with no change in Comm Lag, no physically observed change and the PC doing it.

7. 	Imprecise Body movements of Auditor on CCH 2.

ANS. 	Auditor on right side of PC (PC on Auditor’s left) with Auditor slightly in front of PC except on “Turn around”. The change of position is achieved by moving the left leg one paoe to the left and forward in each case.

	H. G. Parkhouse

	Revised & Reissued as BTB 
	by Flag Mission 1234

	I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis
	2nd: Molly Harlow
	Authorized by AVU

BDCS:SW:AL:MH:HP:mh 	for the 
Copyright © 1963, 1974 	BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
by L. Ron Hubbard 	of the 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY 

6309C18 SHSpec-308 Saint Hill Service Fac Handling

It is adventurous to go in to handle something, like the mind, without knowing what you are doing.  Every case and every practitioner in the field of the mind has been concentrated on one aspect of existence and dedicated to observing existence only through that aspect.  So no wonder little has been discovered, and less applied.  Knowledge about the mind means freedom for life and beings in this universe.  Therefore, anyone who is after enslavement is also in favor of ignorance about the mind.  There are two ways to make people ignorant:

1. Deny any information at all.

2. Substitute false data.  This is an easier and more effective way.  Add to this the fact that:

3. Everyone is mired in his own favorite data  and you’ve got a good trap.

The way to overcome ignorance is to find the precise mechanics that apply to all minds, because this will be a broader truth that overrides all the minor data on which people are fixated.  False relay of the basic truth, dropping out bits, could again make a slavery, because it would deviate enough from the generally recognized broad truth and degenerate into opinion and fixed data.  This is the difficulty that scientology has had to deal with over the years.  The solution is results, because once the technology is producing results, you get no arguments.  So the whole contest has not been for the achievement of certain truths.  We have had these for years.  Rather, the contest has been for workability, so that we can get an application of those truths, so that we can get a rapid release of attention from “favorite data” and so that there is a demonstration that by using the truth, a greater freedom is attained.

The one reason why you can’t get a PC to see that he can get a release of attention by virtue of applying general truths is because of his favorite data, his fixed idea.  He considers that any other truths have to agree with this favorite idea in order to be true.  He is sure that all horses sleep in beds.  This is not only his fixed data; it is his total data.  Any data that doesn’t contribute to it, he will discard.  To a person with a service fac, his idea of truth is whether something fits his idee fixe.  A person may have his attention fixed to a varying extent.  So a person whose attention is not totally fixed may obtain fringe benefits from studying scientology.  To the degree that a person’s attention is fixed, he is not able to explore the perimeter of his ideas and therefore cannot see a greater truth.  So he is more entrapped than someone who is less fixed.  The greater the fixation, the closer to psychosis.  Psychosis is the state in which the individual has only the idee fixe.  The degree of enslavement is the degree to which the individual is fixated on the fixed idea.

If you try to communicate a datum to someone with a very fixed idea, the datum will be received as false, unless you indicate the fixed idea.  If you communicate some idea that fits with the fixed idea, it will be accepted as true.  It could be that any other datum you then communicate will be taken as true.  But these data will not be inspected.  

False data is worse than none, as far as entrapment is concerned.  It is like putting up a sign pointing over a cliff and saying, “This way lies freedom.” One can only get fixated on falsehood, never on truth.  Truth is an all-freeing mechanism.  If freedom is not obtained, the truth in question must be to some degree limited, either in conception, reception, or application. Therefore, anything you are worried about must have a falsehood connected with it.  There is always a lie connected to anything that you are having trouble with.

A session goes well if and only if you get TA action.  The discovery that a PC’s case gain can be measured directly by TA action seems simple, but it is an advance in technology beyond anything in the past fifty thousand years, since it takes judgement of improvement out of the realm of opinion and possible inability to observe, on the part of the auditor or the PC.

All confusions and masses must be there because they are held in abeyance, so far as observation is concerned, and will not as-is, because of a stable datum.  A stable datum prevents observation of the environment or these masses, and therefore accumulates masses.  What is wrong with a mind is that a stable datum is a substitute for observation.  A person:

1. Ceased to inspect.

2. Fell back from living.

3. Let everything go to pieces.

4. Chose a stable datum instead of inspecting.

5. Got an accumulation of mass and confusion.  When you shake up the stable datum by taking apart some of its ramifications, confusion can start to flow off.

The amount of TA determines whether or not the PC had a good session, no matter what the PC says.  There is no opinion about it at all.  Good TA means that the PC will feel better.  Bad TA means almost invariably that the PC won’t feel good.

“A stable datum is held in place by the confusion it’s supposed to confront and doesn’t.” Instead of remedying the confusion, as it was supposed to do, and as inspection would have done, it collects more confusion.  Like a dam, the more confusion it is supposed to hold in place, the more confusion batters at it, so the more confusion accumulates around it, like twisting a fork in a bowl of taffy.  Modern science and other mental technologies have taken a stable datum that Man is an animal and that the mind is a brain.  The idea that Man is mass is a stable datum in a confusion, that is persistently dramatized.  Try to tell the modern scientist about stuck flows, and he will think that you are giving him a lecture on blood and the causes of coronary thrombosis.  They can’t be taught until you get them to inspect some thoughts that they have had about brains.  Modern science has “Man equals the brain” as a stable datum.

What can you do for someone who is totally bound in and fixated, to the point where he is being a stable datum?  You could take a datum of enormous magnitude and hold a gun on this person and say, “Believe it, or we shoot you!” That substitutes a force-datum for inspection.  Ultimately, it fails, because it is just another stable datum with an associated confusion.  That is why I.Q. usually deteriorates with years of schooling, since “modern education” is usually just laying in more and more uninspected stable data. You would have a whole new area of education if you said, “Look over this data and sort out what is true in it.” You should have the student inspect data and find what is right or wrong about it.  

This is of limited usefulness as long as everyone has his own fixed idea by which to tell rightness from wrongness.  Another way to go about it would be to free up people’s ideas, so that their perimeter of inspection increases, so that they can inspect the data that lies before them.  You lead them up with a disciplined action that leads them to their fixed idea.  When they have spotted and disposed of that, they are free to inspect and move up to higher levels of truth.

Therefore it is important to find the PC’s central fixed idea as soon as possible, thus freeing him to inspect more broadly.  You free a being by freeing him, not by making him wiser.  Exteriorization and even the state of OT depends on getting greater freedom, not more wisdom, because with the freedom, wisdom will be attainable and will take place anyway.  By concentrating on the wisdom, you are all too likely to fall into the idea of the implanted stable datum.  Freeing attention leads to freeing the being, since all that can trap a being is his attention.  A thetan can only trap himself by:

1. Being unwilling to confront things that are not interesting to him.

2. Being unwilling to back out of situations in which he has lost interest.
3. Being unwilling to move off and go his way but still, somehow, be responsible for where he was.  Various combinations of the above lead to the individual trapping himself by leaving some inanimate postulate in his place, to confront confusions for him.  E.g. “I have an unconscious mind that does all that.” The unconscious mind is that totality of stable data that is holding back that totality of confusion that the individual is no longer aware of but is still doing.

So when you are looking for the PC’s service fac, you will be looking for that on which his attention is most fixated in PT.  Fetish objects are just things associated in some way with a person’s service fac.  Any cousin to the service fac that you find will give you TA, as the confusion can flow.  The service fac is the last pair of RI’s, formed at the top of the last (truncated) GPM postulated.  It has a lot of locks and “cousins” which you will be able to pick up first.  It is actually impossible to find the exact pair of items as the service fac.  The PC has to know that they are part of that GPM before he will recognize them.  They must be seen as part of the bank, before they are recognizable to the PC.  They have to be related to the last goal and to the last two RI’s.  You need these three data in addition. You won’t find the service fac, but try anyway, because that is where you will find the last actual GPM.  It is those two top RI’s that have the PC so restimulated that PT is restimulative and his TA won’t move.  So you have no choice but to find the PT goal of the PC.

Having found the goal, find the top oppterm of its GPM by asking, “Who or what would be the latest idea formed, concerning this goal, ‘to catch catfish’?” Make a reasonable-sized list.  List it to clean needle and null to a reading item.  Prepcheck it after the PC has cognited for awhile.  Then you might see it rocket read.  The difficulty in finding PCs’ goals has always been in getting them to rocket read.  You can do this whole operation with only ticks and no RR, until you have prepchecked the top oppterm.  

Here is how to do it:

1. Find what you hope is his service fac.  This gives you enough TA so some charge is off.  Hunt and punch around until you know you’ve got something that will get good TA action, either on “right/wrong”, prepcheck, or something.  Don’t do anything with it.  It is not the real service fac.  This keeps the PC’s tone and morale up, by virtue of getting some TA off it, or by having the promise of getting TA off it.

2. Start looking for the GPM.  If things bog down while looking for his goal, you can still run the item from (1) for awhile and give him some TA.

3. This could go on for a couple of sessions, until you get a goal that ticks and that keeps going, “Tick!”, which reads as an actual goal, probably from the past track.  It is not likely to be the PT goal.

So:

4. Use goal-oppose to get up to PT.  So you oppose the goal, do the same check on it, then oppose that goal and get another one.  Check each new goal found as being for sure an actual goal.  Check if it is the PT goal.  The PC will be very interested in what you find, since they are his actual goals.  Keep doing this until, eventually, you will reach his PT goal.

5. When you reach his PT goal and you oppose it, the list goes nowhere.

It keeps developing more and more TA.  The PC won’t ARC break, because you are listing towards his future postulates, and unburdening the PT goal.  By the above phenomena, you know that you have the PT goal.

6. You check this; make sure it is the PT goal.

7. List for the top oppterm, which may or may not be opposed yet.  You could find out where the PC is on the GPM by asking him if he has started to oppose the goal yet.  List to a clean needle, null it.

Don’t have two RR’s on the list, etc.  Don’t be too concerned with whether or not it is really the top oppterm.  The top oppterm will most likely give lots of needle action.  When you hit the top oppterm, the needle goes mad.

8. After you have given the PC his item, you sit still and let him cognite.

9. Put in big-mid-ruds on the item, as far as you can.      

10. Call the item; you will probably see it rocket read.  That is a fast, slippy way to get into the PC’s current actual GPM, starting with R3SC.  When you are on the goals finding step, check over any goals that the PC may have mentioned earlier, that were seen to fire then.

Having found the PT goal, you are ready to take the bank apart.  That first RI accounts for all PT restimulation.  The reason why we haven’t been able to find goals on PCs is the overburden of the top terminal and oppterm accumulating all the debris of PT and masking the top GPM, or any GPM, for that matter.  Because of this masking action, we used to have to find goals with ticks, instead of rocket reads.  When the top RI’s and their accumulated mass are gone, you are ready to roll right down the bank and back up again. The PC gets TA, TA, TA:  Now he’s got a new problem:  We are in a new GPM and can go get it in the same way.  

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 SEPTEMBER AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise
SCIENTOLOGY TWO

PREPCHECK BUTTONS
(Cancels HCO Tech Ltr of Oct 1, AD12)

The following order and number of Prepcheck Buttons should be used wherever “an 18 button Prepcheck” is recommended. Do not use the old order of buttons, not because of any danger, but these below are slightly more effective. The old order of buttons may still be used.

The full command is usually “(Time Limiter) (on subject) has anything been____” or “is there anything you have been_____” for some of them which don’t fit with “has anything been _____”. The (on_____may be omitted. The Time Limiter is seldom omitted as it leads the pc to Itsa the Whole Track. On an RRing goal found and used in R3SC the Time Limiter “In this Lifetime” can be used with good effect. All Service Fac questions or Prepchecks must have a Time Limiter.

In running R4 (R3M2), pc’s actual GPMs, the goal and RIs are Prepchecked without a Time Limiter as pc is on the whole track anyway. But in all lower levels of auditing, particularly when using a possible goal as a Service Fac, the Time Limiter, usually “In this Lifetime _____”, must be used or pc will become Over Restimulated.

For all uses the 18 Prepcheck Buttons now are:

SUPPRESSED
CAREFUL OF
FAILED TO REVEAL
INVALIDATED
SUGGESTED
MISTAKE BEEN MADE
PROTESTED
ANXIOUS ABOUT
DECIDED
WITHDRAWN FROM
REACHED
IGNORED
A FAILURE
HELPED
HIDDEN
REVEALED
ASSERTED
SOLVED

BIG MID RUDS

It will be noted that the first 9 are the Big Mid Ruds used as “Since the Last Time I audited you has anything been_____?”

A USEFUL TIP

To get the Meter clean on a list during nulling the list the easiest system is to show the pc the list and just ask, “What happened?” This saves a lot of Mid Ruds.

TWO USEFUL PAIRS

When trying to get an Item to read the two buttons Suppress and Invalidate are sometimes used as a pair.

To get a pc easier in session the buttons Protested and Decided are sometimes used as a pair.

DIRTY NEEDLE

Mid Ruds (called because Middle of Session was the earliest use + Rudiments of a Session) are less employed today because of the discovery that all Dirty Needle phenomena is usually traced to the auditor having cut the pc’s communication. To get rid of a Dirty Needle one usually need ask only, “Have I cut your Communication?” or do an ARC Break assessment if that doesn’t work. A Dirty Needle (continuously agitated) always means the auditor has cut the pc’s Itsa Line, no matter what else-has happened.

Chronically comm chopping auditors always have pcs with Dirty Needles. Conversely, pcs with high Tone Arms have auditors who don’t control the Itsa Line and let it over-restimulate the pc by getting into lists of problems or puzzlements, but a high Tone Arm also means a heavy Service Fac, whereas a Dirty Needle seldom requires Mid Ruds or Prepchecks. It just requires an auditor who doesn’t cut the pc’s Itsa Line.

THE OLD ORDER OF PREPCHECK BUTTONS

The following buttons and order were the original buttons and may still be used, particularly if the pc is allergic to Mid Ruds:

SUPPRESSED
INVALIDATED
BEEN CAREFUL OF
SUGGESTED
WITHHELD
PROTESTED
HIDDEN
REVEALED
MISTAKE (BEEN MADE)
ASSERTED
CHANGED (OR ALTERED)
DAMAGED
WITHDRAWN (FROM)
CREATED
DESTROYED
AGREED (WITH)
IGNORED
DECIDED

LRH:jw.bh 							L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright © 1963 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 SEPTEMBER 1963 
Central Orgs 
Franchise
SCIENTOLOGY I to IV

ADEQUATE TONE ARM ACTION

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

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

Tone Arm action is measured by DIVISIONS DOWN PER 21/2 hour session or per hour of auditing.

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

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

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

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

	Amount Per Session	Session Rating	PC Reaction

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

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

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

	Amount Per Intensive	Session Rating	PC Reaction

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

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

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

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 8 OCTOBER AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise
SCIENTOLOGY I TO III

HOW TO GET TA
ANALYSING AUDITING

There are several distinct forms or styles of auditing. There was first the old finger snapping handling of engrams. Then there is Formal Auditing for which we still have TRs 0 to 4. Then there is Tone 40 Auditing, still used today in the CCHs. These are distinctively different styles and a good auditor can do one or another of them without mixing them up. Just as Tone 40 Auditing is still used, so is Formal Auditing—in fact Scientology 4 on the GPMs must be run ONLY with Formal Auditing and the old TRs and other training are still used to develop it in the student.

Now there has emerged a new Auditing style. It is Listen Style Auditing. And the first thing to learn about it is that it is a new style of Auditing and that it is distinctly different from Formal Auditing and Tone 40 Auditing. Naturally an auditor who can do this new style can also do other styles better, but the other styles are themselves and this new style is itself. Listen Style Auditing is peculiarly fitted to undercut formerly difficult cases at the lower levels of Scientology and to get the necessary TA action.

Listen Style Auditing has or is developing its own TRs. It has its own technology and this leaves the technology of other Auditing Styles still valid and untouched.

Some of the data of Listen Style Auditing is:

1. 	The definition of Auditor is one who listens.
2. 	The pc is always right.
3. 	The task of the Auditor is to get the pc to comm/and to Itsa.
4. 	The success of the session is measured solely by Tone Arm Action.
5. 	The style applies to Scientology Levels I to III.
6. 	As the level in which it is used is increased, the amount of Auditor direction of the pc’s attention is increased. The gap becomes very wide in control between Level III and IV, so much so that only Formal Auditing is used for GPMs as this material is all sub-Itsa for the pc.

The basic crimes of Listen Style Auditing are:

1. 	Not getting Tone Arm Action on the pc;
2. 	Cutting the pc’s comm;
3. 	Cutting, evaluating or invalidating the pc’s Itsa;
4. 	Failing to invite Itsa by the pc;
5. 	Itsa-ing for the pc;
6.	 Not getting Tone Arm Action on the pc.

These are some of the major musts and crimes of Listen Style Auditing. While some of these also apply to Formal Auditing, to show you how different the new style is, if you tried to use only Listen Style Auditing on Scientology IV and failed to use Formal Auditing at that high level, the pc would soon be in a great big mess! So the style has its uses and exactions and it has its limitations.

Now, realizing it is a new style, not a whole change of Scientology, the older Auditor should study it as such and the new student—as mainly Listen Style will be taught in Academies—should spend some earnest time in learning to do it as itself. I have had to learn every new Auditing Style and sometimes have taken weeks to do it. I can still do them all, each as itself. It took me two weeks of hard daily grind to learn Tone 40 Auditing until I could do it with no misses. It’s like learning different dances.

And when you can polka and also waltz, if you’re good you don’t break from a waltz into a polka without noticing the difference—or looking silly. So the second thing to learn well about Listen Style Auditing is that it has to be
learned and practised as itself.

Listen Style Auditing is peculiarly fitted by its simplicity to analysis by an instructor or student or old-timer. The steps are:

1. 	Learn HCO Bulletin of October 1 , 1963.

2. 	Muck along with what you learned a bit.

3. 	Tape a 1 hour session you give on a tape recorder.

4. 	Analyse the tape. 

You’ll be amazed at the amount of miss until you actually hear it back. 

These are the points to look for:

1. 	Did the Auditor get a dirty needle (continual agitation, not a smooth flow up or down)? If so the Auditor cut the pc’s comm. This is entirely different from cutting Itsa. Just how was the pc’s comm cut? Listen to the tape. Whether the auditor got a DN or not, do this step. How many ways was the pc prevented from talking to the Auditor? Particularly how did the Auditor’s actions cut the comm with Auditing or unnecessary action? How was the pc discouraged from talking? What was said that stopped the pc from talking?

2. 	Establish whether or not the auditor got good TA action by adding up the session’s total down TA. See HCO Bulletin of September 25, 1963. If the Auditor did not get good TA action he or she either

       	(a) 	Cut pc’s Itsa or

       	(b) 	Restimulated nothing for the pc to Itsa.

Which was it? The odds are heavily on (a). Listen to the tape and find out how the auditor reduced the pc’s Itsa. Note that Itsa is entirely different than comm. Was the pc given anything to Itsa? Was the pc permitted to Itsa it? How much did the Auditor Itsa for the pc? Did the Auditor attempt to change the Itsas?

3. 	By various ways (by direct invitation, sounding doubtful, unconfident, challenging) an auditor can make a pc Whatsit. The amount a pc is made or allowed to Whatsit reduces TA action. How many ways did the Auditor make the pc Whatsit (give problems, confusions as answers or just plain put the pc into a questioning attitude)? How doubtful or worried did the Auditor sound? How much did the Auditor make the pc worry over TA action or other things (all of which add up to making the pc Whatsit, thus reducing Tone Arm Action)?

4. 	How much did the Auditor invite unwanted communication about confusions, problems by silence? How much did the Auditor prevent wanted communication by various actions?
5. 	What errors in the session are obvious to the Auditor? What errors are not real to the Auditor?

6. 	Does the Auditor have another rationale or explanation for not getting TA action or for what causes TA action? Does the Auditor consider there is another explanation for getting dirty needles?

7. 	Does the Auditor consider TA action unnecessary for session gains?

8. 	Does the pc in the taped session agree with the faults discovered? (May be omitted.)

Such a tape should be made periodically on an Auditor until that Auditor can get 35 Divisions of TA at any level from I to III on any pc.

L. RON HUBBARD

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

6310C15 SHSpec-312 Essentials of Auditing

The relay of information from one mind to another is communication, education.  Therefore, the ARC triangle operates.  If you can take effort out of the comm line, you can normally get a fast, accurate comm line.  But when a comm line loses enough mass, it becomes unstable.  That is what happens with a verbal data line.  Sometimes there is data on tapes but not in bulletins. This is unfortunate, since sometimes there is data in the tapes that could make all the difference.  But you can’t hold a duplicatable standard because it isn’t down anywhere in writing. With no-mass data, e.g. verbal data, it gets altered in the relay.  There is always some data that escapes the solid comm lines, so you can’t get all the data.  For this reason, you have to reduce things to their fundamentals, keeping what is important.  You can always have communication of fundamentals, both for educational purposes and because to reduce something to fundamentals makes one understand it better.  

The relay of data from mind A to mind B is susceptible to many alter-ises.  There are almost as many sets of alter-ises as there are minds for the data to be transferred through.  This also occurs on the time-stream. We probably have very little grip on what was thought in 1800.  There was a tremendous change in manners in the U.S. because of the telephone, movies, radio, TV, and the automobile.  You can overload a comm line by putting too great a volume of data on it, so that it doesn’t communicate.  The door to learning can be shut that way, too.  Students sometimes feel overwhelmed by data and long for some fundamentals.  An overloaded comm line is overloaded because of insufficient time to peruse the material being communicated.  You can also have too little or too varied communication.  Scientology’s data is basically research data, at present.  It is not yet sifted and clarified into fundamentals and less fundamental data.  We started with the definition of an auditor as “one who listens and computes”.  Thirteen years later, it turns out that “listens” is the fundamental, not the “and computes” which was part of the original definition.  In the meantime, a lot of other data got added which, in fact, was only added because there was insufficient understanding of the original definition.  There is a datum in the sciences:  A subject has arbitrary data in it in direct proportion to its distance from the actual comprehension of its basics.  So you get into pure opinion and arbitraries, as in art.  There is nothing actually known about a subject when the subject is nothing but opinion.  Opinion present is proportional to knowledge absent. For instance, when psychological testing requires the opinion of the tester, you know that nothing is known.

A developmental line is an ambitious, self-critical line which is trying to achieve a parsimony of information.  The data keep condensing and becoming more fundamental, with importances well evaluated.  This evaluation factor is missing in other philosophies, e.g. that of Krishnamurti.  krishnamurti on “time” is great, but it is not evaluated for importance by him.  It isn’t true that you are studying LRH’s case.  The struggle has been to rise above one’s case and the colorations given by the condition of this planet, etc.  This has been quite successful.

Whenever things get more fundamental, a bucketful of items drop out, which can make one wonder, “What is stable, from the past?” The stable data are the Axioms, the Logics, and Prelogics, the fundamental material of the Philadelphia Lectures, and the behavior of a thetan.  The only thing changed was the idea of exteriorization.  What will a person do, when brought to a point where he doesn’t have to be in a body?  We used to think that he would move out of his body.  This is not what he will do.  He will move his body off of him, because we have changed him upscale to where he could hold a position.  The Factors, and ARC triangle, and scales of all sorts -- these are stable.

What has altered is applied technology, not the theory.  Better, more efficient ways of applying the theory have been discovered.  It is re-evaluation of data as applied tech that you are seeing.  And because you are studying to become an auditor, not a theoretician, you need to know application.  What gives you a headache, if anything, is trying to apply the theory to a case so as to get a result.  All your bulletins are addressed to this subject.  

The data that you are using to square away an aberrated student or PC has to be absolutely, fundamentally true.  The Project 80 HCOB [Actually, HCOPL 21Aug63 “Change of Organizational Targets -- Project 80, A Preview”, p. 1, where “Scientology” is defined as “The common people’s science of life and betterment”.] drew some criticism because of one phrase: “the common people’s science of the mind”.  Oddly enough, this is the one inaccurate phrase in the bulletin.  The critics didn’t spot that fact.  They just objected to the phrase.  The mind tends to fixate on those things that contain an alter-is of truth.  And an alter-is of truth is the thing that most resists the truth of the situation.  It is an aberrated stable datum.  Where you have a slightly altered truth that you try to give to someone who has already got an altered truth on the same subject, the two will come into conflict, which promotes all sorts of bad applied technology.  It is like trying to drive a truck through a truck, when you have two alter-ised truths in conflict.

To try to understand an aberrated datum through another aberrated datum results in complications.  So if you are studying a body of data that has any alteration from the fundamental that should be there, and you have an alteration that is contrary to the altered datum that you are trying to assimilate, you get a dog’s breakfast.  You never look at what is wrong with the datum that you are trying to assimilate.  The conflict won’t resolve, because you have a vested interest in trying to make it fit with an aberrated datum.  You get conflict of aberrated data against each other, overlaid with opinions.

You have a PC, who is a gold mine of aberrated stable data.  If any datum which you are using to solve that case is the least bit curved, the case won’t resolve, but will develop new complications.  Therefore the mass of technology that grows up in scientology is centered around applied technology.  You get masses of data that subside when a fundamental is clarified.  So the greatest possible truth has to be used in application.  Hence research is directed at finding the clearest fundamental possible.  We have gone a long way and have made great gains, but we still have to cope with the randomity in the person who is assimilating and trying to apply the data.

“If you, in assimilation of data, are assimilating, to the slightest degree, data, up against a miscomprehension or an allness, which you are putting in place of the auditor, you don’t get an assimilation.  You have difficulty assimilating the data.  But you can assimilate the data.  Your trouble comes when you turn around and take the data you’ve assimilated and altered in some fashion, and then try to apply it to the case that is sitting in front of you.  The alter-ises in that data will then bring about a non-resolution of that case you are confronted with.  The only solvent is truth.  Even though absolutes are unobtainable, truth, in a very refined form -- the purest possible -- is the only thing that will resolve cases all the way, because it is the one thing that the aberrated case cannot argue with.” Therefore you as an auditor, desiring results, have no business twisting the technology.  There is, fortunately, a considerable zone of tolerance that permits the tech to work, even when it is imperfectly applied, as long as you stay within this zone of tolerance.  But the tech has to be as nearly perfect as possible.  The tech, heretofore, was too imperfect ever to work.  It has been LRH’s task to bring about a recognition of fundamentals that is sufficiently great and a tech that is sufficiently great to overcome a lot of this alter-is.  This task is a thousand times greater than the task of simply presenting what is necessary to resolve the case.  We have to present if so accurately that the PC can still alter it and the auditor alter it, and still have a resolution of cases.  This is an heroic problem.

The amount of difficulty that you have with cases is directly proportional to the amount of aberration or alter-is that you are adding to the data that you are trying to apply.  It is also [inversely] proportional to the purity and assimilatability of the material that you are asked to study. That is a tough one, but it is pretty well handled.  The way you solve solutions is solutions.  Wherever LRH has made a little mistake or a wrong emphasis, there has been trouble, because the additional alter-is added by the auditor takes it far enough from truth to make it flukey to apply.  [LRH, in describing some horrendous auditing error, says:] “It’s a good thing, kids, that I’m almost indestructible.  These things usually get done to me, first!”

Level IV makes an OT, but it can’t be varied 1/18th of an inch from its procedure and still work.  There was a hole in it that appeared when it was imperfectly applied:  There are three types of goals that will rocket read:

1. An actual goal, with no GPM connected with it.

2. An implanted goal.

3. An actual GPM.  Any GPM can have in it up to a hundred actual goals, plus the goal of the GPM.  But there is another source of a rocket read:

4. A phrase in an engram.  This won’t necessarily rocket read, but it might.  

Even a PC’s life or session goals can be free actual goals.  Every now and then, one will rocket read.  It is probably a lock on an RI.  If you run it as an actual GPM goal, you can even find items -- from the nearest implants, or other GPM’s or locks.  But there was no GPM there in the first place.  So when you find a goal rocket-reading, you should check on the meter:

1. Is this an actual GPM?

2. Is this an implant GPM?

3. Is this no GPM?  

Auditors have been asking, “Is this an actual goal?”, etc., instead.  This can wrap you around telegraph poles, because you will be trying to oppose it, when it is a lock on something.  And you can do this, pulling things all out of place, for awhile -- until the PC crashes in flames.

The three comm lines in session include the itsa-maker line (the PC’s line into the bank), the whatsit line, and the itsa line.  It is an error to cut the PC’s comm line to the bank in order to “put in the itsa line”.  This stems from a misunderstanding of the auditor’s role as listener.  The error could also have come from a failure to communicate the importance of the PC to bank (itsa-maker) line.  Since it was obvious to LRH that that was what auditing is all about, he didn’t mention its importance.  It is where the itsa line comes from.  Without it, the itsa line has nothing to carry.  The auditor is actually there to get the PC to confront his bank.  The charge blows off to the degree that it’s confronted, and this is represented by the itsa line. The itsa line is a report on what has been as-ised, [that] gives it its flow.” The reason why that communication wasn’t accepted or didn’t go through is the reason why the auditor is having trouble auditing.  

Education is acceptable to a technical end only when it is conceived pretty purely and relayed well.  Technical data must:

1. Be conceived purely.

2. Be relayed well.

3. Be received accurately.  

Its test, in scientology, is results.  Auditors can also have trouble because they have glommed onto some older datum and made it an “all”, but there is this overriding fact that “no datum I give you is a substitute for you. That’s the burning thing to remember as an auditor.” A datum won’t audit a PC.  The only thing that can handle auditing is a live thetan, because that is all that can handle the complications that come up.  You’ve got to have technology, but the live thetan in the chair is necessary to audit the PC. 

6310C16 SHSpec-313 The Itsa Maker Line

The itsa-maker line is the line you are guiding as an auditor, which sorts out the things in the case and gets the material that is reported to the auditor as itsa.  The itsa occurs at the end of this line.  The line from the PC to the auditor is the itsa communication line.  Itsa is the identification of isness (or wasness).  It is a simple commodity.  Until an itsa is recognized, it is only a potential itsa.  Auditors can make a mistake by thinking that there is a potential itsa, where there is only a nothingness. This is the commonest method by which an auditor refutes itsa.  The meter version of it is cleaning a clean.  This is demanding more than the PC’s got. If you repeat the question, this makes the PC feel as though you haven’t accepted his itsa.  When you do this, in effect, you deny the itsa that you have received.  You have cut the itsa comm line by refuting the itsa that was offered.  You may think that the ARC break was caused by your cutting the comm line, but it was really the invalidation of the PC’s itsa that did it.  The auditor is likely to try to cure this situation by asking whether he has interrupted the PC.  That is also cleaning a clean, so the ARC break intensifies.  You haven’t interrupted the communication.  You have enforced it; You have to keep in mind what you are trying to do, which is to get TA action.  All the significance on the case will have to be handled at Level IV anyway, so at Levels I, II, and III, what counts is TA action. [For a description of these levels, see p. 462, above.  See also recent tape on Level IV: pp. 524-526.  above.] Everything wrong with the PC, except how and why he started to make a time track in the first place, comes out of his GPM’s anyway.

Level IV is the scientologist’s level.  The preceding levels mainly set the PC up for Level IV.  “I don’t think ... that anyone will make OT except a trained auditor.” A trained auditor’s confront is up.  He knows what he is dealing with. Etc.  Probably the basic barrier on the track, in mental sciences, has been specializing in results without also trying to make everyone into a pro, a causer.  PCs have been audited on Level IV in HGC’s. They have no understanding of what is occurring.  They ARC break easily.  They don’t have the confront.  Mainly, they aren’t educated enough to understand what is going on, so they get upset by reason of unknownnesses.  

There is only one way that GPM’s can be run.  You must find and run the PT GPM first, then keep going on down the track to prime postulate, then repair.  You can’t do it as you have been previously told to because you will get items out of other GPM’s.  You can’t repair a GPM until you have gone through the whole thing.  But you can’t afford to make a single mistake, because you will spend amazing amounts of time correcting it.

You’ve got tremendous processes at Levels I, II, and III.  So you should be able to sit down with a raw public PC and turn out 35 divisions of TA in your first 2 1/2 hours, on any PC, anyplace.  If you can’t do this, it is because of lack of understanding of one of the basic points of auditing, like the itsa-maker line.  You might have some wild idea about something basic.  It might even be a scientology datum, magnified out of all proportion to its true importance.  For instance, you may think, “PCs never answer the auditing command,” so you always get the itsa from the meter and leave the PC out, thus destroying the itsa-maker line.  You and the meter can act as a “substitute thetan”, “perceiving” things in the bank that the PC isn’t perceiving.  At Level IV, the material is sub-itsa.  You have to depend on the meter at Level IV, because the PC can’t itsa what is in the GPM without some assistance.  The auditor can undercut this with the meter and find out what the goal is, because it rocket-reads.  But if we rely too much on the meter, we cut the PC’s itsa-maker line.  You still have to stay in comm with the PC and avoid invalidating his itsa and cutting his itsa-maker line.  This doesn’t mean that you should be very careful.  It just means that you should know what you are handling and how to handle it.  Get observant, so that you can tell when the PC is introverted, when he has said all he wants to say, etc. “In session” means: not only 1. Interested in own case, but also 2. With the itsa-maker line in on his case, not on the auditor, but under the auditor’s control.

(The top of the GPM is hard to run; it is resistant to processing.)

Since the itsa-maker line is invisible to the auditor, the auditor has to “synthesize” what is going on.  The itsa-line is not a unit area think-think-thinking.  It is an actual line between the thetan and a real thing: the bank.

An auditor who attracts or rapidly shifts the PC’s attention to himself has moved the itsa-maker line to himself, and it has become a whatsit: “What’s wrong with the auditor?”, etc.  The itsa-maker is what makes TA occur.  It is the PC’s attention line.  An ARC break is caused by a sudden shift of attention.

You should be aware that perfection in the control of the PC’s attention and perfect handling of the itsa-maker line is impossible.  You will make a couple of mistakes in this per session, even if you are an expert.  What counts is how adroitly you can wriggle out of whatever you get into, not how careful you are to stay out of trouble.  It helps to spot the birth of an ARC break well in advance of its overt appearance.  An ARC break is much easier to handle, early on, and you won’t have audited over the out-rud.

If, even implicitly. you give the PC an order to shut up and let you write, the PC will do it and keep doing it.  PC’s and the bank generally do what the auditor apparently wants.  Non-verbal behavior may communicate an auditor’s desire to the PC.  Auditors’ main goofs consist of giving apparent orders that they aren’t aware of and don’t intend, like, “Stop inspecting your bank and put your attention on the E-meter.” This may occur when the auditor fiddles with the meter a lot.  Fumbling takes away the auditor’s control of the itsa-maker line by shifting the PC’s attention to the auditor and the goof. The bank always does what the auditor orders.  It takes a combination of the auditor’s orders and the PC’s inspection to get the bank handled.  Randomity will occur.  The auditor who is allergic to unforeseen circumstances would do better to go to an old ladies’ home.

To get a bank inspected:

1. The auditor must direct the itsa-maker line.

2. The PC must put in the itsa-maker line.

How does an auditor straighten these things out?  For one thing, he can audit smoothly, getting good TA, so that he has a cushion [to use in working with the PC].  Don’t fix something when the PC is running well.  Something that upsets you does not need to be handled, if the PC wasn’t concerned, as long as the itsa-maker line isn’t affected.  In other words, don’t repair a nonexistent situation.  If you try to repair something that didn’t upset the PC, you are cleaning a clean, and you will get an ARC break.  Sometimes the auditor gets conscience-stricken.  This should not be.  Remember that when you ask a PC about something, you put his attention on it.  You can also put a PC on a whatsit by being so conscientious that you are always looking for what is wrong.  You should only repair auditing when auditing isn’t occurring.  Case repair is otherwise an interruption of auditing.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 OCTOBER AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise
R3SC SLOW ASSESSMENT

Ian Tampion of the Melbourne Org, just completing the SHSBC, reports on Itsa and Slow Assessment.

Dear Ron,

Over the past couple of weeks I have had some good wins auditing pcs on R3SC Slow Assessment so I thought I’d write out what I’ve learned about it from your lectures, bulletins, Mary Sue’s talks and D of P instructions and from my experience in Auditing. My only doubt about what I’ve done is that I may have been combining R1C (Itsa Line) with R3SC but anyway it worked so if I’ve got my data straight you may like to pass it on to other auditors. Here it is:

Aim: To keep the pc talking (Itsa-ing) about his present time environment, getting as much TA action as possible, for as long as possible without finding and running a “glum area” that makes the TA rise.

To do this an Auditor should be aware of, and able to use the following definitions:

Pc “Itsa-ing”: Pc saying what is, what is there, who is there, where it is, what it looks like, ideas about, decisions about, solutions to, things in his environment. The pc talking continuously about problems or puzzlements or wondering about things in his environment is not “Itsaing”.

Present Time Environment: The whole area covering the pc’s life and livingness over a definite period. It may be the last day, the last week, the last year, depending on the pc.

A Glum Area: That area which when the pc is supposedly “Itsa-ing” about it, makes him glum and the TA rise, indicating that a Service Facsimile is doing the confronting on that area and not the pc.

The following diagram and the explanation below illustrate just what is taking place in a Slow Assessment and how the definitions given above apply.

While the pc is talking about football he can say Itsa game, Itsa played by two teams, Itsa played on a field, etc, etc, etc. The same applies to the areas TV, Work, Wife, Club, Garden, House and Mountains. All this will give nice TA action and good gains for the pc.

Now, when he starts talking about cars he will say, “I often have punctures,” “I wonder why my car will only do 100 mph,” etc, etc. While he’s talking like this there will be no TA action or a rising TA and if the auditor lets the pc continue, he will get steadily worse. So, the auditor must put in an Itsa line—e.g. “What have you done about this?” and the TA will start moving again and the pc will get brighter as now he is “Itsa-ing”, before he wasn’t.

Later, or earlier, the pc will start talking about Taxes, his problems, worries, puzzlements, wonders about Taxes—the TA will rise and the pc will become glum. Then, even though the auditor puts in an Itsa line as with the subject of cars, the TA continues to rise and the pc remains glum. This is because the pc can’t Itsa this area—he’s “got it all made”—”IGNORE THEM” and this does all his confronting for him. In other words, the Service Fac is a substitute confront and so the TA rises (Note the old rule about rising needle equals no confront! ). This is a glum area so the auditor lists “In this lifetime what would be a safe solution regarding Taxes?”, completes the list, nulls it, gets the Service Fac “Ignore them”, runs it on R3SC and soon the pc will be able to Itsa on the subject of Taxes. This area could be found in the first 5 minutes in which case it may be possible to just note it down and get the pc on to areas he can confront and come back to this one later.

The assessment should go on for hours and hours and hours with excellent TA action and the pc gaining in his ability to Itsa all the time. However it won’t go that way if the auditor doesn’t get the pc to really Itsa what is in his environment, e.g. the auditor shouldn’t be content to have the pc say he lives “out in the suburbs”, he wants the address, its distance from the city, the type of house, how many rooms, what the street looks like, the names of the houses, occupants, who the neighbours are, etc, etc, etc. Itsa! Itsa! Itsa! Also, it won’t go that way if the auditor tries to list safe solutions every time the pc starts talking about his problems in an area as in the example given above with the car. Problems are not Itsa.

Itsa! Itsa! Itsa! Equals TA action! TA action! TA action! Equals Pc better! Pc better! Pc better! Good gains! !

I hope you find this all okay and pass it on Ron as it’s sure a doll of an auditing activity.

                                        	Very best,

                                              	Ian Tampion

P.S. I found out how most of this goes in auditing by making mistakes first so I learnt the hard way.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

6310C17 SHSpec-314 Levels of Auditing

Getting TA motion is a common denominator of all scientology activities. The state of case of the PC has practically nothing to do with your ability to get TA motion on him.  Some day you will cognite that if you don’t yank the PC’s attention off of his case, and if you give him something to itsa, and if you don’t stop him, he will get TA motion.  You can reduce TA motion by being unpredictable as an auditor, e.g. by varying the form of model session.  Keep the session drill constant and predictable from session to session, or the PC will start running a whatsit on the auditor.  Then the auditor runs itsa on the PC, and you get no TA.

The auditor, not the PC, is in complete control of the bank.  The bank always does what you tell it to do.  The PC sometimes does and usually tries to.

When a new style of auditing is released, like “listen style”, auditors at first go to pieces.  They will start introducing some listen-style into formal auditing.  You should let the PC itsa the item or goal, but that’s all.  If you let the PC itsa the bank, you will have a sick PC on your hands. The TA might move for awhile, but the over-restimulation that the PC could get into will lock up the TA pretty soon.  The things that you are handling in the bank are the things that prevent itsa, so letting the PC itsa around in the bank isn’t effective.  The PC will restimulate that which prevents him from itsa-ing, so he won’t be able to itsa.  Level IV is all sub-itsa, but when you give the PC an item, do let him cognite and itsa on it, or you will stack up missed withholds, BPC, and high and stuck TA.  This presents a bit of a problem, since, e.g., when the auditor stops the PC from wandering into the wrong GPM, there is BPC, which can produce a fierce ARC break.  What you have to do is to audit fast enough and positively enough, so that the PC never gets a chance to wander.  

The two great dangers in Level IV auditing are:

1. The tendency for a goals list to be underlisted.

2. The tendency for an item list to be overlisted.

When you fumble a command, you are not in control of the PC’s itsa-ing of his bank.  But you are in absolute control of the bank, so if you fumble a list, the bank will fumble.  So the bank fumbles, unseen to you.  The PC’s attention line is on the point where you fumbled.  Therefore, the bank has shifted under that scanner, and the PC’s attention goes off onto other things, because you have shifted other things into his view with your fumbling.  Soon after such a fumble, the PC will add something to the session -- some kind of yip-yap, not necessarily critical.  You did something that showed that you did not have control of the PC’s bank.  You distracted the PC’s itsa-maker line and shifted the bank underneath it with this goof.  So you are going to get some other stuff.  It isn’t neat and clean.  The PC’s attention will now be somewhere you don’t want it.  If there is any BPC lying around, the goof, or cutting the itsa line, will key it in, and you will get an ARC break.  You will get a dispersal of attention.  The itsa goes all over the time track. There is always BPC in a session.  You can’t avoid it.  The BPC is either from past auditing or from this session.  “The key-in of BPC is always some communication failure”, e.g. cut comm or refuted itsa, on the part of the auditor.  You could even get a wrong goal, and if you audited very smoothly, you could audit without giving the PC a single ARC break, because it takes a cut comm line to restimulate any BPC, even when it is there.  The fact that there is BPC does not mean that there has to be an ARC break, but the fact that there is an ARC break does mean that there was some BPC.  BPC, via a rough spot in auditing, via a session key-in -- cut comm, etc. -- gives rise to an ARC break.  A wrong goal may cause a very uncomfortable PC, but need not cause an ARC break.  Whether there is an ARC break from BPC is entirely dependent on the auditor.  Of course, the more BPC there is in the session, the tinier the mistake could be, that could key it in.

The cycle of any ARC break is:

1. Bypassed charge.

2. A rough spot that gives the PC a little dispersion.

3. A cut line on the rough spot.

4. The ARC break.  Dead on the ARC break, you will find a little misdemeanor, but ten minutes to 1 1/2 hours earlier, you will find a nice nasty misdemeanor.  For instance, you might find that some sort of forcingness was going on.

Guide the PC’s attention; don’t force it.  The bank does move to whatever the auditor says.  Running an engram is like developing a picture.  Just have the PC look at it.  You can move his attention over it repetitively.  This procedure will develop his picture of whatever was there.  LRH did this with a PC who was dead in his head.  LRH moved the PC to a non-significant date and moved him through the next half hour, over and over.  The PC got to where he was reading the mail that he had read at the time that LRH moved him to, word for word.  If you get the date and duration of any picture on the back track, the picture will turn on.  The only thing that fouls this up is:  

1. The comm line is too lousy for the PC to report that he has done it.

There are several ways to prevent a PC from reporting what he sees.

You can also foul up the comm line by refusing to take the PC’s data.

You could fail to believe that you were moving the date under the PC’s attention.

2. The track is stuck in something.

You can demonstrate the above phenomenon by taking some non-significant date and getting the PC to pick up everything in it by moving him through it enough.  This is even easier than getting aberrated incidents, since there is no charge debarring it.  Running a chargeless incident is a test of an auditor’s tech, because there is nothing there but the auditing.  If you don’t go goofy and demand more than the PC has, you can get the picture.  You may not get the PC’s state of consciousness [in the incident], unless you spend a long time on it.  It would be a good test of auditing.  There is no upset present, except what the auditor introduces.  If your auditing is rough, you will find that when you are trying to get the PC’s attention on the rough stuff of Level IV, his confront will be lowered, his confidence will suffer, and his ability to itsa will be lessened.  The PC will only have difficulty on what he can confront and do if you make difficulty for the PC.  Additions to the comm cycle do make trouble for the PC.

So keep itsa where it belongs.  When you’ve got a nice long item list (20 items long), give the PC his item.  Let him look at it and cognite.  When he has done so, you can show him the list and ask him how the other items relate.  Now you will get more TA and more confusion blowing off.

Once you have learned how to audit Level IV, it will seem easy.  The fast way to arrive at that point is to do it. 

6310C22 SHSpec-316 The Integration of Auditing

Your difficulties in auditing are all made, manufactured by you  In this universe, difficulty always has to be manufactured.  Living beings are theta beings.  They have to work pretty hard to be entheta beings.  One may not be aware of the labor involved, but it is still being done.

There would be no mass in the bank if it were not being created in the instant in which it has an effect on the individual.  A thetan creates his own bank.  It is not that a thetan has created his own bank; it is that he is creating his own bank at this instant.  There is no such thing as continued creation.  All creation must be done at the moment it is perceived.  There can be utterly unconscious creation.  That is the source of the reactive mind. The reason a thetan is creating is contained in the things he is creating, trickily enough.  The thetan creates the item, “creativeness”, which then forces him to create.  A person generally can’t confront what it is that is causing him to create, or what he is creating to cause himself to create.  He is not confronting the fact that he is creating it, so it is “gone” [not-ised, not as-ised].  The difficulty with this creativeness is that, in view of the fact that the thetan can create so much automatically, he cannot differentiate what he is creating, so he cannot as-is what he is creating.  

The easiest thing someone can do is to create.  An artist who is sweating over his creation has put some arbitrary barriers there, such as a time barrier (e.g. it must be done in a fortnight), or economic barriers (e.g. he has to sell it or he can’t eat), and possibly material barriers (e.g. the paint he has must be used, even if it is sub-optimal).  You could sort this out with him easily.

This action, taken to its final form, is R4.  “You audit out all the GPM’s and RI’s....  You’re auditing out the barriers which a person has put in his own road in order to prevent imagined oppositions from having an effect upon him....  A game of shadows.” We tend to pooh-pooh the trouble that the bank causes him, because it is shadows, but the individual does in fact have to be bailed out if groups, etc., are going to be made effective.  “Anything that’s wrong with an organization is being created now by the organization.” It is the same with the individual.  Difficulties in auditing are all made. In this universe, difficulties have to be manufactured.

Except for the question of succession, a benevolent monarchy is the most nearly ideal form of government.  People won’t accept it because it might fail “next year”.  A benevolent people is preferable to a benevolent monarchy.  You can’t work with anything but the individual, if you want to succeed.  The individual is the only thing there, and the only thing that will ever be there, so he’s got to be in good shape.  In any given organization, there is enough theta to make it whiz, unless someone is keeping it from whizzing.

Livingness is monitored by the amount of arbitraries to which it is devoted.  The amount of livingness present is reduced by the amount of livingness invested in not-livingness, in arbitrary factors.  It isn’t really reduced, strictly speaking, because it is all recoverable by auditing, by as-ising the not-livingness.  Auditing is recovering the water from the mud pies, the theta from the arbitraries (the entheta and enMEST).  TA action is the flow of theta coming out of the mud.  The “mud” is the bank.

Why can’t you audit a PC who has screaming PTP’s?  Because there is too much attention (theta) invested in the PTP’s (entheta).  An auditor’s action is to find some entheta and to invest it in an orderly fashion, to recover more theta from entheta.  When there is never any theta present, you have psychology and psychiatry.

When there is no theta present, you have over-restimulation, and you get no TA action.  There has to be some PC there.  If the PC is unconscious, i.e. all mud, you have to run some CCH-type process to get him aware enough to be audited.  Take a PC who is pinned down in a fox hole.  He is out of food and ammunition, with mortar shells beginning to bracket him in.  That is how some PCs feel:  They don’t dare take their attention off of PT.  All you can do is to find out what the mind is doing and parallel it.

In Routine 4, a PC can get so keyed in that he doesn’t want to continue auditing on R4.  A person with a heavy PTP on the perimeter of his consciousness that you have eased off [with lower-level processes] , who was doing fine at getting RI’s before, now won’t run as well.  He gets fewer items; they don’t fire, etc.  This happens because the PC has attention invested in PTP’s.  The same thing happens at lower levels with the TA [being stuck].  There is no free attention with which to as-is aberrated stable data.  At Levels I, II, and III, the PC can run into Level IV, when neither the auditor, the PC, nor the process are equipped to handle Level IV, because there is actually more potential over-restimulation of the PC’s PTP on the PC’s track than there is in his present time environment.  When you look at GPM’s and their RI’s, there is more potential restimulation on the track than there is in present time.  So the PC could be more restimulated by reason of keyed-in GPM’s and RI’s than by simply getting knocked off in present time.

This liability is answered by auditing goals with, “In this lifetime....” prepchecks.  If the PC has given you some goal, you could get rid of the Level IV potentiality with such a prepcheck, probably.  But you will find, while doing Level IV, that a prepcheck of this kind is messy to work with, when you have already found the PT goal.  You get to the bottom of the second GPM and end session with the TA at 3.0.  A week later, the PC comes in with the TA at 5.0.  Something has keyed him in.  Mid-ruds don’t handle.  2WC on what has happened in the intervening week doesn’t handle.  So you go on to list for the next goal, and the TA goes down.  It was the next goal that had the case restimulated.  The PC went around talking about it.  “I told Joe it was a _______ or a _______ .”  One of them, at least, was a wrong goal!  And finding the next goal was the only thing that would bring the TA down.

So auditors at Levels I, II, and III should be able to assess an ARC break assessment that includes “Goal restimulated” and “Item restimulated”. If you hit one of those, the TA will come down.

PTP’s almost always appear on the goals channels.  The PC thinks that he is influenced by one or two RI’s and that his character is formed by one goal.  In reality, it is the whole bank that influences him.  A PTP usually occurs as a key-in of an RI or a GPM, of one or another of the PC’s goals.  A chronic PTP is a keyed-in GPM, out of sequence.  That can cause psychosomatic illness.  An educated PC will respond to an L4 or case analysis that spots the fact that a GPM concerning that illness has keyed in.

If, with good, smooth, spot-on auditing, there is no TA action, then R4 has gotten in the road.  Spend a session or two analyzing the case.  Don’t try to date a GPM, because it may span trillions to the X power of years.  You can date the top and the bottom of the GPM.  This will cause the GPM to move in. Find by case analysis what caused some chronic illness (An RI? A GPM? An Implant GPM?  An actual goal?, etc.)  Actual goals stick on GPM’s as locks. By themselves they are not aberrative.  GPM’s out of sequence gives psychosomatic illness.  RI’s can pull chunks of GPM’s along with them, when the PC gets into the wrong GPM because of some similarity.

The bank isn’t all chaotic.  It is actually pretty neat, basically.   It consists of thirty “bricks”, laid end to end, each composed of forty sub-sections (RI’s).  When you start thinking of the mind as a vehicle of thought, you are already licked in handling it.  It is not a vehicle of thought.  It is made out of things, like bricks and tar.  The spots of tar on the bricks are the implant GPM’s.  Actual goals, thousands of them, are stuck onto each brick, like lumps of dough.  The GPM’s look like black energy masses.  That’s why thetans get restimulated by black energy masses.  The GPM’s can get shoved out of order.  Say bricks five through eight have been inserted in between bricks 19 and 20, etc.  Level I auditors don’t have any business trying to straighten out GPM’s. The meter is necessary, because a PC restimulated by the bank can’t perceive the bank and can audit it.  Hence, there are three essential parts of auditing:

1. The PC’s body.

2. The E-meter.
3. The auditor.  

Level II and III auditors should be skilled in ARC break assessments. They can prepcheck goals “In this lifetime ...” and can do Level IV-type ARC break assessments, if they can bridge the comm gap with the PC.  There is one case that cannot be patched up well at Levels II and III.  A case that has been run badly on R4, that has been thoroughly loused up, can only be remedied by having a Class IV auditor straighten it all up.  You could prepcheck or analyze a wrong goal and find out what it is and perhaps where it belongs, etc.  Any case that has had goals run would probably do very well with a List 4 and a case analysis, to sort things out and slip them back into line.

The bank is full of pictures, but the GPM’s are what need to be sorted out and gotten rid of.  At lower levels, you don’t disturb the GPM’s as a rule.  As you go up, you get closer to them, until at Level III, with service facs, you could get a rocket-reading goal, which you may or may not be well-advised to do anything with, since it may be the fifth goal back.

Everyone’s ability to create is so good that they can keep creating a whole bank.  They underestimate their own power to create and stop themselves.  People get stuck in their own mazes and are now lost in their own creations.  They will never sort themselves out of the maze by themselves. They don’t want to be this way, even though they are creating what entraps them.  Every now and then, a thetan in the between-lives area tries to sort out the stuff.  But this stuff is all sub-itsa, and without a meter or anyone to itsa it to, it is hopeless.  Even now, knowing all about the GPM’s, one couldn’t make it without a body or a meter.  [Cf. the Buddhist conception that the only condition from which one can reach enlightenment is that of being in a human body.] LRH has tried meterless systems, but none has ever succeeded. An auditor is necessary, because a thetan restimulated by his own bank can’t see it, but an auditor, not restimulated, can see it, with an E-meter.

As an auditor, you must realize how slight the barriers are, in fact, until R4M2 no longer seems difficult or complicated to you.  LRH knows that auditing at this level can happen, because he has been through it, all the way from the complication to the simplicity.

So you start at the top and start going back, goal-oppose, RI’s, RI’s, RI’s, making no mistakes.  When things go all weird, you straighten it all out and come back up to PT with it all aligned.

There are different types and styles of auditing, but keep in mind the fact that it is the same bank, no matter what level or what PC you are auditing.  Level III is the only level that is really dicey, since you are moving RI’s and GPM’s around in your search for service facs.

You can audit.  The only reason you feel you can’t is because of difficulties that you conceive to exist.  

Tape: 6310C23 SHSBC 317
AUDITING THE GPM
is not currently available

The Editor

6311C05 SHSpec-321 Three Zones of Auditing

As an auditor, you can now be found out -- by the TA motion that you get on your PCs.  An accomplished auditor can get TA at will.  TA motion has to be prevented by the auditor, to keep it from occurring.  It is prevented by:

1. Additive complications.

2. Failure to recognize basics.  There are three zones of auditing and applied scientology:

1. Basic auditing.

2. Case analysis.

3. Routine 4.  So there are three zones of expertise, which you should recognize as separate areas of performance.  To be expert, the auditor must be good in all three zones.  Someone could do technique perfectly, but, lacking basic auditing and understanding of what the mind consists of, he will not get anywhere.

LRH’s auditing is perfectly mechanical and by-the-book, doing R4.  He goes along, doing it until the PC either gets to the end of the processing cycle, or until the PC has fallen on his head.  In the latter case, he becomes a case analyst, using a different set of data, namely, “How do banks go together?” The PC can say anything he likes about the situation, as long as there is TA.  When the PC is done, the case analyst goes looking for why the list is misbehaving.  Having done an analysis, the auditor knows that the accuracy of the analysis is subject to question because of the charge on the case, so any charge gotten off will make a more accurate analysis possible, until all charge is gone.  Only factors that are present now are analyzed.  No former analysis is relied on.  No analysis is valid after its date of inception, because more charge may meanwhile have been taken off the case. The accuracy of case analysis depends on the PC’s ability to itsa.  So case-analyses shift.  They are always conditional and time-specific.

There is a trick of not speaking invalidatively, while not buying something the PC is selling.  The PC says that X is his goal.  You say, “Fine.  I’ll check it out. (Calls the goal) I’m sorry.  That didn’t read.”

In a case analysis, you look at the source that you got a list from, as well as the possibility that the PC was ARC broken or not answering the auditing question, etc.  When you find the right answer, you will get some TA action.  It will correct to something like it should be.  When you reach that point, you go back to being an auditor, being mechanical, etc., and you give the question.  You go back to what you were doing.  You never wear both hats at the same time.  Just wear the hat that is needed at the time.

There is one hat that you wear all the time: the basic auditing hat. Lacking that, it doesn’t matter how good you are at the other two.  Basic auditing is giving someone something to talk about, letting him talk, letting him know that he has said it, when he has, and running an E-meter all the while.  The basic auditing hat includes:

1. TR’s.  Acknowledge at the end of the complete cycle of action.  If the answer involves only one itsa, ack at the end of one itsa.  If it occurs after fifty itsas, ack after 50 itsas.

2. The Auditor’s Code.

3. Metering.

4. Itsa line handling.  

All basic auditing actions are co-ordinated with the PC.  There are four elements to what happened in a session:

1. What the PC did.

2. What the auditor did.

3. What the bank did.

4. What the meter did.  The auditor’s actions in the session are relatively unimportant.  The most unseen character in the world is an auditor in session.  He is about as visible as a drop of water in a stream.  This is an almost perfect example of a thetan with no mass.  The important actions in the session are the performance of the PC, the PC’s bank, and the E-meter.  The auditor’s actions only matter to the degree that they interfered with the PC’s actions.  An auditor’s actions can be anything, so long as they are not destructive to the session.  An auditor runs mostly on a lack of action.  Auditing is a third dynamic activity.  The auditor merely runs it.  Basic auditing is like the firebox of the ship’s engine.  The-tech is like the generating equipment.  The big engine is the bank.  This is not so great an analogy.

All an ARC break means is that something has gone wrong in the case analysis department, not in the basic auditing department.  A wrong goal found can be listed smooth as silk, but any later slip will produce an ARC break. Basic auditing can always be improved.  It is not a bunch of do’s and don’ts. It is a thetan sitting in the auditing chair, running the PC and the PC’s bank, verifying it on the meter, and keeping up both the small and the large auditing cycles.  There are no rules or tricks in it anywhere that solve all its problems, because it is not a complicated action.  You make it far more complicated than it is.

The zone of auditing called R4, mentioned earlier in the lecture [p. 539, above], is really technique of any sort.  These three zones of auditing apply at lower levels too, in the same order of use and importance: basic auditing, then technique and case analysis. If you get confused in your own mind about what’s what, you will think that you need a new technique, when your technique is fine but your basic auditing is out.  You think that you are being trained as auditors, when in actuality you are simply being untrained from all the complications which, during the vast vistas of time, you have accumulated, with regard to human relationships and minds.

A person believes that if he takes too much responsibility for one of these sectors, it is liable to go wrong.  That is just because he is unconfident.  The think on it is, “It is best to let the PC run the session because (hidden datum) if anything goes wrong, then it isn’t really my fault.” And this is called, “Making the PC self-determined.” Or the opposite think can occur, “The PC doesn’t know what he is talking about.  He will get himself in trouble and I will be to blame.  So therefore I had better do everything in the session and not permit the PC to do anything in the session, because if you depend on the PC, that will make him guilty, and that is like blaming the PC.  You really shouldn’t do that.  So we will relieve the PC of all responsibility.  We will [get our itsa from] the meter.” But what is all this worry about it going wrong?  An effort not to have wrongness is not a session.  

There is very little to teach in basic auditing.  There is the PC’s attention line.  You keep it on some area of the bank until he has said all that is there, and when he is finished, you see that he is, and you tell him that he is done.  You can produce TA action with, “Do birds fly?”, with good basic auditing, surprisingly enough.

Auditing is doing basic auditing, running a process, and having an analysis of the case that justifies running the process and that tells you when the process is flat.  Auditing is these three departments.  The most important part of the session is the PC.  The next most important part is the PC’s bank, the next is the meter and its verification of what is going on, and the least visible part (though the most important part as far as the beingness of the session is concerned) is the auditor.
A session is an irreplacable section of time that will never occur again.  So what happens in the session is important.  The important questions for a session are:

1. What actually happened in the session?

2. Was there TA action?

3. Was the PC’s ability to itsa and confront improved?

4. Was the PC’s bank straightened out?  Those are the important things, not whether you appear in session in costume, so long as when you appear in session, your appearance doesn’t impede the session.  Appearance is only important in that it could be distracting or disturbing.

Basic auditing training is simply the average action best calculated to produce a result in a session, with minimal impedance of session gain.  There is no completely proper auditing action, except as measured against these elements.  All your self-criticism is badly spent.  It is whether you produce results that really matters.

6311C07 SHSpec-322 Relationship of Training to OT

You are very fortunate people, to come all the way down the track, having done all those stupid things, and to wind up here with a chance out.  The chance is as good as you can audit, and not a bit better.  The number of raw-meat PCs that will go out through the roof is nonexistent.  Unless they become fully trained auditors, they won’t make it.  The raw meat case is very easy to audit, but what you are doing is auditing the charge off the top RI’s.  A scientologist appears to be a tougher case because the charge is off of those.  You will have to find the two top RI’s, now. and go on down the bank.

You can’t go on and run the bank on someone who hasn’t a clue about his mind, who doesn’t know what is there, frontwards and backwards.  The PC’s RI’s only disintegrate when found in their right locations, even though they can be found out of position.  So don’t worry about a case getting messed up by RI’s being found in the wrong place.  Goals which have already been run can mess things up.  All you can do if an RI or a GPM has been run is to date them. Even after you have run an RI, you can verify it by dating.  The reason for this is that, in running it, you pulled it a little out of its own time-sphere.  So you can still get a bit of a bang on dating it and reorienting it.  You are just getting the idea of it, which is still there in position.  The mass is already gone.  

Sooner or later, someone will take a lot of clay and work out the mind with the PC, an unusually smart PC, who will get it and go on being audited, with understanding, but this will be a very rare occurrence.  Getting someone to be responsible for a session occurs on a gradient.  The people who start on an HCA course, etc., are already pre-selected, just by the fact that they enrolled.  Any of them, including any upper-level auditor, including LRH, gets nervous over PCs, wondering if the TA is moving, the PC doing OK, etc.  That is to be expected.  People who persist into upper levels of training are further pre-determined by their willingness to continue in the face of struggle and disappointment.

There is an additional problem:  Where do you take over the PC’s itsa, so as to allow him to itsa just enough, neither cutting it short nor letting the PC wander around mucking things up.  These points vary from PC to PC, and with the same PC, as he gets more able.  Some PCs have good perception, and if they say it is so, it probably is so.  With other PCs, you can count on it. that if they say “It’s a _______ ,” it isn’t.  You should be increasing the PC’s perception of and confront on his own bank.  So as the PC gets closer to OT, you should have him in good enough shape so that he can perceive what is there to be run next.  Where you can deduce change in the PC, you are, of course, changing the values by which you audit.  Also, the PC’s itsa can deteriorate, if he has had some loses and the case is going sideways and backwards.  You will have to take over more responsibility for directing his attention, until he is fixed up.  Cases are always different from one moment to the next.

Low-level cases “run on ‘fat’....  They have charge leaking out of their ears.” When you have gotten off the “fat” that exists on the two top RI’s, you have got the whole bank to deal with.  Now you have to be a genius to find some “fat” to get off the case, and the case is more likely to get ARC broken from the aspect of cleaning cleans.  This makes you a very good auditor.  What happens when someone is in the position of doing R4?  They are probably somewhat trained by now, but they will need more training.  The surest way to get to be OT is to be a highly trained auditor, for various reasons, including the aplomb that it takes to confront the bank.  A case is on its way to OT when the first GPM has been run out.  This can take up to two years after finding the first (not necessarily the most recent) goal.  Running out that first (top) GPM is more Hell for the PC than anything the thetan has thought of confronting, and this is true for several reasons:  the state of the technology, the hazards of the auditing, possible errors, previous errors, the lack of the PC’s perception of the PT GPM because of its PT restimulators, etc., etc.  Raw meat, not understanding what is happening, won’t put up with it.  They can’t confront it.

Even though a goal is an incorrect goal, it could be that only its position is incorrect, not its wording.  You can get wrong items, a wrong line plot, for an implant GPM, without turning off the rocket read.  But if you take an actual GPM and try to run it on an implant pattern, it turns off the rocket read right now, and it turns off any other meter phenomena as well.  

There is another horrible datum:  An actual goal, invalidated, will now behave like a wrong goal.  It will turn on the same creaks as a really wrong goal.  The PC will ARC break the same way.  It will read as a wrong goal.  It will turn off ARC breaks when indicated.  And so forth.  So now, after you do a case analysis, prepcheck everything found, so that you don’t discard an actual goal.  It is possible that a wrong goal, sufficiently asserted and validated, might behave like a right goal.  One thing will still be the case: any actually wrong goal, or an actual goal run as an implant goal, will turn off the rocket read within two or three items.  This saves you from running a wrong goal.  You won’t have any rocket read to run it with!  What is dangerous is that an actual goal, thoroughly invalidated, will be consistently discarded by the auditor.  He and the PC agree that “to spit” is a wrong goal, and they continue looking for the next GPM in line or the PT GPM, but they will never find it.  Many are called, and few ever hit the top of the bank.  These are the sorts of errors that can occur and that make R4 Hell for PC and auditor. Nothing will make it easier, because that is happening with all the data, the best-trained auditor, and the most educated PCs.  R4 takes a high degree of skill, compounded with a phenomenal degree of luck.

With hindsight, one can see how things got off the track, but as one proceeds, one is walking in the dark with a thousandth of a millimeter peephole.  What takes time in R4 is the mistake.  The worse R4 goes, the harder it gets for the PC and the auditor to see what is the true state of affairs.  However, don’t put attention on not making mistakes, because the effort not to make mistakes will produce mistakes, directly and indirectly. Most of the auditing time is consumed in handling mistakes, and most of the mistakes you make are in trying not to make mistakes.  Anything that can make a meter go out, or any condition that can get you an erroneous read, is then susceptible to throwing out a case analysis, and your own efforts to straighten out a case analysis are susceptible to throwing out a case analysis.  And a case analysis can be wrong in the first place.  OK.  Those are the nerves with which you live.  So the only questions for a case analysis and the only points of randomity should be:

1. Exactly what is happening with this bank that I am handling?

2. Exactly how is it going together?

3. What are the contributive data I have, with which to make up my mind about the situations in this bank?

So you have to have basic auditing and techniques down to the no-attention state, because there are enough hazards and difficulties in case analysis, so that you have no attention to spare for anything else.  The ideal scene with the auditor and the PC is still going to be a porcupine-juggling act.  You should be able to “think bank”, so as to be able to parallel the PC’s mind well enough to figure out what is happening with the bank in front of you.  That is plenty to confront and handle.

Therefore training is a vital part of becoming an OT.  Thus, in the short run, many are called, but few are chosen, though eventually all can make it by the training route.  

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 NOVEMBER AD13
Central Orgs
Franchise
ROUTINE 3
R-3 MODEL SESSION REVISED
(Amended from HCO B of May 21, AD13)

Here is the new Routine 3 Model Session as outlined in HCO Bulletin May 13, AD13. All other Model Sessions are canceled herewith. This form is to be used in all auditing in the future.

SESSION PRELIMINARIES

All auditing sessions have the following preliminaries done in this order.

1. 	Seat the pc and adjust his or her chair.

2. 	Clear the Auditing room with “Is it all right to audit in this room?” (not metered).

3. 	Can squeeze “Squeeze the cans, please.” And note that pc registers, by the squeeze, on the meter, and note the level of the pc’s havingness. (Don’t run hav here.)

4. 	Put in R Factor by telling pc briefly what you are going to do in the session.

START OF SESSION:

5. 	“Is it all right with you if I begin this session now?”

	“START OF SESSION.” (Tone 40)

	“Has this session started for you?” If pc says, “No,” say again, “START OF SESSION. Now has this session started for you?” If pc says, “No,” say, “We will cover it in a moment.”

RUDIMENTS:

6. 	“What goals would you like to set for this session?”

	Please note that Life or Livingness goals have been omitted, as they tend to remind the pc of present time difficulties and tend to take his attention out of the session.

7. 	At this point in the session there are actions which could be undertaken: the running of General O/W or the running of Mid Rudiments using “Since the last time I audited you”, or pull missed W/Hs as indicated. But if pc cheerful and needle smooth, just get down to work.

	One would run General O/W if the pc was emotionally upset at the beginning of the session or if the session did not start for the pc, the latter being simply another indication of the pc’s being upset or ARC broken, but these symptoms must be present, as sometimes the session hasn’t started merely because of poor Tone 40 or because the pc had something he wanted to say before the auditor started the session.

RUNNING O/W:
“If it is all right with you, I am going to run a short, general process. The process is: ‘What have you done?’, ‘What have you withheld?’ “ (The process is run very permissively until the needle looks smooth and the pc is no longer emotionally disturbed.)

“Where are you now on the time track?”
“If it is all right with you, I will continue this process until you are close to present time and then end this process.” (After each command, ask, “When?”) “That was the last command. Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this process?”
“End of process.”

RUNNING THE MID RUDIMENTS:

One would use the Middle Rudiments with, “Since the last time I audited you”, if the needle was rough and if the Tone Arm was in a higher position than it was at the end of the last session.

ORDER OF BUTTONS

Here is the correct wording and order of use for the big Mid Ruds.

“	has anything been suppressed?”
“	is there anything you have been careful of?”
“	is there anything you have failed to reveal?”
“	has anything been invalidated?”
“	has anything been suggested?”
“	has any mistake been made?”
“	is there anything you have been anxious about?”
“	has anything been protested?”
“	has anything been decided?”
“	has anything been asserted?”

In using the first three buttons (Suppressed, Careful of and Failed to Reveal), the rudiment question should be asked directly of the pc off the meter (repetitive). When the pc has no more answers, check the question on the meter. If the question reads, stick with it on the meter like in Fast Rud checking until it is clean.

The last six buttons are cleaned directly on the meter as in Fast Ruds.

PULLING MISSED WITHHOLDS:

Use:	“Since the last time you were audited has a withhold been missed on you?”

“Since the last time you were audited is there anything someone failed to find out about you?”

“Since the last time you were audited has someone nearly found out something about you?”

BODY OF SESSION:

8. 	Now go into the body of the session.

END BODY OF SESSION:
9. 	“Is it all right with you if we end the body of the session now?” “Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I do so?” “End of the body of the session.”

SMOOTH OUT SESSION:

10. 	Smooth out any roughness in the session if there has been any, favouring Suppress, Failed to Reveal, Protest, Decide, Overts, Assert, using prefix “In this session .........?”

GOALS & GAINS:

11. 	“Have you made any of these goals for this session?” “Thank you for making these goals,” or “Thank you for making some of these goals, I’m sorry you didn’t make all of them,” or “I’m sorry you didn’t make these goals.”

“Have you made any other gains in this session that you would care to mention?” “Thank you for these gains,” or “I’m sorry you didn’t make any gains.”

HAVINGNESS:

12. 	(After adjusting the meter) “Please squeeze the cans.” (If the squeeze test was not all right, the Auditor would run the pc’s Havingness process until the can squeeze gives an adequate response.)

ENDING SESSION:

13. 	“Is there anything you would care to ask or say before I end this session?”

14. 	“Is it all right with you if I end this session now?”

15. 	“END OF SESSION (Tone 40). Has this session ended for you?” (If the pc says, “No,” repeat, “END OF SESSION.” If the session still has not ended, say, “You will be getting more auditing. END OF SESSION.”) “Tell me I am no longer auditing you.”

Please note that Havingness is run after Goals and Gains as this tends to bring the pc more into present time and to take his attention to a degree out of the session.

Wording for the above follows the tradition of earlier model sessions.

Adhere severely to this session form. It is nearly an irreducible minimum and is very fast, but it is all necessary.

The Random Rudiment here is “What happened?”

Session Mid Ruds are simply “Protest, Assert and Decide”.

RI rudiments are “Suppress and Invalidate”.

ARC Break handling is in accordance with HCO Bulletin of March 14, 1963. Don’t continue a session until you find out why the ARC Break.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 25 NOVEMBER 1963

Central Orgs 
Franchise
DIRTY NEEDLES

If your pc has a dirty needle, its cause is CUT ITSA or an L1 session ARC Break.

NO other source such as a wrong Item or goal or earlier engrams or service fac by-passed charge can cause a dirty needle.

If it’s a dirty needle its cause lies in basic auditing not in technique errors.

This rule is invariable. The apparent exception is the session ARC Break that keys in by-passed technique charge.

Example: PC has a wrong goal. Session ARC Break caused by cleaning a clean on the meter. This keys in wrong goal. Auditor does an L4 ARC Break Assessment over a dirty needle, finds “wrong goal”. PC brightens up a bit. Auditor thinks he has found all the by-passed charge but actually continues session with a somewhat gloomy pc whose needle occasionally gets dirty. The session ARC Break was left in place. This makes the auditor think a wrong goal can cause a dirty needle. The heavy charge keyed in (and that had to be gotten fast) was the wrong goal. But the session (II. ) ARC Break caused the dirty needle.

An auditor whose Basic Auditing is poor (who Qs and As, cuts Itsa, invalidates or evaluates, or who misses meter reads on rudiments or prepchecks or cleans cleans or misses withholds) can be spotted by his pc’s dirty needle. It’s an invariable sign.

If the pc has a dirty needle the Basic Auditing of the auditor is bad.

That auditor ought to put one of his sessions on tape and listen to it and analyze it as per the earlier HCO Bulletin.

Oddly enough, an auditor could run perfect technique on goals and yet be so poor in basic auditing that the pc is always ARC Breaking. This would be spotted by the pc’s chronically dirty needle.

You may see a dirty read on a pc while listing something or assessing. This means nothing as long as it is a dirty read. A dirty needle, of course, jitters all the time.

By their pcs’ needles you can know them.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

LRH :dr.cden 
Copyright © 1963 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 26 NOVEMBER 1963

Central Orgs
Franchise
ALL LEVELS
STAR RATING

A NEW TRIANGLE
BASIC AUDITING, TECHNIQUE,
CASE ANALYSIS

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

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

BASIC AUDITING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TECHNIQUE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CASE ANALYSIS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. 	Identify it fully and correctly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

6317C27 SHSpec-330 TVD 25: Auditing Demo and Comments by LRH

[LRH critiques three student TVD’s, during and after the TVD’s.  The sessions are ruds and havingness sessions.]

If a PC gives himself the auditing question, he is self-auditing, so the auditor should reassert control by giving the question.

Half a dial havingness isn’t enough.  The needle should bounce twice, for a Saint Hill student.  If the havingness isn’t that good, then it is too low for the PC to be audited.  The PC is hungry, tired, has PTP’s, or (mainly) he has withholds.  So run some O/W, run havingness, and fix it up.  Missed withholds cause low havingness, as well as environmental and other causes.

On auditing in general, modern faults fall under not knowing model session well enough.  Letting the PC itsa is one thing, but sitting silently and inviting itsa, without having asked a question, is another.  There is a happy medium between cutting the PC’s itsa and doing nothing at all.  You clean a clean by sitting and looking at a PC who has nothing to say, or who has said all, or when you haven’t asked a question.  The PC will ARC break.

Failures in basic auditing are the usual reason for no progress of a case.  You cannot apply a technique, in the absence of basic auditing. 

6312C04 SHSpec-326 TVD 24: Basic Auditing

[This is a combined lecture and demonstration, to show the presence of auditing and what basic auditing is.]

Auditors have misunderstood what itsa is, giving rise to awful results. They are getting their PCs to draw pictures, giving the PC nothing to do, and handling nothing.  The place to get your basic auditing together is at Class II.  Basic auditing handles the PC, handles the session, handles the auditing comm cycle, and handles the meter, regardless of what else is occurring.  It is no different at Class II than at Class IV.

LRH has been improving his own auditing for the past few months.  Basic auditing should be very smooth.  LRH has been improving his basic auditing in the area of observing the PC to see when he has said all that he is going to say, then acknowledging him.  One can play it safe by saying nothing, but that is cleaning a clean, comm lagging, inviting more itsa when there is nothing there.  Stringing out a bunch of unnecessary acknowledgments is also a comm lag.  Keep the session rolling.  That is what gets good TA.  Just sitting there listening is Level I auditing.  It doesn’t work at higher levels.

LRH found that he was causing the PC’s dirty needle.  He also found that he had to increase the PC’s ability to itsa by using the meter to get information only when the PC couldn’t supply it.  He found that it is necessary to remain silent, while the TA is in fast motion.  But one doesn’t wait after that to see if the TA will move again.  At Level VI, the motion you get after the BD on an item is coming from the next level.

Taking up and handling the PC’s problems, at session start, during the session, or at end of session, is part of basic auditing.

Basic auditing is:

1. Getting the PC to itsa.

2. Promoting and increasing the PC’s itsa, by letting the PC find data, not relying on the meter to do it.  However, don’t give the PC the feeling that he is getting no help.

3. Not talking while the TA is in fast motion, but not waiting for the TA to stop jumping around.

4. Handling any PTP’s at session start, as they arise, or at session end.  

[The TVD tape follows, with LRH auditing MSH.  The tape is intended to show basic auditing, as well as technique.  It starts out with ruds, then gets into a goal-oppose list.  LRH finds the PC’s PT goal, finds where the PC is in the GPM, and finds her top terminal.  He finds the wrong top oppterm.]

Technical note:  The top oppterm of the PT GPM, unlike any other in the whole bank, should blow up and shouldn’t keep on reading.  It should just go, and it didn’t.  So the auditor knows by now that it is a wrong item, since it didn’t blow, and that the PC is “selling” it.  So here we get into a tremble and scramble.  The PC is getting ARC breaky because the PC has a wrong item. If you missed the itsa once, here, you would get a screaming ARC break, because the out session rud would key in the BPC of the OT process.

[They do some more work with the top oppterm.  PC still won’t agree that the top oppterm is incorrect.  However, they do verify the correct terminal.]

Listing it straightened it out.  The top oppterm turned out to be “Being disobedient”.

LRH points out the basic auditing of the session: letting the PC itsa; not leaving the PC with nothing to itsa.  The PC should have been ARC broken by taking the wrong top oppterm and abandoning the right terminal.

The PC’s ability to itsa is the road out.  Keep the session driven.  Keep it going.  Take action.  Promote and increase the PC’s itsa.  It is the auditor’s job to make a session out of it

6312C05 SHSpec-327 Basic Auditing

[Some of the data in this tape is also to be found in HCOB 26Nov63 “All Levels Star Rating:  A New Triangle:  Basic Auditing, Technique, Case Analysis”.]

The problems of auditing are divided into three categories:

1. Basic auditing.

2. Technique.

3. Case analysis.  “Technique” means the exact patter and procedure for getting something audited on the PC.  We have dug up lots of old processes.  All of them are still valid, except mock-up processes.  Processes like, “Spot three spots in your body/in the room,” run long enough, tend to exteriorize people.  Another exteriorization process is, “Where aren’t you?” These processes are OK if they are not run to exteriorization.  Exteriorizing someone tends to result in his coming back into his body more solidly, because he becomes alarmed.  He is unstable.  This occurs at higher levels, e.g. Levels V or VI.  The PC tends to come back in and hold harder.  Actually, what upsets him is the energy masses that he is going through, which exert certain emotional responses upon him.

The liability of these old lower-level processes is that they run the PC into GPM’s and can pull RI’s out of line.  E.g. the liability of “Tell me something you wouldn’t mind forgetting,” is that you could run into the RI, “forgetting”.  But such an occurrence is very rare.  People coming up through Level III are in the charge of the top RI’s, but they are getting destimulated, as they get more oriented and wiser in their environments.  Just remember, when running a repetitive process, that there is some danger of restimulating an RI, especially if the process has a fancy or oddball wording.  You even run this risk at Level I, when you ask, “What solutions have you had to that?”, since the track is just a series of solutions.  What saves your bacon is the PC’s lack of reality on other lifetimes.  Starting at Level III, you would be wise to preface processes with “In this lifetime....” Do this for sure at Level IV, since the PC’s awareness has come up, and he will slip back on the track pretty easily.  Your main problem will be the manic at Level I, who insists on running only past track.

This came up in Elizabeth, N.J., with the first Foundation, when a couple of co-auditors could only find past-life engrams to run on each other.  Joe Winter, Parker Morgan, and John Campbell tried to pass a motion to make research on or mention of past lives off-limits, because it had bad public presence.  They found out then that LRH could get mad.  Public presence has nothing to do with the truth.  There is no such thing as acceptable truth. That is really just a lie.  There is no room in “PR” or public image for truth.  PR is nice, but don’t build on it.  Build on truth.

With most PCs, any attempt to go backtrack before their PTP’s are handled will produce nothing but disaster.  You are asking them to confront a big new datum, when they can’t even confront their environment.  Most processing failures come from the attempt to process someone higher then his class.

The classifications are laid out on a gradient scale of increasing responsibility for self and the dynamics.  The processes laid out in any given class form a gradient scale, too, plotted against increasing responsibility. So it starts with motivators and ends with overts.  All this is still techniques.  The programming of techniques is based on case analysis.  Every level has its own case analysis.

The three basic steps of case analysis are:

1. Find out what the PC is sitting in.

2. Get the PC to tell you about it fully.  Get any lies off.

3. Handle it by locating and indicating charge as accurately as possible.  That is the pattern that you would use at any level.  This delivers the whole world of healing to us.  It was a research target set last January, and it has been met.

At Level I, this could consist of getting the person to talk about some illness that they have had.  At Levels II and III, you would find what incident the person was sitting in.  In dianetics, this was done with an age-flash.  At Level VI, it is done with all the tech of case analysis, asking if it is an actual GPM, an implant GPM, etc.  At Level 0 it is, “How do you feel today?  What have you done about it?  Do you feel better?”

As a PC runs actual GPM’s, the sub-itsa and the PC’s ability to itsa come closer and closer together.  On case analysis, they fold over about half way to OT, where the PC’s ability to itsa surpasses the meter.  If the PC doesn’t say itsa, the meter won’t read.  The meter depends on mass and short-circuits in the mass.  You will eventually reach a point where the person is self-determined enough that unless they think it, it isn’t so.  Somewhere along the line, you will also run into their recognition that they are creating all the mass.  What you will do there hasn’t been worked out.  You will have to get across it and back to the beginning and the earliest postulates with regard to the making of mass and the creation of all this type of bank.  It is a rough go, unless your basic auditing is superb.  

Your basic auditing at Levels II and III has to be magnificent, because the PC doesn’t know what you are talking about.  He has no nomenclature.  He has no reality on it.  He can’t put these things together smoothly.  The whole burden, therefore, is on basic auditing, on handling the PC’s itsa, improving the PC’s itsa.  Never give the itsa to the PC on the meter when he can give it to you.  Don’t refuse to check the meter if he asks, but wean him off it.

The only things that vary in basic auditing are the addition of more complicated metering, as you go up the levels.  Note that at Levels V and VI, you never use a sensitivity higher than 8.  Other wise the needle is too loose.

Improving one’s basic auditing is the way to improve the amount of TA that one gets, given a particular technique used.  Dirty needles come solely from out basic auditing [see HCOB 25Nov63 “Dirty Needles”].

On Level VI, the TA moves around so much that you can’t wait until the TA stops to say something.  You have to talk when it slows down.  The PC will get heat, during BD’s, which will be suppressed if you talk, so that you will have to get the suppress off the heat to get it to turn on again.  If there is nothing going on, it is up to the auditor to start something.  If there is something going on with the PC, then there is no need for the auditor to start something.

At the upper levels, basic auditing had better be as free from attention as walking.  This sounds obvious, but it is horribly true.  You’ve got plenty to do, with the meter.  You don’t have time to record TA, except when you give the question and when the TA blows down, when the PC gives the item.  Apart from that, you need a TA counter to keep record of it.  Just don’t move the TA while the PC is moving around, or you will get a falsely high count.

You’ve got to stop the needle at set with your thumb, in order not to cut the PC’s itsa while centering the needle.  You will put in a comm lag if you delay while centering it, and the PC’s attention will go to the meter.  There are numerous tricks that you can do with meters.  For instance, you can brake the needle to stop it from wobbling.  Know the needle well enough to be able to spot a missed withhold without asking for it, or to repair havingness without having to run any, by getting the PC to spot what upset his havingness, etc.  You can know TA behavior well enough to spot trouble before it arrives, so that you are not startled when the PC erupts.  At Level VI, technique is an all-devouring monster.  You can spare no attention for the meter or for basic auditing aspects such as the comm cycle.  There is no zenith on how good your basic auditing can get.
You could probably make some mistakes with techniques and case analysis (not many), but you can’t afford to make any mistakes with basic auditing, especially if you do make a mistake in another area.  Nothing very serious will happen to a PC because of technique or case analysis errors, especially below Level VI, but basic auditing errors will pitch the PC on his head.  The only serious things that can happen to a PC occur because of out basic auditing.  PCs feel badly when basic auditing is out.  Invalidation is the only way to turn on somatics at Level VI.  OT processes are as rough as there is invalidation.  It isn’t that items turn on pain.  It is that if you invalidate a right item or goal, the PC can get good and sick.  This makes the steps of case analysis mandatory.  But if your basic auditing is in, such that the PC’s itsa is in, you are less likely to make these mistakes, because the PC’s opinion and knowingness are consulted.  

The greatest dividend you can get from training is improvement of your basic auditing, to a point where you can relax and get technique and case analysis to hum.  Get it perfected, and your tone arm motion will triple. 

6312C12 SHSpec-329 Summary of OT Processes

This is a fast and rapid summary of OT processes.  This is a matter of record, not so much a matter of education.  This gives the record of the final technology of bank running, which is now complete and unvarying.  The technology is very precise.  It is extremely crisp.  You do not vary from it. Some PCs become fixated on parts of the bank and argue with you about structure.  For instance, seeing two RI’s, the PC may think that he has two and only two GPM’s.  There are variations, as far as which implants someone could have.  Someone might not have the Helatrobus implants, for instance. But everyone on this planet has the Train implant.  There is a whole set of implants around trillions 2, which are similar to the Helatrobus implants, and for which we don’t have the pattern.  

You can get variations at Level V, but none at Level VI, or the person wouldn’t be here.  One person has not made different types of actual GPM’s than another.  You don’t get variations at Level VI, but lack of data and an overburdened case could bring about an apparent difference in the case.  The differences are only mistakes made by the auditor and/or the PC.  Every actual GPM is similar to every other actual GPM in basic composition. “The goal as an RI is always the first RI in the bank.  It then runs on up the line on a ‘solve’ basis, not on an “oppose’ basis.” Each item is a problem with its opposite item, going on up the bank, but those masses are actually very huge spheres.  They are all the accumulated energies that anyone ever had anything to do with, on this particular subject.  They have been lived through, and they have been accumulated.

Now an actual GPM has varying numbers of RI’s.  On the middle track, the GPM’s have 16 to 18 RI’s in them.  Late on the track, closer to PT, they go to 22 to 24 RI’s.  Each one has a cross-over:  the middle pair of RI’s.  If a GPM has 20 RI’s, at number ten you will [generally] get the cross-over. The cross-over is very important.  That is where the PC ceases to be for the goal and starts to be against it.  On the oppterm side, you get a progression up through the cross-over point from the bottom oppterm, which is dead opposed to the goal, to the top oppterm, which is dead for the goal.  And “on the terminal side, you have the goal as an RI at the bottom, and it progresses, up to the cross-over, for the goal and then, on a gradient scale, goes against the goal.  The top terminal of actual GPM is dead against the goal.” If the goal were “to be strong”, the top terminal would be something like “weak” or “being weak”.  That pattern has to be understood, or the PC will get in trouble.

The patterns are all similar, no matter what the GPM’s position on the time track is.  As you go earlier on the track, however, there is this change:  You get more items for the goal, i.e. the cross-over point drifts higher.  But the position of the cross-over is also monitored by whether the PC as a thetan liked the goal or not.  The cross-over would occur very near the bottom of a GPM whose goal the PC detests, e.g. “to be obedient”.  You can have the cross-over appear almost at the goal, on a goal that the PC detests, perhaps in the first couple or three pairs.  But this is not an important eccentricity.  Don’t be alarmed by it.  That is the only variation in cross-over.

Another variation in actual GPM’s is that earlier on the track, the time span for a GPM is longer.  E.g. a “modern” GPM could span only a billion years.  An early GPM could span trillions 20 to trillions 30 years.  There are about (as a guess) 26 GPM’s in a bank:  very few.  The closest-to-PT GPM can be expected to be truncated, which makes it difficult to enter the track, because the PT GPM may have any number of items in it.

In a case analysis, you can only count on what blows down the TA.  The E-meter is not wholly reliable, here.  The meter is only of relative use.  If all is perfectly correct on the meter, you have a chance of being right.

A GPM, when found, will read, but not forever.  It does give you nice long rocket reads and blowdowns, when you find it.  But don’t expect it to read forever.

Now the PT GPM being truncated, will have less than a full [complement of RI’s], which makes it hard to find its top.  The present GPM has some top short of total attainment of the goal, on the oppterm side and short of total opposition to the goal on the terminal side.  How short is the PT GPM?  Don’t cut your throat if you find after 75 hours that it only had two RI’s, or if you find that it is really the second GPM and is there in full.  You may not find out that this is the case until you reach the eighth GPM.  You cannot be sure that you have the PT GPM (or any other particular GPM).  You do the best you can and always suspect that there are more RI’s into PT, once the thing can be repaired.  And you are getting charge off all the way.  It is not fatal to make mistakes in doing this.  But don’t underestimate the ability of these processes to nearly kill the PC, if mishandled.  Say you skipped two GPM’s and started to run out the one below it.  The PC would feel like Hell.  A PC never feels worse than on R4 done wrong.  But he can live through it.  It is the auditor who is in danger.

A wrongly worded GPM will shut off the RR.

The PT GPM is the one you are working for, but it may not show up until you have run an earlier GPM.

The programming is done only one way, in running these things.  That is: You find the PT GPM.  You find its top terminal.  You list the top terminal for two items: the first oppterm and the second oppterm.  From the second oppterm, you get the “solves it”, by asking, “Who or what would it solve?”, and you go on down the bank.  So it is always the same: “You find the PT GPM. You run all the items out of it.  Then you do a goals-oppose list and find the next GPM and get its top oppterm, and then run all items out of it, and find the next GPM ... , etc., until you get to the beginning of the time track.” You can cut in and find the second GPM first, by accident, and find out later on that it is the second GPM, and then by doing goal oppose of it, you can find the actual first GPM.  But that is at the risk of the game.  That is just fixing a mistake.  Properly, you find the PT GPM or something that you could believe was the PT GPM.  You then run all the items out of it.  Then you do a goals-oppose list and find the next GPM.  You get its top oppterm and run all items out of it.  Then you go on down the bank to the beginning of track.  And that is the only program that is successful.  Taking any GPM that fires and then trying to goal-oppose it to PT is not hard to do.  It is impossible!  You end up with a messed-up track.

You do this same program on every case, including cases that have had goals found and run out in various ways.  You start with listing for the PT GPM: “What is your present time actual GPM?” This can be a long list.  It follows a “goals list” format.  When you get fifty items past the last RR seen on listing and you are getting no TA while listing, the GPM is on that list somewhere, and you find it by elimination.

This sounds impossible, but this pattern has been successful whenever tried.  PCs come up with the PT GPM every time.  Of course, it has to be an educated PC.  If not, you don’t have a prayer.  It takes terrific stability on the part of the PC to hang in there when things get tight.  An untrained person wouldn’t stand for it.  It is not that he couldn’t be gotten into it, but he will panic when things go wrong and he feels terrible.  He won’t have the security of knowing that he can get out of what he got into.  It is basically understanding that will carry him through.  

[Here is a tabulated summary of the R4 procedure, as outlined in this tape:

1.  Do a PT goals list and get a goal.  List for the PT GPM using, “What is your present time actual GPM?” You use a goals-listing procedure.

That is, you list fifty items past the last RR seen on listing.  If the TA is all run out, then the list is complete.  You then find the item by elimination.

2.  Try to count the number of RI’s in the PT GPM, then plot it up accordingly, and observe where the top of this GPM sits in relation to the cross-over point.  E.g. say you’ve got 12 RI’s.  Then you know that the top pair is one pair past cross-over.  So the terminal is just a little bit against the goal.

3.  Find the top terminal by listing, “What terminal are you sitting in now?”

4.  List two lists from this same top terminal to get the top oppterm and the second oppterm of this truncated GPM.  Charge will expire on the top oppterm, so then you will get the second oppterm, because that is the way the pattern progresses, going down into the bank.  After getting the top oppterm, list “W/W wd solve (top oppterm)?” and get the top terminal back again.  Then take it down to the second oppterm

5.  Solve this across and continue to the bottom of the GPM.

6.  Do a goal-oppose list to find the goal of the second GPM, using goals-listing procedure.

7.  Take the goal as an RI from the PT GPM and list, “Who or what would it solve?”, to find the top oppterm of the second GPM.

8.  Take this top oppterm and list “Who or what would solve (the top oppterm)?”, to get the top terminal of the second GPM.

9.  Solve it across to get the second oppterm of the second GPM.

10. Run all the items out of that GPM in a similar manner, and continue on down the bank using steps (6) to (10), above, to the beginning of the track.

It is the PC who comes up with the answers.  He finds out what is going wrong.  If you can get off any BPC, he will start giving you some good data about what has gone wrong.  E.g. the PC’s next GPM is found but won’t read. So a GPM has been missed.  There is so much inval on the goal that it reads as a wrong goal.  So the PC says that some inval is present.  So the auditor prepchecks the goal and on [the rocket read] comes, and off they go.  But repair is too complex to do without help from the PC.  However, a PC can “sell” an item, and if the auditor buys it, it can land the PC in the soup. Also, if the RR doesn’t pack up in the first five items down the bank, don’t let the PC sell you on the idea that it is a wrong goal, wrongly worded, or misworded.  LRH once let a PC sell him on the idea that a goal was a wrong goal.  He listed and found two new goals, without realizing that the PC had merely gotten into a dramatization of one of the items of the goal’s GPM, and therefore so despised this goal that the PC wanted nothing to do with this goal.

Rule: If it is running all right, keep running.  Don’t make trouble until trouble happens, since it is trouble that consumes session time.  Take up trouble as it comes.  If the PC does get in trouble, don’t try to force the PC on.  Stop and find out what is wrong and fix it.  Otherwise, you can invalidate goals and items and make them read like wrong goals and items.

The read you get on listing actual GPM items (and goals) is like nothing you have seen elsewhere.  It is not an RR and it is not a fall, and it is not anything else you have seen elsewhere.  A tick will never be the item.  The real item hits a “rubber bumper” and forces its way through, like breaking through a stone wall, and then falls on through to a BD.  These are item reads.  Only an item read looks that way; nothing else does.  It goes the whole dial and brings about a blowdown.  The rule in item-finding, is to list as long as the PC wants to list, and then find the item on the early part of the list.  That has variation.  The item could be wrongly worded, early on the list, and reappear correctly worded later on the list, so that it looks as though it actually appears later on the list.  The item lists are short, especially compared to most goals lists.  You might have shorter goals lists, however:  When the PC gets pretty educated, he can spot the goal right away. The meter blows up, heat comes off, etc., etc.

Here is an example of an LRH bank:  The goal-oppose question, “Who or what would “destroy’ oppose?” gave the next goal, which was “to worship”.  “To create” was a rocket-reading implant GPM.  “Worship” had nothing to do with religion.  It was too early.  The earlier you go on the track, the simpler and more direct the goals and items are.  As you go later, the items get more dispersive and complicated.  Items like “certainty” and “predictability” and solved by “unpredictability”.  It will be a less neat pattern.  The thetan is thinking more complexly, more involvedly.  He is in a more dispersed state. On the middle and back track, the thetan is simpler.  As you get back to the middle track, a word like the goal appears in 80% of the items.  On earlier track, a word with the sense of the goal appears in almost 100% of the items. Close to PT, you get tremendous variation in items and more complex goals that are hard to get oppositions to, with the goal almost never appearing in the items.  The hard end of the track is the PT end.  The thetan has less scope. [The gap is] less wide between opposites.  There is more dispersion.  The thetan is nattery, picky, and so forth.  You can see the dwindling spiral of the thetan, as you look   over these GPM’s.  The chances are far against getting simple goals in PT. Middle track goals are simple.  When you get two or three GPM’s back, you start getting simpler goals.  On the middle track, for instance, you get goals like “to do”, “to think”, “to postulate”.

In later GPM’s, there are more items and greater complexity.  The items disperse more quickly from the basic goal area.  As was said earlier, the goal word appears less frequently in the items.  But the pattern doesn’t change. The top oppterm is definitely the goal and the top terminal is definitely against the goal.

The hard things to list are the top terminal and the bottom oppterm. That’s shootin’ into the blue.  The top terminal is very often, but not always, controlled by the goal that you are about to get, i.e. the next goal up.  The top terminal may or may not be similar to the next goal.  It could be quite disrelated.  You can get fooled here.  The pattern might not hold, e.g. the next goal might be the goal, “to postulate” and the top terminal might be “sitting”.  You can’t predict the top terminal, except that it is opposite to the goal of the GPM that it is in.

The bottom oppterm is the “reason he done it”.  Of course the real reason he done it is the GPM he just lived through, but his particular penchant is usually expressed in the bottom oppterm, because it is opposed by the goal as an RI.  The bottom oppterm is going to say what the person is mad at, in the PT GPM, like “civilization”, or “financial institutions”.  This one is hard to get.  So the PC might miss it like mad.  The two bottom oppterms and the two top terminals in the GPM forecast some difficulty.  The toughest to get are the bottom oppterm and the top terminal.

How do you list one of these things?  First, do your PT goals list and get a goal.  Then try to count the number of RI’s in that GPM [the presumptive PT GPM].  Then plot it up accordingly.  Observe where it sits in relation to where the cross-over point is.  Say you’ve got twelve RI’s.  So you know that you are one pair past the cross-over.  So the terminal is just a little bit against the goal.  You can get the top terminal of the PT GPM by listing, “What terminal are you sitting in now?” If you want to ask, “Why don’t you list for the top oppterm?”, it is the same as asking, “Why don’t you try to list the bank?” It’s the same question.  The PC doesn’t know what’s there, relative to the top oppterm.  But he is sitting in and intimately connected with, as himself, this top terminal, because that is the one that he is living through life in.  Therefore it is easy to list for the top terminal.  So list for the top terminal and find it.  Then list two lists from this same top terminal and get:

1. The top oppterm.

2. The second oppterm.  You are able to do this because charge will expire on the top oppterm, when you have found it, and therefore there won’t be any more charge on this oppterm.  You then get the second oppterm, because that is the way the bank progresses, going down into the bank.  GPM’s always proceed downwards from the top oppterm.  Why this pattern for running the GPM? Because if you get this higgledy-piggledy in the first GPM, you are going to be kitty-corner from the oppterm to the next terminal below it, and that doesn’t solve!  The bank doesn’t run that way and it doesn’t solve that way, and you will be in trouble.  So you get the two top oppterms, #1 and #2. Sometimes you almost wreck yourself by getting both oppterms on the same list, both firing:  But you really need two listings, so you can tell which is which.  So after getting the top oppterm, do “Who or what would solve (the top oppterm)?” and get the top terminal back again. Then take it down to the second oppterm.  Solve it across and go on down the bank that way. 

Now “items always solve; goals always oppose.” Never do a goals solve list, e.g. “What goal would solve (a goal)?” The goal as an RI sounds like a goal, but it is an item.  And that would be an item solve list for the next lower top oppterm.

So after you get the whole of the top bank, now do a goal-oppose list to get the goal of the No. 2 GPM.  You now assess by elimination to get that goal.  That’s the end of all oppositions [until you are up to the point of getting the goal for the next GPM].  But you still have an unsolved RI, which is the goal as an RI at the bottom of the top GPM.  Opposing the goal as an RI is the most critical action in the whole operation.  Take the goal as an RI and list, “Who or what would it solve?”, and get the top oppterm of the next GPM, using a nice, beefy, long list on this one.  That is the touchiest part of the bank.  If you get it wrong, it will be wrong from then on out.  If you get a wrong top oppterm, you will go all over the place. You will have the wrong GPM.  It is also the easiest to get wrong because it looks the simplest.  The top oppterm is the final achievement of the goal that you have just gotten from the goal-oppose list.  The PC is now against it.  E.g. on a goal “to sneeze”, the top oppterm would be “sneezing” or “people who sneeze”, or “sneezers” or “having to sneeze”, etc.  If you get the top oppterm slightly misworded, you have had it.  So do a nice long top oppterm list.  You want a 20 or 30 item list.  So don’t take an item as the top oppterm just on the PC’s say-so.  You can tangle the whole bank.  Don’t promote the PC’s itsa on this one!  If you buy the PC’s delighted itsa, you are likely to get the third terminal from the bottom and get the whole bank upside down.  The other place where you disregard the PC’s itsa is when you are halfway through a GPM with the RR still on and he tells you that it is not his goal.  So get the list, on listing for the top oppterm, null it with the PC’s attention on it.  Ask which item had heat.  Look around the area of that item, on the list, especially a few items above the item that he mentioned.  See if you can get that area to read.  Get the top oppterm and check it out.  Mow be very careful, when you get the top terminal.  The wording is critical.

The terminal has an opposite meaning to the bank at large.  When you have the two top RI’s, make sure that both of them are absolutely correct, before you go on.  The alternative is to get a circular invalidation going, where you are leaving wrong items behind you and listing from wrong items, correcting, and going ahead into messed-up areas.  As you correct one item, another gets messed up.  When you find a wrong item behind you, accept no items that you found after you found the wrong item.  Re-do all the later lists.

The way you check out a bank, when looking for a wrong item, is to go back over it from the top, reading the items off with mathematical precision, with the session ruds in.  The wrong item that you left behind you will tick or rocket-read.  That is a proven rule.  If it reads, it is a wrong item, invariably.  It is not that it wasn’t opposed.  Being wrong, it reads and throws into question all succeeding items.  Any items that occur after that, if they are right, are so merely by coincidence.  So you have to list again, through a muddied-up bank.  To correct the wrong item, take the list you got it from and look earlier, or later, if it was the first or second item on the list.  Or the list could be incomplete.  But two items reading in the same items list -- means nothing.  Listing rules don’t apply to items lists.  Listing rules apply to goals lists and only to goals lists.  You can have six items reading on an item “solve” list, and it doesn’t mean that the list is incomplete.  One of the six reading items is the item, and you don’t continue the list.

On a wrong goal, everything you write down reads for awhile, then nothing reads.  The only thing that shuts off an RR is a wrong goal.  A wrong item will not do so.  You can overrun the GPM and run into a GPM for which you have no goal.  The only thing that shuts off an RR is not having the goal.  What shuts down the RR is not having the goal, and this is the only way to shut off an RR.  Even a slightly misworded goal will turn it off.  So if the RR continues, you’ve got the right goal, so relax.  And once you get your goal, don’t call it again, until you get to the goal as an RI.  Refer to it by number, and don’t use the wording, “How does this RI relate to (the goal)?” Use, “How does this RI relate to this GPM?”, or “ ... to GPM No. _______ ?” The reason for this is that every time you call the goal, you pull the goal as an RI up towards PT and disarrange the bank.  You save it, so that if you have to use it later to prepcheck off inval in straightening things out, you can. Or you might want to save it for use in later cleanup.  Even then, you still say the goal as little as possible.  If you are prepchecking a GPM goal, use “On this goal....” Don’t keep repeating the goal, as this will drive the PC to the bottom of the GPM.

There are lots of things to know, lots of indicators, but only a few simple rules, and they are dead on.  For instance, you ask, “Is this an actual GPM?”, after you have found the goal.  You always check it out.  When you have run five or six GPM’s, you get no response on the meter until the PC says it. Then it reads.  As you go down the bank, the items will read when the PC says it, not when you call it.  At first, [when the case is unburdened with R3SC, etc.] the sub-itsa comes up towards the surface.  However, further on down the line, you lose the sub-itsa again.  The sub-itsa line reverses with the itsa line, eventually.

Basic auditing must be very well in and the PC must be easily auditable. You’ve got to promote his confidence and itsa, so that when you run out of the E-meter, the PC can handle it.  You’ve got to be able to talk to the PC, and the PC has to be able to talk to you, because in a few cases, itsa is all that you will have to guide you through.

The only thing that makes a bad basic auditor is a person who is afraid of becoming OT or who sees a great deal of harm in being exteriorized or in being set adrift alone without a body.  Or, the idea of setting people adrift or alone without a body restimulates all those people that they have held down and Stuck spears in the stomachs of.  That is exteriorization too.  Someone whose basic auditing is poor at Levels II, III, or IV will have it fly out at upper levels, because he gets so restimulated at the idea of exteriorizing. Exterization restimulates murder, so you get the idea that he doesn’t deserve to be clear, etc.  Don’t look for the significance to explain fear or terror of exteriorization.  It is just GPM’s shifting around and colliding, caused by the thought of exteriorizing.  You can set someone up so they will do flawless basic auditing for one session by running O/W.  This shows that they consider auditing to be an overt.  This was first tested in Melbourne in 1960.  

There are no ARC breaky PCs.  There are only bad basic auditors.  The PC who is dangerous is the one who goes into propitiation or lower when ARC broken.  Such a PC is harder to handle than one who screams.  Any PC, audited beyond an ARC break, will go into the sad effect.  You could audit the auditor on O/W for a short session, and he would give flawless sessions.

This is a very important tape.  The exact patter is on the demo tape of last Wednesday.  [Probably 6312C04 SHSpec-326 TVD 24:  Basic Auditing, pp. 551-552, above.]

[LRH also mentions a color movie with all the tech in this area, and the area of GPM’s] 

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 10 JUNE 1972
Issue I
REISSUED 21 SEPTEMBER 1974
(Only change is signature)
Remimeo

BYPASSED CHARGE

The mechanism of BPC (By-Passed Charge) must be known to an auditor otherwise he won’t know what he’s “Indicating”.

When one gets a lock, a lower earlier incident restimulates, THAT IS BPC. It isn’t the auditor by-passing it. One handled later charge that restimmed earlier charge. THAT IS BPC  (Tech of ‘62), and that is all that the term means.

Auditor touches on A, and B goes into restim out of pc’s consciousness. This causes an irritated, ARC Breaky, upset feeling. The pc reacts very badly. He has been hit by a mystery. There is no apparent reason (to him) why he feels this way. This is what Bypassed Charge means. “Earlier Charge Restimmed and not seen” would be another name for it.

One handles it by noting the fact that it happened. One tells the pc an earlier incident went into restimulation. This usually cools it off.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

LRH:nt.rd 
Copyright © 1972, 1974 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 MAY 1963
CenOCon	
Franchise
ALL AUDITING
STAR RATING HCO BULLETIN FOR ACADEMIES AND SHSBC

CAUSE OF ARC BREAKS

LUCKY IS THE PC WHOSE AUDITOR HAS UNDERSTOOD THIS HCO BULLETIN AND LUCKY IS THE AUDITOR, MAY HIS OWN CASE RUN WELL.

I have just narrowed the reason for ARC Breaks in auditing actions down to only one source.

RULE: 	ALL ARC BREAKS ARE CAUSED BY BY-PASSED CHARGE.

RULE: 	TO TURN OFF AN ARC BREAK FIND AND INDICATE THE CORRECT BY-PASSED CHARGE.

Charge can be By-Passed by:

1 . 	Going later than basic on any chain without further search for basic.

Example: Looking for the pc’s first automobile accident, finding the fifth instead and trying to run the fifth accident as the first accident, which it isn’t. The By-Passed Charge here is the first accident and all succeeding accidents up to the one selected by the auditor as the first one or the one to run. To a greater or lesser degree depending on the amount the earlier material was restimulated, the pc will then ARC Break (or feel low or in “low morale”). One can run a later incident on a chain briefly but only to unburden earlier incidents, and the pc must know this.

2. 	Unknowingly ignoring the possibility of a more basic or earlier incident of the same nature as that being run after the pc has been restimulated on it. Or bluntly refusing to admit the existence of or let the pc “at” an earlier incident.

3. 	Cleanly missing a GPM, as one between two goals run consecutively in the belief they are consecutive.

4. 	Missing an earlier GPM and settling down to the assertion there are no earlier ones.

5. 	Cleanly missing one or more RIs, not even calling them.

6. 	Failing to discharge an RI and going on past it.

7. 	Accidentally missing a whole block of RIs, as in resuming session and not noticing pc has skipped (commoner than you’d think).

8. 	Accepting a wrong goal, missing the right one similarly worded.

9. 	Accepting a wrong RI, not getting the plot RI to fire.

10. 	Misinterpreting or not understanding data given to you by the pc and/or acting on wrong data.

11. 	Misinforming the pc as to what has or has not fired and discharged.

12. 	Locating the wrong By-Passed Charge and saying it is the source of the ARC Break.

13. 	Failing to follow the cycle of communication in auditing.

These and any other way charge can be restimulated and left prior to where the auditor is working can cause an ARC Break.

Charge left after (later) (nearer pt) than where the auditor is working hardly ever causes an ARC Break.

The burden of skilled auditing then, is to get RIs (and GPMs and incidents) discharged as close to basic (first incident) as possible. And always be prowling for something earlier.

In contradiction of this is that any GPM fairly well discharged by RRs unburdens the case, ARC Break or no ARC Breaks. And any incident partially discharged lets one go earlier.

The pc never knows why the ARC Break. He may think he does and disclaim about it. But the moment the actual reason is spotted (the real missed area) the ARC Break ceases.

If you know you’ve missed a goal or RI, just saying so prevents any ARC Break.

An ARC Breaky pc can always be told what has been missed and will almost always settle down at once.

Example: Pc refuses to come to session. Auditor on telephone says there’s a more basic incident or RI or GPM. Pc comes to session.

The auditor who is most likely to develop ARC Breaks in the pc will have greater difficulty putting this HCO Bulletin into practice. Perhaps I can help this. Such an auditor Qs and As by action responses, not acknowledgments after understanding. Action can be on an automaticity in the session. So this HCO Bulletin may erroneously be interpreted to mean, “If the pc ARC Breaks DO something earlier.”

If this were true then the only thing left to run would be Basic Basic—without the pc being unburdened enough to have any reality on it.

A drill (and many drills can be compiled on this) would be to have a lineal picture of a Time Track. The coach indicates a late incident on it with a pointer and says, “Pc ARC Break.” The student must give a competent and informative statement that indicates the earlier charge without pointing (since you can’t point inside the reactive bank of a pc with a pointer).

Drawn Time Tracks showing a GPM, a series of engrams along free track, a series of GPMs, all plotted against time, would serve the purpose of the drill and give the student graphic ARC Break experience.

The trick is TO FIND AND INDICATE the RIGHT By-Passed Charge to the pc and to handle it when possible but never fail to indicate it.

It is not DO that heals the ARC Break but pointing toward the correct charge.

RULE: 	FINDING AND INDICATING AN INCORRECT BY-PASSED CHARGE WILL NOT TURN OFF AN ARC BREAK.

An automaticity (as covered later in this HCO Bulletin) is rendered discharged by indicating the area of charge only.
This is an elementary example: Pc says, “I suppressed that.” Auditor says, “On this incident has anything been suppressed?” Pc ARC Breaks. Auditor indicates Charge by saying, “I’m sorry. A moment ago I didn’t acknowledge your suppression.” ARC Break ceases. Why? Because the source of its charge that triggered an automaticity of above the pc’s tone, was itself discharged by being indicated.

Example: Auditor asks for a Joburg overt. Pc gives it. Auditor consults meter at once asking question again, which is protested giving a new read. Pc ARC Breaks. Auditor says, “I did not acknowledge the overt you gave me. I acknowledge it.” ARC Break ceases.

Example: Auditor asks for RI No. 173 on First Series Line Plot. Pc ARC Breaks, giving various reasons why, such as auditor’s personality. Auditor asks meter, “Have I missed an Item on you?” Gets read. Says to pc, “I’ve missed an Item.” ARC Break ceases. Whether the missing item is looked for or not is immaterial to this HCO Bulletin which concerns handling ARC Breaks.

If an auditor always does in response to an ARC Break, such as instantly looking for specific earlier Items, that auditor has missed the point of this HCO Bulletin and will just pile up more ARC Breaks, not heal them.

Don’t be driven by ARC Breaks into unwise actions, as all you have to do is find and indicate the missing charge that was By-Passed. That is what takes care of an ARC Break, not taking the pc’s orders.

If the ARC Break does not cease, the wrong By-Passed Charge has been indicated.

The sweetest running pc in the world can be turned into a tiger by an auditor who always Qs and As, never indicates charge and goes on with the session plan.

Some Qs and As would be a source of laughter if not so deadly.

Here is a Q and A artist at work (and an ARC Breaky pc will soon develop) (and this auditor will soon cease to audit because it’s “so unpleasant”).

Example: Auditor: “Have you ever shot anyone?” Pc: “Yes, I shot a dog.” Auditor: “What about a dog?” Pc: “It was my mother’s.” Auditor: “What about your mother?” Pc: “I hated her.” Auditor: “What about hating people?” Pc: “I think I’m aberrated.” Auditor: “Have you worried about being aberrated?” Pc: @!!*?!!.

Why did the pc ARC Break? Because the charge has never been permitted to come off shooting a dog, his mother, hating people, and being aberrated and that’s enough By-Passed Charge to blow a house apart.

This pc will become, as this keeps up, unauditable by reason of charge missed in sessions and his resulting session dramatizations as overts.

Find and indicate the actual charge By-Passed. Sometimes you can’t miss it, it has just happened. Sometimes you need a simple meter question since what you are doing is obvious. Sometimes you need a dress parade assessment from a list. But however you get it, find out the exact By-Passed Charge and then INDICATE IT TO THE PC.

The violence of an ARC Break makes it seem incredible that a simple statement will vanquish it, but it will. You don’t have to run another earlier engram to cure an ARC Break. You merely have to say it is there—and if it is the By-Passed Charge, that ARC Break will vanish.

Example: Pc: “I think there’s an incident earlier that turned off my emotion.” Auditor: “We’d better run this one again.” Pc ARC Breaks. Auditor: (Consults meter) “Is there an earlier incident that turns off emotion? (Gets read) Say, what you just said is correct. Thank you. There is an earlier incident that turns off emotion. Thank you. Now let’s run this one a few more times.” Pc’s ARC Break ends at once.

Don’t go around shivering in terror of ARC Breaks. That’s like the modern systems of government which tear up their whole constitution and honor just because some hired demonstrators howl. Soon they won’t be a government at all. They bend to every ARC Break.

ARC Breaks are inevitable. They will happen. The crime is not: to have a pc ARC Break. The crime is: not to be able to handle one fast when it happens. You must be able to handle an ARC Break since they are inevitable. Which means you must know the mechanism of one as given here, how to find By-Passed Charge and how to smoothly indicate it.

To leave a pc in an ARC Break more than two or three minutes, is just inept.

And be well-drilled enough that your own responding rancor and surprise doesn’t take charge. And you’ll have pleasant auditing.

ARC BREAK PROCESSES

We had several ARC Break processes. These were repetitive processes.

The most effective ARC Break process is locating and indicating the By-Passed Charge. That really cures ARC Breaks.

A repetitive command ARC Break process based on this discovery I just made would possibly be “What communication was not received?”

Expanding this we get a new ARC Straight Wire:

“What attitude was not received?”

“What reality was not perceived (seen)?”

“What communication was not acknowledged?”

This process IS NOT USED to handle SESSION ARC BREAKS but only to clean up auditing or the track. If the pc ARC Breaks don’t use a process, find the missed charge.

Indeed this process may be more valuable than at first believed, as one could put “In auditing ......” on the front of each one and straighten up sessions. And perhaps you could even run an engram with it. (The last has not been tested. “In auditing” + the three questions was wonderful on test. 2 div TA in each 10 mins on a very high TA case.)

“ARC Break Straight Wire” of 1958 laid open implants like a band saw, which is what attracted my attention to it again. Many routine prefixes such as “In an organization” or “On engrams” or “On past lives” could be used to clear up past attitudes and overts.

We need some repetitive processes today. Cases too queasy to face the past, cases messed up by offbeat processes. Cases who have overts on Auditing or Scientology or orgs. Cases pinned by session overts. The BMRs run inside an engram tend to make it go mushy. And Class I Auditors are without an effective repetitive process on modern technology. This is it.

A Repetitive Process, even though not looking for basic, implies that the process will be run until the charge is off and therefore creates no ARC Breaks unless left unflat. Therefore the process is safe if flattened.
RUDIMENTS

Nothing is more detested by some pcs than rudiments on a session or GPM or RI. Why?

The same rule about ARC Breaks applies.

The Charge has been By-Passed. How?

Consider the session is later than the incident (naturally). Ask for the suppress in the session. You miss the suppress in the incident (earlier by far). Result: Pc ARC Breaks.

That’s all there is to ARC Breaks caused by Session BMRs or Mid Ruds.

Example: “Scrambleable Eggs” won’t RR. Auditor says, “On this Item has anything been suppressed?” Pc eventually gets anxious or ARC Breaks. Why? Suppress read. Yes, but where was the suppress? It was in the Incident containing the RI, the pc looked for it in the session and thereby missed the suppress charge in the incident of the RI which, being By-Passed Charge unseen by pc and auditor, caused the ARC Break. Remedy? Get the suppress in the incident, not the session. The RI RRs.

Also, the more ruds you use, the more you restimulate when doing Routine 3, because the suppress in the incident is not basic on Suppress, and if you clean just one clean, even to test, bang, there goes the charge being missed on Suppress and bang, bang, ARC Break. Lightly, auditor, lightly.

Q AND A ARC BREAKS

Q and A causes ARC Breaks by BY-PASSING CHARGE.

How? The pc says something. The auditor does not understand or Acknowledge. Therefore the pc’s utterance becomes a By-Passed Charge generated by whatever he or she is trying to release. As the auditor ignores it and the pc re-asserts it, the original utterance’s charge is built up and up.

Finally the pc will start issuing orders in a frantic effort to get rid of the missed charge. This is the source of pc orders to the auditor.

Understand and Acknowledge the pc. Take the pc’s data. Don’t pester the pc for more data when the pc is offering data.

When the pc goes to where the auditor commands, don’t say, “Are you there now?” as his going is thereby not acknowledged and the going built up charge. Always assume the pc obeyed until it’s obvious the pc did not.

ECHO METERING

The pc says, “You missed a suppress. It’s ......” and the auditor reconsults the meter asking for a suppress. That leaves the pc’s offering an undischarged charge.

NEVER ASK THE METER AFTER A PC VOLUNTEERS A BUTTON.

Example: You’ve declared suppress clean, pc gives you another suppress. Take it and don’t ask suppress again. That’s Echo Metering.

If a pc puts his own ruds in, don’t at once jump to the meter to put his ruds in. That makes all his offerings missed charge. Echo Metering is miserable auditing.

MISSED WITHHOLDS

Needless to say, this matter of By-Passed Charge is the explanation for the violence of missed withholds.

The auditor is capable of finding out. So the pc’s undisclosed overts react solely because the auditor doesn’t ask for them.

This doesn’t wipe out all technology about missed withholds. It explains why they exist and how they operate.

Indication is almost as good as disclosure. Have you ever had somebody calm down when you said, “You’ve got missed withholds”? Well it’s crude but it has worked. Better is, “Some auditor failed to locate some charge on your case.” Or, “We must have missed your goal.” But only a meter assessment and a statement of what has been found would operate short of actually pulling the missed withholds.

APPARENT BAD MORALE

There is one other factor on “Bad Morale” that should be remarked.

We know so much we often discard what we know in Scientology. But way back in Book One and several times after, notably 8-80, we had a tone scale up which the pc climbed as he was processed.

We meet up with this again running the Helatrobus Implants as a whole track fact.

The pc rises in tone up to the lower levels of the tone scale. He or she comes up to degradation, up to apathy.

And it often feels horrible and, unlike an ARC Break and the Sad Effect, is not cured except by more of the same processing.

People complain of their emotionlessness. Well, they come up a long ways before they even reach emotion.

Then suddenly they realize that they have come up to being able to feel bad. They even come up to feeling pain. And all that is a gain. They don’t confuse this too much with ARC Breaks but they blame processing. And then one day they realize that they can feel apathy! And it’s a win amongst wins. Before it was just wood.

And this has an important bearing on ARC Breaks.

Everything on the whole Know to Mystery Scale that still lies above the pc finds the pc at effect. These are all on Automatic.

Therefore the pc in an ARC Break is in the grip of the reaction which was in the incident, now fully on automatic.

The pc’s anger in the incident is not even seen or felt by the pc. But the moment something slips the pc is in the grip of that emotion as an automaticity and becomes furious or apathetic or whatever toward the auditor.

None is more amazed at himself or herself than the pc in the grip of the ARC Break emotion. The pc is a helpless rag, being shaken furiously by the emotions he or she felt in the incident.

Therefore, never discipline or Q and A with an ARC Broken pc. Don’t join hands with his bank to punish him. Just find the By-Passed Charge and the automaticity will shut off at once to everyone’s relief.

Running Routine 3 is only unpleasant and unhappy to the degree that the auditor fails to quickly spot and announce By-Passed Charge. If he fails to understand this and recognize this, his pcs will ARC Break as surely as a ball falls when dropped.

If an auditor has ARC Breaky pcs only one thing is basically wrong—that auditor consistently misses charge or consistently fails to anticipate missed charge.

One doesn’t always have to run the earliest. But one had better not ignore the consequences of not pointing it out. One doesn’t have to discharge every erg from an RI always but one had better not hide the fact from the pc.

The adroit auditor is one who can spot earlier charge or anticipate ARC Breaks by seeing where charge is getting missed and taking it up with the pc. That auditor’s pcs have only the discomfort of the gradually rising tone and not the mess of ARC Breaks.

It is possible to run almost wholly without ARC Breaks and possible to stop them in seconds, all by following the rule: DON’T BY-PASS CHARGE UNKNOWN TO THE PC.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 19 MARCH 1971
Remimeo

LIST—1—C

L1C
(Cancels earlier L1 Lists
such as HCO B 8 Aug 70)

Used by Auditors in session when an upset occurs, or as ordered by C/S.

Handles ARC Broken, Sad, hopeless or nattery pcs.

Questions can be prefaced with “Recently” “In this life” “On the Whole Track” or used without.

DO NOT USE ON HIGH TA TO BRING IT DOWN. USE HI-LO TA LIST.

TAKE ALL READING ITEMS OR VOLUNTEERED ANSWERS Earlier Similar to F/N as they occur.

1.	 Has there been an error in listing?
	(If this reads change to L4B at once.)
2.	 Has a withhold been missed?
3.	 Has some emotion been rejected?
4.	 Has some affinity been rejected?
5.	 Has a reality been refused?
6.	 Has a communication been cut short?
7.	 Has a communication been ignored?
8.	 Has an earlier rejection of emotion been restimulated?
9.	 Has an earlier rejection of affinity been restimulated?
10.	 Has an earlier refusal of reality been restimulated?
11.	 Has an earlier ignored communication been restimulated?
12.	 Has something been misunderstood?
13.	 Has someone been misunderstood?
14.	 Has an earlier misunderstanding been restimulated?
15.	 Has some data been confusing?
16.	 Has there been a command you haven’t understood?
17.	 Has there been some word you haven’t known the meaning of?

18.	 Has there been some situation you haven’t grasped?
19.	 Has there been a problem?
20.	 Has a wrong reason for an upset been given?
21.	 Has a similar incident occurred before?
22.	 Has something been done other than what was said?
23.	 Has a goal been disappointed?
24.	 Has some help been rejected?
25.	 Has a decision been made?
26.	 Has an engram been restimulated?
27.	 Has an earlier incident been restimulated?
28.	 Has there been a sudden shift of attention?
29.	 Has something startled you?
30.	 Has a perception been prevented?
31.	 Has a willingness not been acknowledged?
32.	 Has there been no auditing?
33.	 Did you go Exterior?
34.	 Have actions been interrupted?
35.	 Have actions continued too long?
36.	 Has data been invalidated?
37.	 Has someone evaluated?
38.	 Has something been O/Run?
39.	 Has an action been unnecessary?

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

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

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

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

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

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

AND—LETTING THE TONE ARM BLOW DOWN.

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

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

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

Why do you want to bring the TA down?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some of the questions you could ask are:

“Do you have your attention on any thing?

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

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

“How have things been going lately?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DON’T GET ACCUSATIVE OR ABUSIVE OR EVALUATIVE.

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

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

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

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

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

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

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

The right way to handle a high TA is to:

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

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

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

He should have a standing order with all his auditors:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smoothly handling such situations is the mark of an expert.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 APRIL 1970

Remimeo
2 WAY COMM C/Ses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

W/S

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

The C/S needs the data.

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

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

MAXIM

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

2 WAY COMM AUDITOR

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

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

METER

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

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

                                       					L. RON HUBBARD
                                       					Founder

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 JUNE 1965

Remimeo
Review Hats
Qual Division

RELEASE, REHABILITATION OF
FORMER RELEASES AND
THETAN EXTERIORS

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

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

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

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

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

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

The exact tech follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LIABILITY

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

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

TECH COMMENT

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

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JULY AD15
Remimeo
Tech Div Hats
Qual Div Hats
Classes III & IV
Students

RELEASE REHABILITATION
Refers to and amplifies
HCOB 30 June 1965

In doing a Former Release rehabilitation, if you find the point of key-out of the moment the pc was formerly released, and then the moment of key-in afterwards and then get the pc to Itsa these alternate points, one after the other, with a bit of guiding when you see a fall (telling the pc [who is thinking] the needle fell by saying, “What’s that?”), and then if you get off any unacknowledgment by the auditor in the rehabilitation session, and if you handle all such moments in the pc’s auditing history, recent or distant, you will get the TA down and momentary floats of the needle.

Then if you end it with the pc happy and all well in the release rehabilitation session, the pc will feel terrific and you will probably have regained the floating needle.

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

By hitting the key-out, then the key-in in that former session where the pc went release, he or she really gets the charge off it and you’ve regained it.

I daresay you could take a stuck TA at 5 on an old-time pc and by locating the moments when he or she felt good in sessions and handling each one in turn until you get the pc happy he or she has “got it”, you would eventually get the TA to clear read and a momentary or continuously floating needle.

It’s gentle.

The only goof you can really make, aside from comm cycle and code breaks, is not to quit when the needle floats in your rehabilitation session.

The rule of ALL processing is NEVER RUN A PROCESS FURTHER THAN IT PRODUCES A FLOATING NEEDLE WITH THE TA BETWEEN 2 AND 3.

This applies to former release rehabilitating session as well. When that needle floats again, if it does, you have to gently “That’s it” and desist and send to Declare? To go on is to overaudit.

Good hunting.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 AUGUST 1965
Remimeo
Tech Div Hats	    Star Rated on all Check-Outs
Qual Div Hats
Classes III & IV
Students	       
RELEASE GOOFS

1. Overrun

The first goof relating to Releases is the one done for 15 years—running past a free, floating needle on any type of process. THIS is the goof that held back all Scientology. And if it continues to be done, known as well as it is now that you mustn’t, one can only consider it suppressive—not just ignorant—as who now doesn’t know you wreck a Release by running past the floating needle?

2. Rehabilitation Goof

Not doing a Rehabilitation by the book, HCOB 30 June 1965, HCOB 21 July AD15 and now this one would constitute a breach of tech.

To say you are “Rehabilitating a Former Release” and yet do only current rudiments is, of course, a lie.

Rehabilitation is an exact series of actions covered in the above HCOBs and NOTHING ELSE.

I have seen a case being given an assist on PTPs and current ARC Breaks and had the auditor say, “Oh yes, I’m following orders. I’m rehabilitating a former release.”

Rehabilitation of a Former Release is a PRECISE SET OF ACTIONS covered only in the above HCOBs and this one.

One only does THOSE actions given in these HCOBs.

3. Rough Comm Cycle

The roughness of the Auditor’s Comm Cycle can prevent, not only a Release from occurring but can prevent rehabilitation.

All auditing is best done muzzled with the auditor drilled on Mutter TRs.

4. Meter Misuse

In Step I of HCOB 30 June 65 it says, “Loosely locate the session or time in which it (Release) occurred.”

This means a METER DATING.

By “loosely” is meant to the year, month and day, not the minute. You can of course locate to the hour.

ADD AS THE PRIMARY STEP TO HCOB 30 JUNE 65

1. LIST AND EXACTLY DATE BY METER EACH AND EVERY TIME THE PC HAS ATTAINED A STATE OF RELEASE IN THIS LIFETIME.

That should dispel any doubts about what rehabilitation of former release is aiming to do.

ADD ALSO AS A PARAGRAPH IN HCOB 30 JUNE 1965:

IF THE PC’S NEEDLE GOES FREE WITH THE TONE ARM BETWEEN 2 AND 3 ON A CALIBRATED METER, CEASE REHABILITATION AT THAT INSTANT AND DECLARE. DO NOT CONTINUE BEYOND THE FLOATING NEEDLE ON A REHABILITATION EITHER.

IF A PC’S NEEDLE FLOATS DOING THE HCO POLICY LETTER FORM 26 JUNE 65 CEASE AT THAT INSTANT AND SEND TO GET THE STATE DECLARED. DO NOT KEEP ON DOING THE FORM PAST FLOATING NEEDLE EITHER.

IN FACT DON’T CONTINUE ANY PROCESS OR AUDITING BEYOND A FLOATING NEEDLE. YOU CAN SHIFT FROM PROCESS TO PROCESS, A FREE NEEDLE ATTAINED ON EACH ONLY IN POWER PROCESSING AND ONLY ON R6-GPMI.

An auditor must also realize that handling current matters and all on a former release in a rehabilitation is violating further the rule DON’T AUDIT PAST A FLOATING NEEDLE. The whole trouble with the pc was auditing beyond Release. Therefore in rehabilitation even ruds are just more auditing aren’t they? You can only do HCOB 30 June 65 and its further HCOBs.

5. Not Recognizing a Floating Needle

Floating needle, free needle are the same thing. What does one look like? Once you’ve seen one you’ll never make a mistake on one again. For it floats. It ceases to register on the pc’s bank. It just idly floats about or won’t stand up even at low sensitivity.

The TA goes to any place between 2 and 3 and the needle floats.

Differences in cans used as electrodes and not keeping the meter calibrated with 5,000 ohm and 12,500 ohm resistors clipped between the two cans and setting the TA to (F) and (M) can lead an auditor to “find” a floating needle at TA 3.8 but ignore it because the meter is out.

Also, two meters used can both be out. Particularly if the wrong cans are used.

Steel cans, chromium plated or tin plated (like ordinary vegetable soup tin cans) are the best electrodes.

6. Not Getting Them All

Not getting every time the pc has been a Release in this lifetime can be a big goof.

Sometimes the last one is just yesterday, but omitting it can halt rehabilitation.

Getting whole track (before this lifetime) former release periods is of questionable benefit but cannot be ruled out.

7. Pc’s Own Purposes

The leader in making a high state of being collapse (given an R6 bank) is the pc’s own purposes.

A person shot up scale can postulate. Postulating going down scale or an attack on something can collapse a state of release.

Protest, wanting to get even, revenge are some things that a pc postulated that made him go back into the bank.

It’s a goof for a pc to postulate himself down scale or to postulate himself right by showing another he is wrong.

This is why Class IV processing (Service Fac) can so easily make a 1st Stage Release.

8. Declare Errors

Sometimes a pc is not rehabilitated yet is so declared. This causes a serious upset.

Sometimes the Examiner fails to detect the flaw that the pc doesn’t think he was released and passes the pc.

Sometimes the Examiner challenges and fiddles about too much. This is a withhold of acknowledgment of the state and will cause an upset before it can be awarded.

9. Unalert Org

An org which is not alert to the way SPs go for new releases when the release is still finding his or her “feet” will make very few that remain stable.

If an org develops a lazy attitude toward auditor and personnel discipline then two things happen:

(a) 	Auditors and execs alike think it is all right to audit past a floating needle on a form, action or process or

(b) 	Start declaring people who aren’t released.

Either way is catastrophe. The middle road of honest and precise tech is vital.

Auditors with sloppy comm cycles almost never release anyone to floating needle. Such begin to believe it is “all gas” so it doesn’t matter what they do.

An org not alert to what a bad comm cycle can do to prevent release is “for it” as tech will fade.

Summary

For fifteen years auditors have made and then undone keyed-out-clearing all over the world.

We can then assume that, as they had the data about floating needles in 1958 and did not heed it, we will have this battle with us from here on.

The end product of all auditing right up to clear is a floating needle.

There is no other end product from the auditors’ viewpoint.
So, shall we get on with it, see it when it occurs and declare it?

Please?

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 SEPTEMBER 1968
	
Remimeo
DRUGS & TRIPPERS

Any case that won’t run or won’t rehab is probably a “tripper”, meaning somebody who has taken drugs.

Standard practice for anyone who has ever taken drugs or even alcohol is to rehabilitate the moments of releases in these.

Drugs (or alcohol) give an enforced moment or period of release. It is surrounded in mass.

LSD, marijuana (pot, hashish), peyote, opium, ether (in operations), nitrous oxide (laughing gas in dental operations), weird “biochemical” compounds used by “psychiatrists”, Benzedrine, solid alcohol (canned heat), alcohol, turpentine, gasoline, witch herbs of various kinds, and even certain rays, in this lifetime and on the back track, could have caused a moment of release.

Death does also but it’s a bit steep to rehab.

In a rehab session, or before such a this lifetime one is audited on grades, the moments of release should be rehabbed.

The C/S directs this to be done before a rehab of ARC Straight Wire.

Such releases usually need rehabbing only once.

Tough rehabbing and probably all “Black Vs” probably trace to these chemical “releases” .

They are deadly because they give the sensation of release while actually pulling in mass.

When “All black” reads on a GF one of these chemical release periods is probably in restim.

These “Chemical releases” give us a lot of trouble unless (a) detected and (b) rehabbed.

Such pcs often withhold the fact (non-acceptable or discreditable datum) quite madly and thus make detection difficult unless directly asked for on a hard to run case.

Such persons can also be a mess on III if the chemical period rehabs aren’t done.

Delusory or dub-in cases also sometimes trace to chemical “releases”.

Painkillers, tranquilizers or morphine can also be explored where no “drug taking” is traced.

All the above come under the heading of forceful exteriorization and can inhibit the act of exteriorization on V.

Such pcs are a bit blank, irresponsible or detached.

Each TYPE of chemical which produced “release” must be rehabbed and it is best to count how many times released on each type.

	                        					L. RON HUBBARD	
						            	Founder  

LRH:jp.mes.rd         
Copyright ©1968, 1972					
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	                        

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 DECEMBER 1971
REISSUED 21 SEPTEMBER 1974
(Only change is signature)

Remimeo
Class VII Auditors
All Auditors
Class VII Course	IMPORTANT
C/Ses
Class IV Checksheet

END PHENOMENAS

Feeding the pc the End Phenomena of a process or action is illegal and very out-tech.

Example: Auditor asks pc “Since the last session did _____(stating the E/P) ?”

Or “In this session did _____(stating the E/P) ?”

This is evaluating for the pc. The pc has to make it himself then he truly makes it.

The correct way to check to see if a pc has made an E/P (rare as pcs usually tell their auditor their cogs, etc) would be to ask “Did anything occur?” or “Since your last session did anything occur?” If the pc then states the E/P or words to that effect, with F/N and VGIs, the process can be terminated or if necessary, rehabbed and terminated. If the pc does not state the E/P the auditor then knows to continue the process.

These actions apply very definitely to Power Processing—where earlier HCOBs state the auditor can check to find out if the E/P occurred between sessions.

Usually sessions aren’t ended before F/N, VGIs and E/P on a process. It’s easier on the C/S, auditor and pc to complete a cycle of action in the one session.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

LRH:nt.rd jh 
Copyright ©1971, 1974 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 DECEMBER 1971
REISSUED 21 SEPTEMBER 1974
(Only change is signature)

Remimeo
Class VII Auditors
All Auditors
Class VII Course	IMPORTANT
C/Ses
Class IV Checksheet

END PHENOMENAS

Feeding the pc the End Phenomena of a process or action is illegal and very out-tech.

Example: Auditor asks pc “Since the last session did _____(stating the E/P) ?”

Or “In this session did _____(stating the E/P) ?”

This is evaluating for the pc. The pc has to make it himself then he truly makes it.

The correct way to check to see if a pc has made an E/P (rare as pcs usually tell their auditor their cogs, etc) would be to ask “Did anything occur?” or “Since your last session did anything occur?” If the pc then states the E/P or words to that effect, with F/N and VGIs, the process can be terminated or if necessary, rehabbed and terminated. If the pc does not state the E/P the auditor then knows to continue the process.

These actions apply very definitely to Power Processing—where earlier HCOBs state the auditor can check to find out if the E/P occurred between sessions.

Usually sessions aren’t ended before F/N, VGIs and E/P on a process. It’s easier on the C/S, auditor and pc to complete a cycle of action in the one session.

                                        	L. RON HUBBARD
                                        	Founder

LRH:nt.rd jh 
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

20 AUGUST 1970R
REVISED & REISSUED 19 AUGUST 1974 AS BTB

(REVISION IN ITALICS)
All Cksheets		           
Class III			           		     
CANCELS
HCO BULLETIN OF 20 AUGUST 1970
SAME TITLE

TWO COMPLETE DIFFERENCES

ASSESSMENT

LISTING AND NULLING

ASSESSMENT IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SUBJECT FROM LISTING AND NULLING.

LISTING AND NULLING IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SUBJECT FROM ASSESSMENT.

Please get these differences very clearly. They are completely different actions. They are even years apart in development. They have nothing to do with each other.

ASSESSMENT

Assessment is an action done from a prepared list. A PREPARED list.

The list is prepared by the Auditor or the C/S or it is an HCOB of prepared lists. It is done by someone other than the PC.

The prepared list for an Assessment is not made up by the preclear.

Assessment is done exactly per the Book of E-Meter Drills, Number 24.

Assessment is NOT done by the Laws of Listing and Nulling.

Assessment has nothing to do with S & Ds, Remedy A or Remedy B (which are Listing and Nulling actions).

Assessment is not auditing. It is simply trying to locate something to audit.

You say the words on the prepared list right to the PC’s bank, bang, bang, marking the reads, and go through the list of reading items until you are left with one reading item. That is the item.

To get a clue as to what happened, the C/S prepares a list, and the Auditor starts assessing with the list already written out,

The Auditor calls out each item and notes its read as follows:

lions  X
Big Game  SF

Cats  X

Felines  SF

Tigers  X

Bearers  X

Trucks  X

 Elephants  X

Killing

Camping  X

Three items are now reading after the first assessment . The Auditor continues to assess the reading items on the list by elimination down to ONE item. On the second assessment the list looks like this:

lions  X

Big Game  SF  X

Cats  X

Felines  SF  X

Tigers  X

Bearers  X

Trucks  X

Elephants  X

Killing  F  LFBD

Camping  X

Now the item left in is “Killing”.  It is circled.

That is the item.  The C/S now knows where the charge lies.

This item is prepchecked or done on an L1 as a subject or otherwise handled as directed by the C/S.

Sometimes some items will read three or four times, but the action is the same. The Auditor assesses the reading items by elimination down to one item. And that is all there is to it. If the item “killing” also had an F/N, the item would not be handled further as the charge will have blown.

LISTING AND NULLING

Listing and Nulling is an action whereby the PC gives items in answer to the Auditor’s listing question-

It is the Preclear who lists. Listing and Nulling is listed by the preclear. This is done precisely per the Laws of Listing and Nulling. (HCOB 1 August 1968).

There is no Listing and Nulling drill in the Book of E-Meter Drills.

The Auditor asks the listing question, if it reads he asks the PC the question, the PC answers, item, item, item, item. The Auditor writes the items down as the PC gives them noting the read or no read as the PC gives the item. The Auditor then nulls the list per the Laws of Listing and Nulling.

In Listing and Nulling, there should be ONLY ONE reading item on the list after nulling.

You don’t go over and over the reading items by a process of elimination. You may extend the list if more than one item is reading on nulling.

In its finest form, Listing and Nulling is done to LFBD F/N.

The Auditor says the listing question to the PC, checks whether it read and notes the reads per Number 6 of the Laws of Listing and Nulling.

Ideally, the following would happens.

The Auditor checks the question “Who got shot?” It gets a long fall, so it is reading well. Auditor writes the read beside the question. Then the Auditor gives the PC the question with good TR 8, and PC gives items. The Auditor writes the PC’s items down, noting whether the item read and the read as the PC gives it. The first reads therefore is always the read the item gave as the PC said it.

“Who got shot?” LF

Me  X

Joe  X

Bearers

Elephants  X

Tigers

The Buffalo  X

IND.	The White Hunter LFBD F/N

Bearers  F  X

Elephants  F  X

Tigers  F  X

The Buffalo  X  X

EXT

The Dog  X  X

IND	The White Hunter LFBD LFBD F/N

“The White Hunter will BD F/N because it is the item. The Auditor gives the item to the PC. The PC will have Cogs and VGIs. It might happen that the PC tells the Auditor that this is the item, at which point the Auditor would pleasantly say “thank you. ‘The White Hunter’ is your item.” of he could just smile and say “Thank you”, in acknowledgment. But the point is that he would never chop the PC’s Cog or enforce his presence on the PC while this is happening.

GOOD TRs ARE VITAL.

And this is the way you do Listing and Nulling.

You get an LFBD F/N while Listing or while Nulling, if you’re a flubless Auditor. It is the finest hand that gets it while Listing and never has to get to the Nulling stage. However, both are excellent. A list that has to be nulled to cm LFBD item is acceptable, but not worthy of praise.

There is of course one other place where you could get an LFBD F/N in Listing and Nulling - which is while checking the listing question for read before listing. You could get an F/N on checking the question, and the PC could start cogging and blow the whole subject. When that happens, the subject has blown. Don’t do anything more with it. Indicate the F/N and let the PC have his Cog and VGIs.

Listing and Nulling is so simple. Have perfect TRs, know the Laws of Listing and Nulling, and do it as shown above.

Any Auditor who consistently cannot get an LFBD F/N while Listing and Nulling should retrain on Listing and Nulling. It is more than likely he’ll find he has bought some one else’s misunderstoods or considerations on the subject.

As a matter of fact, Listing and Nulling is a breeze and don’t let anyone try to tell you otherwise.

Prepared from LRH lectures,
C/Ses and HCOBs
by CS-4

Revised & Reissued as BTB
by Flag Mission 1234

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

Authorized by AVU

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 20 APRIL 1972
Issue II
Remimeo
C/S Series 78

PRODUCT PURPOSE AND WHY AND
WC ERROR CORRECTION

Where untrained Auditors are finding Whys for a Danger Formula, or post purposes or post products as called for in the Est O System you will get a certain amount of error and case disturbance. Such upsets also come from word clearing by incompetent persons.

The C/S should look for these especially when such campaigns are in progress. He should suspect them as a possibility when a case bogs.

A C/S must be sure all such papers and worksheets get into pc’s folders.

A common repair action is to

1. 	Do an assessment for type of charge.

2. 	Handle the charge found by the assessment done.

3. 	Fly all the reading items found on such assessments by 2wc or direct handling.

4. 	Suspect LISTING ERRORS on any Why or purpose or product found even though no list exists and reconstruct the list and L4B and handle it.

5. 	Handle word clearing of any type in or out of session with a Word Clear Correction List done in session by an Auditor.

6. 	When word clearing is too heavy on the pc or doesn’t clean up suspect he has been thrown into implants which are mostly words or the words in some engram. As Implants are actually just engrams, handle it with an L3B.

LISTING

Any item found out of session or by a non-auditor is suspect of being a Listing and Nulling (L&N) error even though no list was made.

TODAY A CORRECT L&N ITEM MUST BD AND F/N.

So treat such items as you would list errors and try to reconstruct the list and either confirm the item or locate the real item (may have been invalidated and suppressed) or extend the list and get the real item.

The real item will BD F/N.

One can establish what the situation is with a post purpose, a Why or a product or any other such item by doing an L4B.

SELF AUDITING

The commonest reason for self auditing is a wrong or unfound L&N item.

People can go around and self list or self audit trying to get at the right Why or product or purpose after an error has been made.

REACTION

NOTHING PRODUCES AS MUCH CASE UPSET AS A WRONG LIST ITEM OR A WRONG LIST.

Even, rarely, a DIANETIC LIST can produce wrong list reactions. Ask the pc for his somatics and he blows up or goes into apathy. Or blows. Or attacks the auditor.

ALL of the more violent or bad reactions on the part of the pc come from out lists.

Nothing else produces such a sharp deterioration in a case or even illness.

OUT LISTS

Therefore when one gets a sharp change in a case (like lowered tone, violence, blows, “determination to go on in spite of the supervisor”, long notes from pcs, self C/Sing, etc, etc, the C/S SUSPECTS AN OUT LIST.

This outness can occur in regular sessions even when the item was said to BD F/N.

It can occur in “Coffee shop” (out of session auditing of someone), or by Est Os or poorly trained or untrained staff members or even in life.

PTS

When such actions as finding items by non-auditors are done on PTS people the situation can be bad, so one also suspects the person to be PTS to someone or something.

“PTS” does not communicate well in an assessment question so one says, “Someone or something is hostile to you” and “You are connected to someone or something that doesn’t agree with Dianetics or Scientology.”

REPAIRS

The main things to know when doing such repairs are (a) that such situations as wrong lists or upset people can occur in an org where untrained people are also using meters and (b) THAT IT IS UP TO THE C/S TO SUSPECT DETECT AND GET THEM HANDLED IN REGULAR SESSION.

Do not ignore the possible bad influence.

As the good outweighs the bad in such cases, it is not a correct answer to forbid such actions.

It is a correct answer to require all such actions and worksheets become part of the folder.

One can also persuade the D of T or Qual to gen in the people doing such actions. And do not ignore the effect such actions can have on cases and do not neglect to include them in C/Ses before going on with the regular program.

They can all be repaired.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 1 AUGUST 1968

Remimeo

CLASS III, SOLO VI & VII, ACADEMY AND SHSBC
REQUIRED REVIEWED FOR SOLO AND VII

(Compiled from earlier HCOBs and TAPES of
the early 60’s to give the exact stable data)

THE LAWS OF LISTING AND NULLING

(Star Rate. No attestations
allowed, clay and demos required)

The following laws are the ONLY important rules of listing and nulling. If an auditor doesn’t know these he will mess up pcs thoroughly and awfully. An auditor who doesn’t know and can’t apply these is not a Level III auditor.

LAWS

1. 	The definition of a complete list is a list which has only one reading item on list.

2. 	A TA rising means the list is being overlisted (too long).

3. 	A list can be underlisted in which case nothing can be found on nulling.

4. 	If after a session the TA is still high or goes up, a wrong item has been found.

5. 	If pc says it is a wrong item it is a wrong item.

6. 	The question must be checked and must read as a question before it is listed. An item listed from a non-reading question will give you a “Dead Horse” (no item).

7. 	If the item is on the list and nothing read on nulling, the item is suppressed or invalidated.

8. 	On a suppressed list, it must be nulled with suppressed. “On ....has anything been suppressed.”

9. 	On an item that is suppressed or invalidated the read will transfer exactly from the item to the button and when the button is gotten in the item will again read.

10. 	An item from an overlisted list is often suppressed.

11. 	On occasion when you pass the item in nulling, all subsequent items will read to a point where everything on list will then read. In this case take the first which read on first nulling.

12. 	An underlisted and overlisted list will ARC break the pc and he may refuse to be audited until list is corrected, and may become furious with auditor and will remain so till it is corrected.

13. 	Listing and nulling or any auditing at all beyond an ARC Br without handling the ARC Break first such as correcting the list or otherwise locating it will put a pc into a “sad effect”.

 14. 	A pc whose attention is on something else won’t list easily. (List and null only with the rudiments in on the pc.)

15. 	An auditor whose TRs are out has difficulty in listing and nulling and in finding items.

16. 	Listing and nulling errors in presence of Auditor’s Code violations can unstabilize a pc.

17. 	The lack of a specific listing question or an incorrect non-standard listing question which doesn’t really call for item will give you more than one item reading on a list.

18. 	You cease listing and nulling actions when a floating needle appears.

19. 	Always give a pc his item and circle it plainly on the list.

20. 	Listing and nulling are highly precise auditing actions and if not done exactly by the laws may bring about a down tone and slow case gain, but if done correctly exactly by the laws and with good auditing in general will produce the highest gains attainable.

NOTE: There are no variations or exceptions to the above. (Does not alter 5A Power procedure.)

A failure to know and apply this bulletin will result in the assignment of very low conditions as these laws, if not known or followed, can halt case gain.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 22 AUGUST 1966
Remimeo
All Exec Hats
Qual Hats
Tech Hats
HCO Hats	
FLOATING NEEDLES, LISTING PROCESSES

In sessions where the process being run on a pc involves a listing question (including S & D), please note that after the listing question has been thoroughly cleared with the preclear and then given to the pc that the process is being run.

Should it happen, then, that while the pc is actually listing off the question (and has not gone momentarily out of session), the needle floats, this is the flat point or end phenomenon of the process and the whole subject and all further steps of it are dropped at once.

Whatever charge was on the listing question has blown, either with or without the preclear being analytically aware of it.

To continue the process beyond this point is Out Tech by the process being overrun and is also a violation of our basic Fast Flow System.

Please note that whether there is a second leg to the process or not, like fitting an item found off a list into a bracket of commands, has no bearing on the fact that the process is flat.

If the needle floats while the pc is in session listing off a question, then there is no charge left on that question and there will be no item to fit into the second leg of the process.

The process has served its purpose.

With training as immaculately precise as it is and auditors’ comm cycles becoming effortlessly superlative, the gradients of our technology are so fine that the results of each process on each level will be achieved faster and faster.

Sometimes the velocity of the processing is such that the end phenomenon will occur on the process without the preclear being aware of what has happened. Ending the process at this point then gives the preclear the chance to move into the velocity of the process.

Please then acknowledge the power of our technology and keep winning.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 MAY 1970

Remimeo

UNREADING QUESTIONS AND ITEMS

(With particular reference to doing
a Group Engram Intensive)

Never list a listing question that doesn’t read.

Never prepcheck an item that doesn’t read.

These rules hold good for all lists, all items, even DIANETICS.

A “tick” or a “stop” is not a read. Reads are small falls or falls or long falls or long fall blowdown (of TA).

A preclear’s case can be gotten into serious trouble by listing a list that doesn’t read or prepchecking or running an item that doesn’t read.

On a list, this is the sort of thing that happens:

The List is “Who or what would fly kites?” The C/S has said to “List this to a BD F/N Item”. So the auditor does list it without checking the read at all. The list can go on 99 pages with the pc protesting, getting upset. This is called a “Dead horse list” because it gave no item. The reason it didn’t was that the list question itself didn’t read. One does an L4 on the pc to correct the situation and gets “Unnecessary action”.

On a list that is getting no item you don’t extend. You correctly use L4 or any subsequent issue of it. If you extend a “dead horse list” you just make things worse. Use an L4 and it will set it right.

This weird thing can also happen. C/S says to list “Who or what would kill buffaloes?” The auditor does, gets a BD F/N Item “A Hunter”. The C/S also says to list as a second action “Who or what would feel tough?” The auditor fails to test the Question for read and lists it. Had he tested it, the list would not have read. But the list comes up with an item, “A mean hunter”. It has stirred up charge from the first question and the item “A mean hunter” is a wrong item as it is a misworded variation of the first list’s item! Now we have an unnecessary action and a wrong item. We do an L4 and the pc is still upset as maybe only one or the other of the two errors read.
____________

In a Dianetic “list” one is not doing a listing action. One is only trying to find a somatic or sensation, etc that will run. The item must read well. Or it won’t produce a chain to run. In actual fact the Dn list Q does usually read but one doesn’t bother to test it.

But an item that doesn’t read will produce no chain, no basic and the pc will jump around the track trying but just jamming up his bank.

The moral of this story is:

ALWAYS TEST A LISTING QUESTION BEFORE LETTING THE PC LIST.
ALWAYS MARK THE READ IT GAVE (sF, F, LF, LFBD) ON THE WORKSHEET.

ALWAYS TEST AN ITEM FOR READ BEFORE PREPCHECKING OR RUNNING RECALL OR ENGRAMS.

ALWAYS MARK THE READ AN ITEM GAVE (sF, F, LF, LFBD) ON THE WORKSHEET.

CHARGE

The whole subject of “charge” is based on this. “Charge” is the electrical impulse on the case that activates the meter.

“Charge” shows not only that an area has something in it. It also shows that the pc has possible reality on it.

A pc can have a broken leg, yet it might not read on a meter. It would be charged but below the pc’s reality. So it won’t read.

THINGS THAT DON’T READ WON’T RUN.

The Case Supervisor always counts on the AUDITOR to test Questions and Items for read before running them.

The auditor, when a Question or Item doesn’t read, can and should always put in “Suppress” and “Invalidate”. “On this (Question) (Item), has anything been Suppressed?” “On this (Question) (Item), has anything been Invalidated?” If either one read, the question or item will also read. The Case Supervisor also counts on the AUDITOR to use Suppress and Invalidate on a Question or Item. If after this there is still no read on the Question or Item, that’s it. Don’t use it, don’t list it. Go to the next action on the C/S or end off.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD
                                        					Founder

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 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 19 NOVEMBER 1978
Auditors 
Class IV
and above	URGENT—IMPORTANT
C/Ses
Class IV
and above	L & N LISTS—THE ITEM “ME”

RULE: THE ITEM “ME” MUST BE ACCEPTED ON ANY S & D LIST.

RULE: THE ITEM “ME” MUST NEVER BE REPRESENTED.

The item “Me” on an L & N list must be accepted as the item, as it is basically the only right item there could be for an identity or valence list.

The item “Me” often appears on S & D lists, or similar L & N lists which ask for an identity or valence. If it is not accepted, or if it is represented, it will really mess up the case. (This includes the pronouns, “myself,” and “I.”)

The right thing to do when the pc gives this item, is to accept it as the item for the list, and do not continue that list or take any further action with that item.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:dm.clb 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 11 APRIL 1977
Remimeo
Level III
Level IV
Snr Class IV	LIST ERRORS
Ex Dn	CORRECTION OF
All Cl IV Auditors

It has been found that the correction of lists, a very vital piece of tech, has been a source of confusion in the field as it apparently has never been written up in an issue. It really is simple if you know your Laws of L & N.

VERIFYING A LIST

The correct procedure for verifying/correcting past L & Ns is to check the items as to whether or not they are correct. Then do an L4BRA on each list where the item is found to be incorrect. You would have to orient the pc to the listing question and the item. You do not direct the question to see if it read. And don’t just do an L4BRA and then not find the right item for the pc as part of the handling (unless the question proves to be uncharged or some such).

NULLING A LIST

One nulls a list when he doesn’t get a BD F/N item on listing. The Laws of L & N strictly apply. An L4BRA would be used if the action bogs with still no item found. One would also null lists the pc made where no item had been found such as a 2WC which turned into a listing action with the pc giving off items or a list the pc somehow made while not on a meter. In these cases there is no item to verify with the pc as correct. Just cull the items into a list, work out with the pc what the question was if it’s not already noted, and null the list.

RECONSTRUCTING A LIST

Sometimes you just don’t have the list and can’t get it or it’s an old Why Finding or PTS interview for which there are no worksheets. In this case you get from the pc what the question was and then get him to give you the items that were already on the list as the item probably was already on the list and you don’t want the pc to get into newly listing the question in PT and then getting into an overlisting situation. Just get him to give you the items he had already put on the list and more often than not you will get a BD F/N item. If you don’t get the item that way then you can extend the list.

SELF-LISTING

Watch it on these as every random stray thought a person has about “why this or that” does not mean it’s a self-list. But do look for it on a person who is manifesting the horrendous BPC an out list can generate, who is introspected or has been trying to figure out who is doing him in after just having seen the Ethics Officer. Just don’t get into trying to make a list out of some non-standard listing question that won’t give you an item. And actually the usual reason for self-listing is a prior wrong L & N item or an item not found. People will self-list to try to find the right item. So find and correct the earlier out list.

LIST CORRECTION BLOW-UP
When you are going along correcting lists and suddenly you get a big pc blow-up and it is not resolving on the list you are correcting you had better quickly realize that you probably are not correcting the list that is out and you’d better find out which list it is. There is usually an earlier out list to be found, if the list you are correcting does not resolve the upset.

LISTS NOT READING

When you start getting key lists such as Grades III and IV not reading and no items found it’s time for that auditor to get a thorough overhaul on his metering, eyesight and to get off all his MUs on L & N. You also could be setting the pc up for a self-listing situation as he has been given the listing question but no item has been found. So be very sure the question did not read even with Suppress and Inval and TRs were in before getting off a key L & N process.

USE OF L4BRA

The prepared list L4BRA corrects L & N lists. It can be run on old lists, current lists, general listing. When a pc is ill after a listing and nulling session or up to 3 days after, always suspect that a listing action done on the pc had an error in it and get those lists corrected.

Sometimes it is obvious what the error was per the Laws of Listing and Nulling. For example there could be two reading items left on the list in which case you would know to extend the list as it has been underlisted. If this didn’t go, then an L4BRA would be done on the list.

HANDLING AN L4BRA

You handle reading questions on the L4BRA by the directions under the question that read. You don’t just 2WC these questions. For example say question 4 read on the L4BRA, “Is a list incomplete? SF.” You then ask the pc, “What list is incomplete?” Locate it and get it completed to a BD F/N item. You don’t just 2WC “incomplete lists” to an F/N and leave it at that.

By the way the L4BRA is missing a line which is “Was it the first item on the list?” This is being added as it’s quite common that it is the first item and is most often missed.

DO IT RIGHT

An out list can create more concentrated hell with a pc than any other single auditing error. So it’s imperative that listing errors get properly corrected.

The best thing to do is to have the Laws of Listing and Nulling drilled line by line and down cold and just do it right in the first place. Then you will also see at once where old lists violated these laws and you will not be yourself doing lists that have to be corrected later.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

Assisted by
CS-4/5
LRH:JE:dr 
Copyright © 1977 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 16 OCTOBER 1962
Central Orgs 
Franchise
ROUTINE 3GA
LISTING

The reason some pcs go to clear on listing and the reason some don't at once lies entirely with the auditor.

The dominant rules are two:

1. 	Don't force the pc to list more items than he has, and
2. 	Don't prevent the pc from giving items.

The number of ways an auditor can dream up, or overlook, to violate 1 and 2 above are countless.

Example:

If pc can't answer the line easily skip, omit or change it, DON'T Tiger Drill it to force an answer.

LISTING IS NOT PREPCHECKING. You don't wait for the pc to say he has no more before you stop asking a line. THE AUDITOR REGULATES HIS QUESTION BY THE PC'S COMM LAG. When the pc first comm lags (without asking for a repeat of the Line wording) the auditor comes off the line. The auditor doesn't ask the line again just "to make sure" or ask the pc "do you have any more". Asking it again when the pc has comm lagged leaves, amongst other things, an unanswered auditing question.

The line is asked. The pc answers until he or she comm lags. The auditor then acks and goes instantly to next line. If the pc says he has more on the old line, the auditor says "sorry" and takes them.

A LINE IS RUN TO FIRST COMM LAG. How long is a comm lag? It is the pause before the strained grope.

A pc's decline in answering goes as follows:

1. 	Bright rapid giving.
2. 	Comm lag while looking.
3. 	Groping for more.
4. 	Comm lag while groping.
5. 	Can't quite say it.
6. 	Starts picking up and rejecting.

From 3 above onward the auditor is at fault. Right at the end of 2 the auditor acks and gives the pc the next line.

The auditor takes only the bright, easily gotten flows.

If the pc goes fumbling and groggy the auditor is at fault and is doing wrong.

Listing is a rapid action. The way to keep it rapid is to deftly see that the pc has given all and then get out of there!

Auditors whose pcs dope and grope will soon have pcs that mope.

The auditor avoids Q and A. The auditor never repeats an item back to the pc or asks if it fits on the line. The auditor's role is permissive with good presence.

If the auditor does not understand an item he or she says so but does not include any repeat of the item in saying so. That's evaluation.

Listing is slightly contrary to early auditing philosophy. Then, if the pc protested, the auditor forced the pc to answer. In listing this is never done.

Then, if the pc comm lagged, the auditor flattened it. In listing one never flattens a comm lag. One shifts the moment the first comm lag appears, but without startling the pc.

Listing auditing is different. The pc is always right. In listing if you trick a pc into more items and prevent the pc from giving those items he has readily to hand, the whole case may have to be patched up before it will clear.

It is so easy to list right as an auditor that many will fumble all over the place before they get the knack. And almost all errors will be additive errors.

Listing is the biggest barrier to clear now that we can find goals.

Other listing methods may appear, but these will only alter What lines. Nothing is going to alter the above, so you better learn it.

                                        					L. RON HUBBARD

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 DECEMBER 1968RA
(Amends HCO Bulletin of 9 January 1968 List L4A)
Remimeo	(ITEM 6 CORRECTED 12 FEBRUARY 1969)
(Amended 8 August 1970)
(Amended 18 March 1971)
(Revised 2 June 72)
(Re-Revised 11 April 1977)
(Revisions in this type style)

L4BRA

FOR ASSESSMENT OF ALL LISTING ERRORS

ASSESS THE WHOLE LIST (METHOD 5) THEN TAKE biggest reads or BDs and handle. Then clean up the list.

PC’S NAME_____________________________________DATE________________

AUDITOR__________________________________

0.	WAS IT THE FIRST ITEM ON THE LIST?
	(Indicate and give pc his item.)

1. 	DID YOU FAIL TO ANSWER THE LISTING QUESTION? 
	(If it reads, find out what question, clear the question noting whether it reads, if so, list it, find the item and give it to the pc.)

2. 	WAS THE LIST UNNECESSARY? 
	(If it reads, indicate BPC and indicate that it was an unnecessary action.)

2A. 	DID THE QUESTION HAVE NO CHARGE ON IT? 
	( Indicate. )

2B. 	WERE YOU ASHAMED TO CAUSE AN UPSET? 
	(L1C after list corrected.)

2C. 	WERE YOU AMAZED TO REACT THAT WAY? 
	(Same as 2B.)

2D. 	THE QUESTION HAD ALREADY BEEN LISTED BEFORE. 
	(Indicate, rehab.)

2E. 	YOU HAD NO INTEREST IN THE QUESTION? 
	(Indicate that the auditor missed that it didn’t read.)

3. 	WAS THE ACTION DONE UNDER PROTEST? 
	(If it reads, handle by itsa earlier similar itsa.)

4. 	IS A LIST INCOMPLETE? 
	(If reads, find out what list and complete it, give the pc his item.)

5. 	HAS A LIST BEEN LISTED TOO LONG? 
	(If so, find what list and get the item from it by nulling with Suppress, the nulling question being: “On has anything been suppressed?” for each item on the overlong list. Give the pc his item.)
6.	HAS THE WRONG ITEM BEEN TAKEN OFF A LIST?
	(If this reads, put in Suppress and Invalidated on the list and null as in 5 above and find the right item and give to the pc.)

7. 	HAS A RIGHT ITEM BEEN DENIED YOU? 
	(If this reads, find out what it was and clean it up with Suppress and Invalidate and give it to the pc.)

8. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN PUSHED OFF ON YOU YOU DIDN’T WANT? 
	(If so, find it and get in Suppress and Invalidate on it and tell pc it wasn’t his item and continue the original action to find the correct item.)

9. 	HAD AN ITEM NOT BEEN GIVEN YOU? 
	(if reads, handle as in 7.)

10. 	HAVE YOU INVALIDATED A CORRECT ITEM FOUND? 
	(If so, rehab the item and find out why the pc invalidated it or if somebody else did it, clean it up and give it to pc again.)

11. 	HAVE YOU THOUGHT OF ITEMS THAT YOU DID NOT PUT ON THE LIST? 
	(If so, add them to the correct list. Renull the whole list and give the pc the item.)

12. 	HAVE YOU BEEN LISTING TO YOURSELF OUT OF SESSION? 	
	(If so, find out what question and try to write a list from recall and get an item and give it to the pc.)

13. 	HAVE YOU BEEN GIVEN SOMEBODY ELSE’S ITEM? 
	(If so, indicate to the pc this was not his item. Don’t try to find whose it was.)

14. 	HAS YOUR ITEM BEEN GIVEN TO SOMEONE ELSE? 
	(If so, find if possible what item it was and give it to the pc. Don’t try to identify the “somebody else.”)

14A. WERE EARLIER LISTING ERRORS RESTIMULATED? 
	(Indicate and correct earlier lists then check the current.)

14B. HAD THIS LIST ALREADY BEEN HANDLED? 
	(Indicate.)

15.	HAS A RELEASE POINT BEEN BYPASSED ON LISTING? 
	(If so, indicate the overrun to the pc, rehab back.)

16. 	HAS A RELEASE POINT BEEN BYPASSED ON THE QUESTION ONLY? 
	(If so, indicate the overrun to the pc and rehab back.)

17.	HAVE YOU GONE EXTERIOR WHILE LISTING? 
	(If so, rehab. If Ext Rundown not given, note for C/S.)

18. 	HAS IT BEEN AN OVERT TO PUT AN ITEM ON A LIST? 
	(If so, find out what item and why.)

19. 	HAVE YOU WITHHELD AN ITEM FROM A LIST? 
	(If so, get it and add it to the list if that list available. If not put item in the report.)

20. 	HAS A WITHHOLD BEEN MISSED? 
	(If so, get it, if discreditable ask “Who nearly found out?”)

21. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN BYPASSED? 
	(Locate which one.)

22. 	WAS A LISTING QUESTION MEANINGLESS? 
	(If so, find out which one and indicate to the pc.)

23. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN ABANDONED? 
	(If so, locate it and get it back for the pc and give it to him.)

24. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN PROTESTED? 
	(If so, locate it and get the Protest button in on it.)

25. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN ASSERTED? 
	(If so, locate it and get in the Assert button on it.)

26. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN SUGGESTED TO YOU BY ANOTHER? 
	(If so, get it named and the Protest and Refusal off.)

27. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN VOLUNTEERED BY YOU AND NOT ACCEPTED? 
	(If so, get off the charge and give it to the pc, or if he then changes his mind on it, go on with the listing operation.)

28. 	HAS THE ITEM ALREADY BEEN GIVEN? 
	(If so, get it back and give it again.)

29. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN FOUND PREVIOUSLY? 
	(If so, find what it was again and give it to the pc once more.)

30. 	HAS AN ITEM NOT BEEN UNDERSTOOD? 
	(If so, work it over with buttons until pc understands it or accepts or rejects it and go on with listing.)

30A. WAS THE LISTING QUESTION NOT UNDERSTOOD? 
	(Get defined and check for read. It may be unreading. If so, indicate that an uncharged question was listed because it read on a misunderstood.)

30B. WAS A WORD IN THE QUESTION NOT UNDERSTOOD? 
	(Same as 30A.)

31. 	WAS AN ITEM DIFFERENT WHEN SAID BY THE AUDITOR? 
	(If so, find out what the item was and give it to the pc correctly.)

31A. DID THE AUDITOR SUGGEST ITEMS TO YOU THAT WERE NOT YOURS? 
	(Indicate as illegal to do so. Correct the list removing these.)

32. 	WAS NULLING CARRIED ON PAST THE FOUND ITEM? 
	(If so, go back to it and get in Suppress and Protest.)

33. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN FORCED ON YOU? 
	(If so, get off the Reject and Suppress and get the listing action completed to the right item if possible.)

34. 	HAS AN ITEM BEEN EVALUATED? 
	(If so, get off the Disagreement and Protest.)

35. 	HAD EARLIER LISTING BEEN RESTIMULATED? 
	(If so, locate when and indicate the bypassed charge. Find and correct the earlier out list.)

36. 	HAS AN EARLIER WRONG ITEM BEEN RESTIMULATED? 
	(If so, find when and indicate the bypassed charge. Find and correct the earlier out list.)

37. 	HAS AN EARLIER ARC BREAK BEEN RESTIMULATED? 
	(If so, locate and indicate the fact by itsa earlier similar itsa.)

38. 	DO YOU HAVE AN ARC BREAK BECAUSE OF BEING MADE TO DO THIS? 
	(If so, indicate it to the pc. Handle the ARC break. Correct the list if it’s a list ARC break.)

39. 	HAS THE LIST CORRECTION BEEN OVERRUN? 
	(If so, rehab.)

39A. WAS THE LIST DONE WHILE YOU ALREADY HAD AN ARC BRK, PTP OR W/H?

39B. COULDN’T YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS BEING DONE?

39C. COULDN’T YOU UNDERSTAND THE AUDITOR?

39D. DIDN’T THE AUDITOR ACKNOWLEDGE YOU?

40. 	IS THERE SOME OTHER KIND OF BYPASSED CHARGE? 
	(If so, find what and indicate it to pc.)

41. 	WAS THERE NOTHING WRONG IN THE FIRST PLACE? 
	(If so, indicate it to pc.)

42. 	HAS THE UPSET BEEN HANDLED? 
	(If so, indicate it to the pc.)

43. 	HAS A LIST PROCESS BEEN OVERRUN? 
	(If so, find which one and rehab.)

	L. RON HUBBARD
	Founder

	Assisted by CS-4/5

LRH:JE:ldm.rw.dz..rr.nt.dr 
Copyright © 1968, 1972, 1976, 1977 
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

7 NOVEMBER 1972R
Issue I
Revised & Reissued 12 August 1974 as BTB
(Revision in this type style)
Remimeo
CANCELS
HCO BULLETIN OF 7 NOVEMBER 1972
Issue I
SAME TITLE

Auditor Admin Series 16R

CORRECTION LISTS

A Correction List is a list of prepared questions on a mimeoed sheet which is used by the Auditor for the repair of a particular situation, action or rundown.

If a Correction List is used it must be stapled at the back of the W/Sheets.

The Correction List must not be omitted and must be in the session reports so the C/S can look at the original assessment.

If a Correction List is not completely handled in one session, it is not stapled as above but left free. It is stapled to the worksheets of the session in which its handling is completed.

RELATION TO WORKSHEET ADMIN

When using a Correction List, the number of the question being handled is marked on the W/Sheet.

Example:

On an L1C question 2 “Has a withhold been missed?” reads.

WORKSHEET:

             	L1C
      	2. 	SF
	Well I took the money and etc, etc.

The List is marked to show it is handled.

Example:

1. 	Has there been an error in listing?
      	(If this reads change to L4BR at once) X
2. 	Has a withhold been missed? SF to F/N
3. 	Has some emotion been rejected? X
4. 	etc.

References: 	HCO B 3 July 71 “Auditing by Lists Revised”
          	BTB  11 Aug 72R C/S Series 83R, “Correction Lists”

                                    	Compiled by
                                    	Training & Services Bur
	Revised & Reissued as BTB 
	by Flag Mission 1234
                                    	I/C: CPO Andrea Lewis
                                    	2nd: Molly Harlow
	Authorized by AVU 
BDCS:HE:AL:MH:MM:mh.rd.jh	for the 
Copyright © 1972, 1974	BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 
by L. Ron Hubbard	of the 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED	CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY

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

25 JUNE 1970 RA

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

EXPANDED LOWER GRADES

CHART OF ABILITIES GAINED

Ref: C/S Series 93 New Grade Chart

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

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

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

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

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

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

LEVEL                             			ABILITY GAINED

GROUP PROCESSES                   		Awareness that change is 									available

LIFE REPAIR                       			Awareness of truth and the way
                                  				to personal freedom

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

DIANETIC CASE COMPLETION		A well and happy human being

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

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

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

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

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

Revised by 
Training & Services Aide

Approved by

L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER

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

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

15  NOVEMBER 1976
ISSUE V
Remimeo
CANCELS BTB 4 JANUARY 1972RB
“0-IV EXPANDED GRADE 
PROCESSES - TRIPLES
PART D GRADE 3 PROCESSES”

( Revisisions in italics )

0-IV EXPANDED GRADE PROCESSES - QUADS 
PART E 
GRADE 3 PROCESSES        

This BTB gives a checklist of the Expanded Quad Grade Process commands. It is not all the possible processes for this level. If more are needed to attain full EP for this level additional processes can be found in LRH Bulletins, Books, Tapes, PABs and other issues.

Each process is run to its full end phenomena of F/N, Cog, VGIs. Any processes previously run are rehabbed or completed and any missing flows run. A copy of this checklist is placed in the folder of a pc being run on Expanded Grades and the processes checked off with the date each is run to EP.

On any of these processes where the pc answers only yes or that he did it find out what it was by asking “What was it?” This keeps in the itsa line from the pc to auditor. (Ref: 30 June 62 HCOB)

THIS BTB DOES NOT REPLACE THE ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIALS.

	CHANGE PROCESS
	(Ref:  Creation of Human Ability,  R2-25.)

F1.	“What does another what changed about you?”
	“What does another what unchanged about you?”

	Run alternately/repetitively to EP. (F/N, Cog, VGIs.)	_________

F2.	“What do you what changed about another?”
	“What do you what unchanged about another?”

	Run alternately/repetitively to EP. (F/N, Cog, VGIs.)	_________
	
F3.	“What do others what changed about others?”
	“What do others what unchanged about others?”

	Run alternately/repetitively to EP. (F/N, Cog, VGIs.)	_________

F0.	“What do you what changed about yourself?”
	“What do you what unchanged about yourself?”

	Run alternately/repetitively to EP. (F/N, Cog, VGIs.)	_________

	R2 - 50  CHANGING MINDS
	(Ref:  Creation of Human Ability R2 - 50)
	Both are done ambulent

	“Walk over to this spot.”
	“Now decide you have to appear there.”
	“Now change your mind and decide you have to appear disappear there.”
	“Now change your mind and decide you have to appear there.”

	To EP	_________

	“A note of warning:  this does not work on interiorized preclears with any great value. This process can be used on a non-exteriorized thetan, however, and on those who are uneasily exteriorized, by having them stand in one place with an idea that they have to appear there, and then change their minds, and disappear there.”  LRH

	R2 - 50  CHANGING MINDS
	(Ref:  Creation of Human Ability R2 - 50)

	“Find something about yourself which you can accept.”

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

	THEN:

	“Find something about yourself which you can reject.”

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

	THEN:

	“Find something in this room which you can accept.”

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

	THEN:

	“Find something in this room which you can reject.”

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

	THEN:

	“Find something about this universe which you can accept.”

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

	THEN:

	“Find something about this universe which you can reject.”

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

	R2 - 65  ALTERATION
	(Ref:  Creation of Human Ability R2 - 65)

PART A:

F1.	“Can you recall a time when you failed to change some energy in this Universe?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F2.	“Can you recall a time when another failed to change some energy in this Universe?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F3.	“Can you recall a time when others failed to change some energy in this Universe?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F0.	“Can you recall a time when you failed to change some energy of your own?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

PART B:

F1.	“Can you recall a time when you failed to change some space of another?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F2.	“Can you recall a time when another failed to change some space of yours?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F3.	“Can you recall a time when others failed to change some space of others?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F0.	“Can you recall a time when you failed to change some space of your own?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

PART C:

F1.	“Can you recall a time when you failed to change anothers body?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F2.	“Can you recall a time when another failed to change your body?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F3.	“Can you recall a time when others failed to change others bodies?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F0.	“Can you recall a time when you failed to change your own body?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

	NOTE:  These Part C questions above are the ones you stress. “he may get nothing on space at all BUT such incidents are in his recall or space would not exist for him at all.”  LRH

PART D:

F1.	“Can you recall a time when you failed to change a memory of yours?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F2.	“Can you recall a time when you failed to change a memory of another?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F3.	“Can you recall a time when others failed to change a memory of others?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F0.	“Can you recall a time when you failed to change a memory of your own?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

PART E:

F1.	“Can you recall a time when another successfully changed something of yours?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F2.	“Can you recall a time when you successfully changed something of another?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F3.	“Can you recall a time when others successfully changed something of others?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F0.	“Can you recall a time when you successfully changed something of your own?

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

	R2 - 68  INCOMPREHENSIBILITY
	(Ref:  Creation of Human Ability R2 - 68)

	“Spot something incomprehensible”

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

__________

	HAS IV
	(Ref: HCOB 19 Jan 61 ADDITIONAL HAS PROCESSES.)

F1.	“Get the idea of another changing you.”
	“Get the idea of another not changing you.”

	Run alternately/repetitively to EP. (F/N, Cog, VGIs.)	_________

F2.	“Get the idea of you changing another.”
	“Get the idea of you not changing another.”

	Run alternately/repetitively to EP. (F/N, Cog, VGIs.)	_________

F3.	“Get the idea of others changing others.”
	“Get the idea of others not changing others.”

	Run alternately/repetitively to EP. (F/N, Cog, VGIs.)	_________

F0.	“Get the idea of changing yourself.”
	“Get the idea of not changing yopurself.”

	Run alternately/repetitively to EP. (F/N, Cog, VGIs.)	_________

NOTE:  “The C/S may add “something” (HAS IVa), “somebody” (HAS IVb), or a meter selected terminal (HAS IVc) to these commands at his discretion.”  LRH

_________

	CHANGE, NO CHNAGE & FAILED CHANGE
	(Ref:  HCOB 30 Apr 61R  CHANGE BRACKETS AND COMMANDS)

PART A:

“Sort out ‘Think’ or ‘Get the idea’ by meters reaction. Use the one that produces most fall.”  LRH

“Think (get the idea) of a change.”
“Think of a no-change.”
“Think of a failed change.”

Run in sequence 1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3 etc to EP	_________

PART B:

“Recall a change.”
“Recall a no-change.”
“Recall a failed change.”

Run in sequence 1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3 etc to EP	_________

PART C:

F1.	“What change have you avoided?”
	“What change have you sought?”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F2.	“What change has another avoided?”
	“What change has another sought?”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F3.	“What change have others avoided?”
	“What change have others sought?”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________
F0.	“What change of yourself have you avoided?”
	“What change of yourself have you sought?”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F1.	“What no-change have you avoided?”
	“What no-change have you sought?”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F2.	“What no-change has another avoided?”
	“What no-change has another sought?”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F3.	“What no-change have others avoided?”
	“What no-change have others sought?”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F0.	“What no-change of yourself have you avoided?”
	“What no-change of yourself have you sought?”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F1.	“What failed change have you avoided?”
	“What failed change have you sought?”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F2.	“What failed change has another avoided?”
	“What failed change has another sought?”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F3.	“What failed change have others avoided?”
	“What failed change have others sought?”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

F0.	“What failure to change yourself have you avoided?”
	“What failure to change yourself have you sought?”

	Alternately to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

PART D:

	15 WAY BRACKET:  CHANGE - NO CHANGE - FAILED CHANGE

1.	“How have you change ____?” (something or somebody)

2.	“How has ____ tried to change you?”

3.	“How has ____ changed another?”

4.	“How has another changed ____?”

5.	“How has ____ changed (self)?”
5a.	“How have you changed yourself?”

6.	“What have you not changed?”

7.	“What has not changed you?”

8.	“What has not changed ____?”

9.	“What has ____ not changed?”

10.	“What has not changed self?”

10a.	“What have you not changed about yourself?”

11.	“What have you failed to change?”

12.	“What has failed to change you?”

13.	“What has failed to change ____?”

14.	“What has ____ failed to change?”

15.	“What has failed to change self?”

15a.	“What have you failed to change about yourself?”

	Run Consecutively to F/N, Cog, VGIs.	_________

_________

	R3H
	(Ref:  HCOB 6 Aug R3H
	          HCOB 1 Aug 68 THE LAWS OF LISTING AND NULLING)

F1.	“1.	Locate a change in life by L&N to BD F/N item:
		“What change has another caused in your life?”

	“2.	Get some data on it (don’t run as an engram) so you know what 
		the change was.

	“3.	Find out by assessment if this was a break in
			Affinity
			Reality
			Communication
		Understanding

	“4.	and have the pc examine that briefly.

	“5.	Taking the one found in ‘3’ find out by assessment if it was
			Curious about	____
			Desired	____
			Enforced	____
			Inhibited	____
			No	____
			Refused	____

		E/S ARC/B etc to EP	_________
LRH”
F2.	1.	Locate a change in anothers life by L&N to BD F/N item:
		“What change have you caused in anothers life?”

	2.	Get some data on it (don’t run as an engram) so you know what 
		the change was.

	3.	Find out by assessment if this was a break in
			Affinity
			Reality
			Communication
		Understanding

	4.	and have the pc examine that briefly.

	5.	Taking the one found in ‘3’ find out by assessment if it was
			Curious about	____
			Desired	____
			Enforced	____
			Inhibited	____
			No	____
			Refused	____

		E/S ARC/B etc to EP	_________

F3.	1.	Locate a change by L&N to BD F/N item:
		“What change have others caused in others lives?”

	2.	Get some data on it (don’t run as an engram) so you know what 
		the change was.

	3.	Find out by assessment if this was a break in
			Affinity
			Reality
			Communication
		Understanding

	4.	and have the pc examine that briefly.

	5.	Taking the one found in ‘3’ find out by assessment if it was
			Curious about	____
			Desired	____
			Enforced	____
			Inhibited	____
			No	____
			Refused	____

		E/S ARC/B etc to EP	_________

F0.	1.	Locate a change by L&N to BD F/N item:
		“What change have you caused in your own life?”

	2.	Get some data on it (don’t run as an engram) so you know what 
		the change was.

	3.	Find out by assessment if this was a break in
			Affinity
			Reality
			Communication
		Understanding

	4.	and have the pc examine that briefly.

	5.	Taking the one found in ‘3’ find out by assessment if it was
			Curious about	____
			Desired	____
			Enforced	____
			Inhibited	____
			No	____
			Refused	____

		E/S ARC/B etc to EP	_________

	HAVINGNESS

F1.	“What could another make unknown to you about that (room object)?”

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F2.	“What could you make unknown to another about that (room object)?”

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F3.	“What about that (room object) could someone make unknown to others?”

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

F0.	“What about that (room object) could you make unknown to yourself?”

	Run repetitively to EP	_________

Revised & Re-issued as
BTB by FMO 1234 
I/C:  CPO Andrea Lewis
2nd:  Molly Harlow
Revised by
FMO 1689 I/C
for Training and Services Aide

Approved by Snr C/S Flag
and CS-5
and LRH Pers Comm

Authorised by AVU

for the 
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
of the 
CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:KU:DM:JE:JG:RS:MH:AL:lf
Copyright © 1972, 1974, 1976
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 AUGUST 1966
All Exec Hats
Qual Hats
Tech Hats
HCO Hats
SERVICE FACSIMILE

A Service Facsimile is a computation generated by the being not the bank. An example of this is:

“All horses sleep in beds.”

Such a computation locked away in the mind will obviously precipitate many compulsive doingnesses, beingnesses and havingnesses.

An example of a doingness precipitated by the above computation would be:

“Making beds for horses.”

If on assessing for a Service Facsimile you get “Making beds for horses” as the service facsimile please note that it is a doingness and not a computation, so if you fit the doingness into the bracket of Service Fac Commands, i.e.:

How does “Making beds for horses” make you right?

How does “Making beds for horses” make others wrong? etc.,

then observe very carefully exactly what the preclear says, because he might give the EXACT WORDS OF THE ACTUAL SERVICE FACSIMILE—”ALL HORSES SLEEP IN BEDS”. And observe very carefully and note all meter reaction to what he or she says.

Note all of this, remembering that you were NOT running a real Service Facsimile in the first place, and that in order to really flatten all the compulsive doingnesses, beingnesses and havingnesses precipitated by the basic computation you will have to run the exact computation in the Service Fac bracket.

If the doingness you run is a basic one then it is possible that the preclear will blow all the charge on the Service Fac and this you will assess by pc indicators and meter phenomena (i.e. free needle).

It is obviously best to get a real Service Fac (computation) and taking beingnesses, doingnesses and havingnesses as Service Facsimiles if done by auditors must be thoroughly understood.

Service Facsimile auditing can give great gains, so understand what you are doing with the technology and have many wins.

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

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 SEPTEMBER 1978

Remimeo 
Level IV Checksheets 
Class IV Auditors 
Supervisors 
C/Ses

ANATOMY OF A SERVICE FACSIMILE

	Ref:	HCOB 22 Jul 63	YOU CAN BE RIGHT
		HCOB I Sep 63	SCIENTOLOGY THREE CLEARING,
			CLEARING, CLEARING, ROUTINE THREE SC
		HCOB 23 Aug 66	SERVICE FACSIMILE
		HCOB 30 Nov 66	ASSESSMENT FOR SERVICE FACSIMILES
		TAPE: 6308C27 SH SPEC 299 RIGHTNESS AND WRONGNESS
		TAPE: 6309C04 SH SPEC 302 HOW TO FIND A SERVICE FACSIMILE
		TAPE: 6309C03 SH SPEC 302A R3SC
		TAPE: 6309C05 SH SPEC 303 SERVICE FACSIMILE ASSESSMENT
		TAPE: 6309C18 SH SPEC 308 ST HILL SERVICE FAC HANDLING

FACSIMILE: 	A mental picture unknowingly created; a copy of the physical universe environment, complete with all the perceptions, at some time in the past.

SERVICE: 	A method of providing a person with the use of something; the action or result of giving assistance or advantage; work done; duty performed.

COMPUTATION: 	That aberrated evaluation and postulate that one must be in a certain state in order to succeed.

SERVICE FACSIMILE: THE SERVICE FACSIMILE IS THAT COMPUTATION GENERATED BY THE PRECLEAR (NOT THE BANK) TO MAKE SELF RIGHT AND OTHERS WRONG: TO DOMINATE OR ESCAPE DOMINATION AND ENHANCE OWN SURVIVAL AND INJURE THAT OF OTHERS.

Note that it is a computation, not a doingness, beingness or havingness. We could call this a “service computation” but we will maintain the term we have used to describe this phenomenon throughout the technology: “service facsimile.”

It is a computation that the pc adopted when, in an extreme situation, he felt endangered by something but could not itsa it.

It is called a service facsimile because he uses it; it is “of service” to him.

Aberration, anybody’s aberration on any subject, has been of some use to them at some time or other. You can trace it back. It’s been of some use, otherwise they wouldn’t keep mocking it up. But now, if you put it up against survival standards, you’d find it very non-survival.

The pc adopted this because he couldn’t stand the confusion in a situation. So he adopted a safe solution. A safe solution is always adopted as a retreat from the environmental restimulation. He adopted a safe solution in that instance and he survived. His safe solution became his stable datum. He has hung onto it ever since. It is the computation, the fixed idea, he uses to handle life, his service facsimile.

HOW THE SERVICE FACSIMILE BECOMES FIXED

An idea is the thing most easily substituted for a thetan. An idea doesn’t have any mass connected with it basically. And it appears to have some wisdom in it so it’s very easily substituted for a thetan. Thus the idea, the stable datum he has adopted, is substituted for the thetan.

How does this stable datum become so fixed? It gets fixed, and more and more firmly as time goes on, by the confusion it is supposed to handle but doesn’t.

The stable datum was adopted in lieu of inspection. The person ceased to inspect, he fell back from inspecting, he fell back from living. He put the datum there to substitute for his own observation and his own coping with life, and at that moment he started an accumulation of confusion.

That which is not confronted and inspected tends to persist. Thus in the absence of his own confronting mass collects. The stable datum forbids inspection. It’s an automatic solution. It’s “safe.” It solves everything. He no longer has to inspect to solve, so he never anises the mass. He gets caught in the middle of the mass. And it collects more and more confusion and his ability to inspect becomes less and less. The more he isn’t confronting, the less he can confront. This becomes a dwindling spiral.

So the thing he has adopted to handle his environment for him is the thing which reduces his ability to handle his environment.

Those things which do not respond to routine auditing, that routine auditing won’t change, are rooted in this mechanism.

Therefore, it is important to find the idea on which he is so fixed. Pull the fixed idea and you free the individual for a broader perimeter of inspection.

In service fac handling the reason you get tone arm action when the fixed idea has been pulled is that the confusion which has been amassed and dammed up for so long is now running off.

RIGHT/WRONG, DOMINATE AND SURVIVE

Right and wrong are the tools of survival. In order to survive you have to be right. There is a level at which true rightness is analytical, and there is a level at which rightness and wrongness cease to be analytical or comprehensible. When it drops below that point it’s aberration.

The point you degenerate from survive to succumb is the point you recognize you are wrong. That is the beginning of succumb. The moment one becomes worried about his own survival he enters into the necessity to dominate in order to survive.

It goes: the insistence upon survival, followed by the necessity to dominate, followed then by the necessity to be right. These postulates go downhill. So you get an aberrated rightness or wrongness. The game of domination consists of making the other fellow wrong in order to be right.

That is the essence of the service facsimile.

The reason the service facsimile isn’t rational is because you have A=A=As along the whole line. Coming down the line it works itself back and forth in an aberrated A=A=A. If the individual is surviving he must be right. And people will defend the most fantastic wrongnesses on the basis they are being right.

In PT and at any point along the track, the fellow is trying to be right, trying to be right, trying to be right. Whatever he’s doing he’s trying to be right. In order to survive you have to be right more than you’re wrong, so you get the obsession to be right in order to survive. The lie is that he can’t do anything else except survive.

It isn’t that trying to be right is wrong—it’s obsessively being right about something that’s obviously wrong. That’s when the individual is no longer able to select his own course of behaviour. When he is obsessively following courses of behaviour which are uninspected in order to be right.

There is nothing sane about a service facsimile, there is no rationality to it. The computation does not fit the incident or event occurring. It simply enforces, exaggerates and destroys freedom of choice over the exercise of ability to be happy or powerful or normal or active. It destroys power, destroys freedom of choice.

Wherever that zone or area is you’ll see the individual worsening. He is on a dwindling spiral. But he himself is generating it.

The intention to be right is the strongest intention in the universe. Above it you have the effort to dominate and above that you have the effort to survive. These things are strong. But we’re talking here about a mental activity. A thinking activity. An intentional activity.

Survival—that just happens. Domination—that just happens. Those are not intended things. But you get down along the level of intended and it’s right or wrong. The strongest intention in the universe.

It is always an aberrated solution. It always exists in PT and is part of the environment of the pc. He’s generating it. It’s his solution. Overwhelmed as he is by it, he is still generating it. It’s aberrated because it’s an uninspected solution. And it is something that everyone unintentionally or otherwise is telling the pc is wrong and causing him to assert that it is right. The perfect solution when he first got hold of it. But now it monitors his life; it’s living his life for him. And it doesn’t even vaguely begin to take care of his life.

That is the anatomy of the service facsimile.

You are going to find these on any pc you audit. A service facsimile is the clue, the key to a pc’s case. The route to succumb which he blindly asserts is his route to survival. And every pc has more than one of these.

Fortunately, we have the tech to salvage him. We are the only ones who do.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:dr 
Copyright © 1978 
by L. Ron Hubbard 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
		
HCO BULLETIN OF 6 SEPTEMBER 1978
Issue II
Remimeo
Level IV
Checksheets
Class IV Auditors
Supervisors
C/Ses
SERVICE FACSIMILES AND ROCK SLAMS

	Reference:	HCOB 5 Sep 78	Anatomy Of A Service Facsimile
		HCOB 1 Sep 63	Scientology Three Clearing, Clearing,
			Clearing, Routine Three SC
		HCOB 6 Sep 78	Urgent, Important, Routine Three
		Issue III	SC-A, Full Service Facsimile Handling
			Updated With New Era Dianetics
		TAPE:	6308C27	SH SPEC 299 Rightness & Wrongness
		TAPE:	6309C04	SH SPEC 302 How To Find a Service Facsimile
		TAPE:	6309C03	SH SPEC 302A R3SC
		TAPE:	6309C05	SH SPEC 303 Service Facsimile Assessment
		TAPE:	6309C18	SH SPEC 308 St. Hill Service Fac Handling
		HCOB 3 Sep 78	Definition Of A Rock Slam
		HCOB 10 Aug 76R	R/Ses, What They Mean
__________

A service facsimile is a brother to R/Ses and evil intentions.

This is easily seen when one understands the anatomy of the service fac and the right/wrong, dominate and survive computations that enter into it. And when one understands that an R/S always means a hidden, evil intention and that the total reason for an R/S is to make wrong. In order to get someone to succumb they have to be wrong.

Way back up there the idea preceding the service fac was right, really right. Then it came down a bit and was a method of survival and then it was a method of dominating and then it was a method of being right in order to make others wrong.

And in that contest one got enough overts so that the communication line took a switcheroo. What was right about it is now wrong about it and what was once wrong is now right. A=A=A enters into the situation where rightness becomes wrongness. All of his overts get piled up on one of these fixed ideas, or what we call a service facsimile.

It isn’t actually a facsimile at all. It’s the guy himself keeping facsimiles in restimulation because he “knows” what’s best. The person himself is generating the fixed idea; it is not the bank.

It isn’t what aberration the individual is dramatizing. It’s what aberration does the individual dredge up in order to make somebody wrong. It isn’t the accidental thing you think it is. It’s intended.

The intention is to be right and make others wrong, to dominate others and escape domination oneself, to aid own survival and hinder the survival of others. That is the service fac—blood brother to the hidden, evil intention that is behind the rock slam.

This does not mean you will necessarily see R/Ses on every service fac you run. It does mean that WHERE A PC IS R/SING IN AN AREA YOU HAVE AN AREA OF A HEAVY, A SEVERE, SERVICE FAC.

Know when you see an R/S that the individual is in the grip of an evil intention which he himself is generating. He intends that area or subject on which he is R/Sing nothing but harm. Calculatingly, covertly, he will go to great lengths to carry his intentions out, at all times carefully concealing the fact.

The evil intention is not limited to terminals. He’s not R/Sing on a terminal; he’s R/Sing on the evil intention. The evil intention can associate with many terminals.

The R/S dominates the individual; it is the person. He has been overwhelmed by it. In that area he has no ability to reason; he has no freedom to choose. The evil intention is substituted for livingness. It is his safe solution to life, his service facsimile.

The service fac does not respond to ordinary auditing because in the course of ordinary auditing it does not get inspected. It, by its nature, forbids inspection. But when addressed at the right/wrong level the pc gives it up easily because in that area he has no power of choice.

MORE THAN ONE SERVICE FAC PER PC

We have had, for many years, service fac processing with which to handle these obsessions, and thus to handle the person who R/Ses.

But it is not just finding one service facsimile. You find many service facs which then add up to the big one. At Saint Hill in the mid-60s this was commonly associated with R/Ses.

It was what the pc had done with the service fac to make others wrong which was important, not just finding it. Early on, the tech included auditing them out with Dianetics. And you found many, many more than one on each pc. We used to get complete character changes with this.

The full tech on this has been submerged over the past several years. It is probably this omission of requiring several service facs to be run and then auditing them out with Dianetics that has resulted in so many R/Sers going on up undetected.

As of this writing the full tech has been exhumed and we have now New Era Dianetics tech to help strip these packages down and take them apart at their basics.

So we not only have a more thorough means of handling service facs than ever before—we also have a more reliable route to the handling of an R/Ser.

BUT IT’S MORE THAN ONE SERVICE FAC PER PC.

You may audit off one, two or three apparent service facsimiles that all answer up to the complete description of a service fac. And they will run. But all are actually leaning on the central service fac that is in restimulation in PT. As you take these lesser service facs off the central one comes to view.

On the first ones you find, the most you can hope for is you found something that blew the TA down and moved you closer to finding the main service fac. So you take them.

If you’ve found a service fac the needle will be looser and the TA in reasonable range. And it will run on the right/wrong, etc. brackets and the pc will get off automaticities. When you’ve finally found several and walked it all the way through to the service fac it’s as if all the other service facs you’ve been peeling off are like the bands of trees and sod that lie up against the mountain peak. So you take the service facsimiles and run them as you find them. You unburden the cliffs before you pull the mountain out by the roots.

As you’re running out the first service facs you’re reversing the dwindling spiral, you’re restoring the individual’s ability to handle his environment because he’s now seeing it, he’s now beginning to confront it.

And by the time you’ve pulled the main one—the mountain—out by its roots you’ve returned him to sanity. He is now able to inspect; he no longer needs a “safe solution.”

It is the most dangerous thing in the world to have a safe solution, because that is the hole out of which sanity drains.

	L. RON HUBBARD
	Founder

LRH:mf
Copyright © 1978
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 6 SEPTEMBER 1978
Issue III
Remimeo
Level IV Checksheets
Class IV Auditors
Supervisors
C/Ses
URGENT—IMPORTANT
ROUTINE THREE SC-A
FULL SERVICE FACSIMILE HANDLING UPDATED
WITH NEW ERA DIANETICS

	Ref:	HCOB 22 Jul 63	YOU CAN BE RIGHT
		HCOB I Sep 63	SCIENTOLOGY THREE CLEARING,
			CLEARING, CLEARING, ROUTINE THREE SC
		HCOB 23 Aug 66	SERVICE FACSIMILE
		HCOB 30 Nov 66	ASSESSMENT FOR SERVICE FACSIMILES
		TAPE: 6309C04 SH SPEC 302 HOW TO FIND A SERVICE FACSIMILE
		TAPE: 6309C05 SH SPEC 303 SERVICE FACSIMILE ASSESSMENT
		TAPE: 6308C28 SH SPEC 300 THE TA AND SERVICE FAC
		TAPE: 6309C12 SH SPEC 305 SERVICE FACS
		HCOB 26 Jun 78 11	New Era Dianetics Series 6
			ROUTINE 3RA, ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS
		HCOB 18 Jun 78	New Era Dianetics Series 4
			ASSESSMENT AND HOW TO GET THE ITEM
		HCOB 5 Sep 78	ANATOMY OF A SERVICE FACSIMILE
		HCOB 6 Sep 78 11	SERVICE FACSIMILES AND ROCK SLAMS
________

NOTE: Dianetic Clears may be run on service facs but only with any Dianetics steps deleted, as they are not to be run on Dianetics.
________

We are into a new echelon of service facsimile running.

At Saint Hill in the mid-60s many, many service facs were found on each pc and the earliest service fac running included the use of Dianetics.

This was later omitted from service fac procedure and service facs were handled solely with Scientology tech by running off the automaticities on the computation to cognition, F/N and VGIs in the pc.

Phenomenal gains and case changes were made on pcs with that tech alone—all of them valid. That tech has been retained as a vital action to service fac handling.

Now, with the advent of New Era Dianetics, service fac handling has been restored to its full technology.

New Era Dianetics has opened the door to a more complete and finite handling of a service fac, with precision and exactness, than we have had heretofore. We no longer just find a service fac, audit off the automaticities, key it out and forget it. We audit it out fully and terminatedly, using New Era Dianetics to take it down to its basics and erase those.

This in no way contradicts the fact that there were many pcs who, with a service fac found and the automaticities taken off, were able to actually then blow the service fac computation upon inspection.

What it does make possible is the actual erasure of a service fac and its residuals on every pc, one for one. And not just one service facsimile per pc, but many.

An auditor who has been trained on service fac running prior to this bulletin will need the tech he already has plus an excellent command of New Era Dianetics tech. If he has not done the New Era Dianetics Course it will be required before attempting to run Routine 3SC-A. A Class IV auditor who has already done the New Era Dianetics Course need only review it in order to be able to handle all the steps of the new, full service fac procedure.

SERVICE FACSIMILE HANDLING REVISED BY STEPS

Before you can run flows on a service facsimile you must first find it. You want the pc’s service facsimile. You don’t find a service facsimile by listing for it on flows. You find the pc’s service facsimile and run it on the flows.

The sequence is: You list for the pc’s service fac, find it, run the automaticities off it; then you run the service fac itself on R3RA, engram running by chains. It is run to basic and full Dianetic end phenomena.

You don’t leave a service fac until you have taken it apart and blown it at its very roots.

Then you list for another service fac, using a different listing question, and handle it fully. And another, and another. A pc can have many, many service facsimiles. You peel them off until you find the main service fac at the core of the case. And you handle that one fully, as you do the others, per the steps above.

Needless to say, you are going to see some remarkable results.

FULL SERVICE FACSIMILE PROCEDURE

PRELIMINARY STEPS:

0a. 	Put in the R (Reality) Factor with the pc, telling him briefly what is going to be done in the session.

0b. 	Clear “computation” very thoroughly with the pc. Use the Tech Dictionary, HCOB 23 Aug 66, SERVICE FACSIMILE, and any other reference you feel the pc may need. Have him demo it until you are certain he fully understands it.

0c. 	Clear the bracket commands (right/wrong, dominate, survival)first, using “Birds fly” as a sample service facsimile. Clearing the bracket commands is done at this point so you will be able to use these questions immediately when the service fac is found without putting stops on the pc’s first rush of automaticities coming off.

0d. 	Then, clear the listing question.

STEPS OF THE PROCEDURE:

A. 	List and null for the pc’s service fac, using the question:

“In this lifetime, what do you use to make others wrong?”
You want a BD F/N item that is a computation (not a doingness, beingness or havingness).

When you get it, indicate the item. Then indicate the F/N. Then, despite the BD F/N, go on to the next step of the handling.

B. 	Run the service fac found in 1 on the brackets:

1. 	In this lifetime, how would (service fac) make you right?

2. 	In this lifetime, how would (service fac) make others wrong?

3. 	In this lifetime, how would (service fac) help you escape domination?

4. 	In this lifetime, how would (service fac) help you to dominate others?

5. 	In this lifetime, how would (service fac) aid your survival?

6. 	In this lifetime, how would (service fac) hinder the survival of others?

These are run as follows:

Give the pc the first question, “In this lifetime, how would (service fac) make you right?” and let him run with it. He will have a rush of answers, answers coming too fast to be said easily, at this stage. Don’t repeat the question unless the pc needs it. Just let him answer 1-1-1-1-1-1-1 (he may give you as many as 50 answers) until he comes to a cognition or runs out of answers or inadvertently answers Question 2.

Then switch to Question 2: “In this lifetime how would (service fac) make others wrong?” Treat this the same way, i.e. let him answer 2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 until he cognites or runs out of answers or starts to answer Question 1. Then switch back to Question 1, same handling, back to Question 2, same handling, as long as pc has answers coming easily. Upon cognition and F/N, acknowledge, indicate the F/N and end off on 1 and 2.

Now give him Question 3: “In this lifetime how would (service fac) help you escape domination?” and let it run by the same method as above. When this seems cooled off, use Question 4: “In this lifetime, how would (service fac) help you to dominate others?” Use Questions 3 and 4 as above, as long as pc has answers coming easily. Upon cognition and F/N, acknowledge, indicate the F/N and go on to the next bracket.

Using the same method as above, give him Question 5: “In this lifetime, how would (service fac) aid your survival?” When he’s run out on 5-5-5-5-5-5, switch to Question 6: “In this lifetime, how would (service fac) hinder the survival of others?” Use Questions 5 and 6 as above as long as pc has answers coming easily. Let him get off all the automaticities and come to a cognition and F/N. Acknowledge and indicate the F/N.

At this point it is safe to end off on running the brackets. The idea is not to beat the process to death. The pc will have automaticities coming off thick and fast early in the run. These must be gone and the pc bright, F/Ning and VGIs when you end off. You are only trying to end the compulsive character of the service facsimile found and get it off automatic and get the pc to see it better at this stage, not to bleed the process of every bit of TA action.

Running the service fac in the brackets will result in a major cognition, which could occur at any point during this running. When it does occur it is the EP of this step of the service fac handling. End off and go onto the R3RA step.

NOTE: 	In running a Dianetic Clear on service facs, you would end off running this service fac at this point, when the pc had reached a good cognition, F/N and VGIs. Do NOT run the Dianetic actions of service fac handling on a Dianetic Clear, as these pcs are not to be run on Dianetics. When you have completed one service fac on Steps A and B. you can then list for another service fac and repeat the procedure.

(NOTE: If the service fac found on any pc did not run on the brackets, it would need to be prepchecked. See sections “When Running Off The Automaticity” and “When To Prepcheck” below.)

C. 	Run the service fac R3RA Quad, each flow to EP. It is not run narrative and it is not preassessed; otherwise full New Era Dianetics tech is used, per HCOB 26 June 78R II, New Era Dianetics Series 6, ROUTINE 3RA, ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS.

The service fac phrase itself is used as the running item.

The commands for running a service fac on R3RA Quad Flows are:

FLOW 1: “Locate a time when you used (service fac).”

(Example: “Locate a time when you used all horses sleep in beds. “)

FLOW 2: “Locate an incident of your causing another to use (service fac).”

FLOW 3: “Locate an incident of others causing others to use (service fac).”

FLOW 0: “Locate an incident of you causing yourself to use (service fac).”

Take each flow down its chain of incidents to the basic and full Dianetic EP: F/N, postulate (postulate off = erasure), and VGIs.

That will be the end of all vestiges of that service fac.

D. 	List for another service fac on the pc, using the listing question:

“In this lifetime, what do you use to dominate others?”

When you have the service fac, repeat Steps B and C above.

E. 	Find another service fac on the pc with the listing question:

“In this lifetime, what do you use to aid your own survival?”

Handle the service fac per Steps B and C above.

F. 	Continue to find and handle service facs on the pc, using, in order, the following listing questions:

1. 	“In this lifetime, what do you use to make yourself right?”

2. 	“In this lifetime, what do you use to escape domination?”

3. 	“In this lifetime, what do you use to hinder the survival of others?”

Further listing questions which can be used are given on HCOB 30 Nov 66, ASSESSMENT FOR SERVICE FACSIMILES.

You will need to find and handle several service facsimiles on the pc which will then add up to the big one.

WHEN LISTING FOR THE SERVICE FACSIMILE

You are listing for a BD F/N item. Write down each computation the pc gives you exactly as he states it, VERBATIM, with its read, no matter how improbable, non sequitur or inane it may sound.

The service fac operates like a magnet as you’re listing. You’ve given the pc the question and as the question is in the vicinity of the service fac you’ve already ticked it. It draws the pc’s attention to it. He’s listing along and suddenly he’ll put a non sequitur item on the list. It doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t even answer the question, but there it is. Because his attention is being pulled to this inevitably. You’re asking him for answers and he gives you the rightest answer he knows—”People always jump off the Empire State Building.” That’s the solution. That solves everything. It blows the TA down. That’s the service fac.

Indicate the item to the pc; then indicate the F/N.

You’re now ready to run it in the brackets.

WHEN RUNNING OFF THE AUTOMATICITY

If you’ve found a service fac the pc won’t be able to stay out of it, I guarantee you.

The first question is always how would it make him right. (Never how would it make him wrong. Never, never, never.) The automaticities should start with the first question. If not, ask him how it would make others wrong. You almost always enter it at the level of right/wrong. But don’t make the blunder of thinking it can’t be a service fac if it doesn’t enter at that level. Try it on the other levels. It can enter at the level of dominate; it might enter at the level of survival.

But if—on one of those—the pc doesn’t immediately jump in and swim into the whirlpool, it’s not it. If he tells you, “Well, let’s see . . . make me right, no, hmmmm....” or “... escape domination ... no, doesn’t make sense,” that’s not it.

If he says that isn’t it, then that isn’t it. Don’t hang him with a wrong service fac because it’s too easy to find a right one. They abound.

If he hasn’t jumped in and swum madly to the center of the whirlpool and gotten embroiled in this thing, it’s not it. Because that’s the first thing they want to do with a service fac—drown.

When you have the right one you’ll get the automaticities coming off thick and fast. Don’t stop the avalanche with acknowledgements. Don’t stop it with a new question. Let it run out.

It’s not one auditing question for one answer. It’s one auditing question for one waterfall.

WHEN TO PREPCHECK

When the item found as a service fac won’t run on any of the brackets you prepcheck it to EP (F/N, cog, VGIs). Ref: HCOB 14 March 71R, F/N EVERYTHING.

A rightness/wrongness computation doesn’t surrender to normal auditing because it is a service fac. The pc has a vested interest in holding onto it. He won’t be able to itsa it on a Prepcheck. Thus, a service fac, if present, will turn on mass on a Prepcheck.

The Prepcheck is a series of types of decisions thetans make about things. So if it doesn’t prepcheck the Prepcheck must be in conflict with the rightness and wrongness.
Reversely, if it’s not a service fac it will prepcheck, and you polish it off by that method to EP.

Then go back to the list and find a service fac that will run.

COMPLETING SERVICE FACSIMILE HANDLING WITH R3RA

Even when the pc has gotten off the automaticities, has cognited and is comparatively free of the compulsive character of the service facsimile, there is more to be handled.

Running the service fac using R3RA enables him to run out what he has done with it to make others wrong, etc. These will be the actual most charged incidents in which he’s used it, which will have accumulated in his wake as he went along substituting the service fac for himself and never inspecting the consequences. He will now be free to inspect those parts of the track as himself, and to inspect as well the effects of the service fac on the other flows.

Finally, the use of R3RA, engram running by chains, enables him to fully erase the somatics and engram chains which have their roots in the service fac, or vice versa —as well as the postulates underlying them.

ENDING SERVICE FAC RUNNING

Service fac running can be ended off when you have fully run many service facs (which will lead to the main service fac). When the main service fac has been run to full EP, service fac handling is complete.

NOTE: It might happen (rarely) that you get the main service fac on the pc on your first listing and nulling. It will be rare because the main one does not usually come to view until the others have been taken off. You run it, of course. Any service fac, run, produces change, but on this one you will see the pc changing character before your eyes. The results are quite astounding.

But realize that he does have other, lesser service facs which do not simply dissolve because the main core service fac is now gone, even though they have been leaning upon it. You will need to L&N for these and completely clean the pc of service facs.

The main core service facsimile will be the one the pc has used as a solution to all of life. When found and run it will be unmistakable to both the pc and the auditor. When this one has been completed on all the steps above, as well as the lesser service facs surrounding it, you will have attained the EP on service fac running.

You will have brought about a complete character change in the individual, returned his freedom of choice and his freedom to inspect and enabled him to be truly right.

And that is the stuff of which sanity is made.

This level is actually the sanity level.

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